No, it would be more likely to show potential programmers that they are bad or have no real talent at programming before they invest time and money on tertiary studies in programming and get locked in. If your not doing as well as students who don't really care you will get the message. It also will show people that they have some ability.
Finding out how good you are at various classes is pretty much the whole purpose of the last years at secondary school.

It pretty much is one language, you just have to pick you prefered syntax.

There are a few minor differences but almost any statement in any of the 3 support languages has a functional equlivlent in the other 2.

Of course if for some deluded reason you chose the C++ frontend you can also mix in superior regular C++. Anyone who uses C++/CLI for anything other than compadiblity reasons should be isolated and forced to exculsively program in it untill they see the error of their thinking.

I don't think you understand the meaning of word engineering. Engineering and art are not mutually exclusive.

From a professional engineering perceptive what you are calling art is far closer to engineering than what you are calling engineering and once you start repeating processes without redesigning them you are no longer engineering at all.

Except we have to do this in bash as our top level language. Bash is good for calling executables in a control sequence, but lacks the features to make it easy to use a standard c api.
It is not reasonable to expect the average admin to mix together all the features the kernel can offer (that list is just the beggining) in an imperative language.

systemd has was not developed for start-up times. The only way a Linux project gets this kind of funding and momentum is for the server. Better startup times are just show how shit sysV is.
systemd enables distros and admins to start using features in the kernel (cgroups, constrains ....) that would otherwise be unnecessary prohibitively difficult to implement in a generic imperative language.

Another way of looking at the situation is sysV is constraining everyones options to use otherwise available features to users.

When that scripting is boilerplate, this is an unnecessary waste of time for the user and maintainer. If you really need some scripting for something nonstandard you can still call it inside an systemd service file.

This is a poor example as the alternatives copy Microsoft Office. No one is copying T-SQL so a MS chosen curriculum will encourage lock-in.

The fuse would blow regardless of the power supply....

You short a battery and it generally explodes as well. The advantage here is with the quick charge time you could get away with storing less energy in your phone.

Its the Sydney Morning Herald, they have a low journalistic standard.

Without a special API you can't guarantee that you overwrote the right section of storage (wear leveling and copy on write). But as reve_etrange said, just deleting the file would be a very good start.

How hard could it be to store it in RAM as it is received and then zero out the memory when finished. Sure it is not remotely hack proof but at least when it is broken you can only get new photos.

Or if you don't have the RAM to store the pic store an encryption key.

It is most accurate in the middle, rather than as an extreme outlier, it would think the middle 80 percent fit to a bell curve. It is biased towards cars that are designed for the max speed of the 60s rather than today. You encourage designing cars to be geared for a lower max speed.

Looking at the variation it must cause some cars efficiency to be rated wrongly showing them incorrectly worse or better than another car.

So you get the CAFE mileage for a trip with the same urban non-urban split without causing congestion?

Yes but you can arbitrary chose the average or median trip from samples.

If you have a middle trip then people can judge for themselves if they will be under or over and at the actual interstate limits which car is the most efficient. An urban, non-urban split in the rating would be useful as well.

That's just stupid. It makes sense only if there is a (commonly known) conversion factor (or more generally a function of CAFE) that gives a reasonably accurate of what you can actually expect (knowing that tests expect you to drive somewhat conservatively).
It looks even worse when the CAFE value is so inaccurate for real world driving that it can not be used to compare different cars fuel efficiency.

When you have such a poor estimate of fuel efficiency that consumers should not be using to make decisions with, consumers can no longer chose cars based on their fuel efficiency and it improves at a slower rate.

Atoms are still comparable in price, its an issue but not the major one. They probably have spare old fab tech to make these.
The main problem with this is that A15s are more powerful than atoms, both absolute and per watt. Also, the graphics in these is likely to be terrible to top it off.

Maybe it is the name. X got stuck on 11 as well.