That is a real stretch. STUXNET was designed and targetted at a specific environment. It was much the same as if someone broke in the facility and uploaded the virus themselves. It was only transmitted because of a break-down in security procedures. The designers knew about this vulnerability. An unsecured device was used much as a network device to transmit the virus. Most secured environments do not allow that to happen. I've worked on secured development and production environments (in fact, I have one I work on now) and know absolutely that they are unhackable other than by using very sophisticated means that is generally outside the means of most people other than countries. Of course, a country could use people to break into the facilities, have the resources to study the security procedures and assess vulnerabilities, and hack the machines to obtain the information or damage the facility. It just is rare and that is what makes these environments secure - NOT INVULNERABLE.

I think you are missing the point of disconnecting a computer from the net. By definition it is secure, even if was infected with a virus. All secure environments are designed this way and limit access to the machines secured like this. When people say they were hacked, it is because they are working on machines that are not in a secure environment.

If you don't realize comments don't impact the functionality of a program what-so-ever, then you aren't qualified to hire programmers. Your response is complete non-sense and ridiculous.

Clearly, you don't understand that state of art in this field. Refactoring programs go far beyond beautifiers. Intelli-sense is such a program. They actually understand the syntax of the underlying programming language and can move text, highlight it, bold it, add italics, add syntax, add whitespace (tabs, etc) and so on depending the requirements. This is essential if you are going to do identify where functions, parameters, blocks and other parts of a programming language start and end when stylizing an output. In addition, if you must specify in your coding style guidelines that the programmer must use descriptive names for things - you are hiring idiots to begin with.

If you have to enforce a standard for using proper names of variables, functions, and classes and documenting your code - YOU ARE HIRING the wrong people to start with. I'd fire anyone that you have to actually state that to or even if I was forced to point that out to.

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Please tell me how code could be refactored and not refactored into another style and checked-in? Granted, an irregular comment might be moved on a rare occasion, but that isn't code so who cares?!?

If you are concerned about where a comment is refactored, you have bigger problems than refactoring. Comments don't do anything.

If that is what you mean and you have to specify that, exactly why would you hire this person in the first place and why are they programming exactly?!? I don't think you need to state obvious things to people. It makes both you and them feel stupid and it is talking down to people. It should just be assumed.

Some do, but should they really be working with you or on any kind of real project if you have to specify that they name functions and variables appropriately or that they have a design and create documentation?!? I'd rather not have to state that since it is obvious for being dismissed if you don't.

Not really, as I've pointed out - if you use a refactoring program - you can have it refactor into a style for check-in and one that you use (and like) when you check-out. It isn't that hard. Most people aren't very bright when dealing with this and impose archaic rules when it isn't necessary.

Wow. You are a smart one. You do realize you can have a "style" that is used for check-in and one that you refactor to into when you check-out?!? But, I'm sure you never thought about it and so you make a non-issue an issue.

Get a program to refactor the code into whatever style you want. I'm amazed people still have make this an issue.

Again, I noticed you completely avoid the fact that I've done calculations that come pretty close to the number presented in the spreadsheet. Don't forget you cited the summary and claims your data is mislabeled. I claim the data is accurate and the summary isncorrect and your claims just reflect your agenda of misinformation. Now, which is more plausible? Since you persist in claiming that the data is mislabeled instead of using facts like calculated CO2 emissions for the US and the DOE numbers, it would seem to be you that is doing selective thinking. For example, you really believe CO2 emissions have gone from 6-7 billion tons of CO2 to 33.5 billion tons of CO2 in 10 years? That's absurd. I'll concede it might have gone to 9 billion tons of CO2 as your data from the other website shows, but it certainly wouldn't have increated 3.5 times in such a short amount of time (even if you added 2 or 3 countries to the planet from outerspace that used as much energy as the US over that period).

As far as Mt. St Helens, that is just one example of a volcano. I cited it to give you an idea of how large a volanic explosion could be. However, you are missing the point entirely. Let's just suppose that the emissions are small (say only 1 billion tons of CO2 in total ) for Mt. St. Helens as you say (and I certainly do not agree with you, but let's just say it is true). Mt. St. Helens was a relatively small eruption. There have been volcanic explosions 100's of times to 1000's of times larger. Several this century in fact.
Consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century
And look at these monsters:
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/1436-volcanoes-biggest-history.html

As I've stated, not only does the title seem correct, but the colums in the spreadsheet itself are titled CO2. And again, where do these numbers come from? That seems to be something you haven't dealt with nor acknowledged. There is only so much fuel burned in the US and magically we know what that number is. In the US, it is about 140 billion gallons of gasoline for example. We also happen to know how much of that turns into CO2 (about 19lbs per gallon). So, anyone can figure out how much CO2 was created in the US. And guess what? The numbers seem to correspond closely to your spreadsheet. Ah, the magic of mathematics.
Here is a little brochure put out by the DOE and I linked this earlier. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Magically, they think about 6-7 billion tons of CO2 was created. That is a little shy of the 9 billion tons you cited, but ok - let's go with that.
I also liked your selective reading above on the analysis of the eruption of Mt St. Helens. First you denied that 60% per volume of the magma can be converted to CO2/SO2, then I shot that one down. Now, your new one is that a sampling of the eruption (one data point) is all the gas that was emitted. But that is just par for the course with you. Read it more carefully next time. Also, math helps here too. 1 cubic mile of magma converted at that rate emits a tremendous amount of CO2/SO2. Since one cubic mile of magma weight about 45 trillion pounds, it doesn't take much mathematical ability to realize how enormous the OVERALL eruption is (on the scale of 100's of billion of tons of CO2/SO2).

Ah the analysis that is clearly labeled CO2 is labeled incorrectly in multiple locations and is titled 'Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx'. That's a lot of mislabeling. LOL Couple that with the Department of Energy numbers that match up pretty well too, but I guess their data is mislabeled too. Even though you can calculate their data using known numbers like how much gasoline the US used (~140 billion gallons) and we know 1 gallon of gas converts to 19 lbs of CO2. But, let's forget that and use magic internet numbers that are 3.5 bigger than any analysis out there because they are all MISLABLELED. All of this simply on your say so and the quackery agenda.

Let's see how much gas fraction can potentially yield from magma shall we?
From http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/ and I quote
"Closed system ascent degassing calculations show that the volume fraction of gas increases to 8 vol% at 4-5 km and reaches 50 vol% at 1 km, where final solidification begins. The gas fraction can potentially increase to >60 vol% during solidification. Allowing for gas separation during extrusion, these results are consistent with observed dacite vesicle fractions averaging 25 vol% (Pallister et al. this session). Ascent degassing calculations also predict melt water contents similar to values measured on rare glassy dacite fragments last equilibrated at depths of 1.2-1.8 km (Mandeville this session)."
Hmm, seems the experts think that gas fraction can increase to 60% of volume. Isn't that amazing?!?