The one interesting thing here is that if you rewrite the execution environment, without creating a new language, you should be able to use the old code as tests for the functionality of your new code. You need some way to set up and tear down state for the snippets you're going to be executing, so the old execution environment that ran the system in production probably won't be suitable. Your best hope would probably be starting with a new "implementation" that can parse the code and either interpret it, or compile it, while recording the things that may be of interest to you (for example, if the old language was dynamic, and you need type information either for the purpose of documentation, or to generate static types for the new implementation, you can recover it by tracing).
You can't really use old code as a spec if you lack the necessary tools. Or, perhaps you could, but you'd be doing in your head what a computer should be able to do for you automatically. Expect working very long hours if you're so intent on doing a compiler's and code analyzer's work yourself.
It's utterly useless for data integrity -- imagine a database where every field is a string. There are no numeric fields...and what happens? Oh.
Somehow I don't think a computer system should have a problem with this. Ultimately, in every computer system, every field in a database is an 8-bit string. On some kind of disk.
No, you fabricated a story without a single shred of evidence to support your position.
It's just a big fat 
It's not the weapons that are the problem, it is the people who abuse them.
There is no basis to presume that artificial intelligence is likely to pose a greater threat to mankind than natural intelligence already is without either subscribing to the notion that some mystical force or agency that is allegedly the product of millions of years of natural evolution being the only thing that prevents human beings from acting unethically when we there isn't an iota of evidence to suggest that such a thing even has any kind of objective existence in the first place, or else simply allowing one's imagination to overrule their common sense.
Okay I stand corrected on that. But, you have no evidence ABC edited with the intent to make her look foolish. They may have done it to simply keep it short. TV news does that a lot.
Just require ISIS show up at court.
You have to present some facts before you can reason about them.
Otherwise there's nothing to distinguish the claim that Donald Trump obviously took all that extra money and shoved it up his ass for a rainy day from something resembling reality.
Considering that ISIS was trying to scam them, it seems more like a situation where they managed to take the bait without springing the trap. It's just like the pool hustler. He lets you win one for chump change to get you hooked. If you see it coming and say that's enough for you, he's out the money fair and square.