Objectivism as a foundation for economic systems is a failure, since it fails to accurately reflect the fact that actors can be, and often are, irrational.

A problem with your attack is that standard economic theory works the same way. Look up Homo economicus some time.

Everyone hates Objectivism but nobody has any arguments against it. Everyone who I've ever heard putting Objectivism down is putting Rand down in the same breath, as if her personal qualities were at all relevant to a philosophical discussion.

In short: Explain to me why Objectivism is evil without once attacking Ayn Rand or any other human being.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!

La Lune Noir! Noir! Chat!

6) My toad loves cheese

7) I live with two mimes, and I cannot scream

8) Loose a thumb, but only on Thursdays

9) I'm a wallaby. Mooo!

10) Unicorn. Love. Hate.

11) Understanding you'r Swede

upgrades, RPM

I find it easy to upgrade my deb-based Ubuntu system. I imagine Debian users find it just as easy.

Linux does not always imply RPM any more than Solaris always implies SPARC.

Stonehenge is seriously claimed by some to be the UK's oldest computer.

Only by people deliberately misconstruing the term ‘computer’ to be cute.

How about this: Single-celled life is, collectively, the world’s oldest computer. After all, it multiplies without external help!

Wikipedia uses Ubuntu now as its server OS. That should lay to rest any notion of Ubuntu being technically inferior to any other distro.

As opposed to, say, the RPM-Hell

Have you ever used a system that was based on packages other than RPMs? It seems like a lot of Slackware users formed their only opinions of non-Slack distros back in the mid-1990s, when Debian was comatose and Red Hat was the only other option.

From which point in my post are people assuming I think GOTOs are evil?

From the context of a 40-year-old free-floating flamewar over the topic of gotos, which reignites every time the construct is mentioned, even in passing. It is one of the hardiest perennials in programming discourse.

OK, so how do you handle deallocation of resources upon finding an unrecoverable error midway through the function? It seems a lot more readable and maintainable to have all deallocation code in one location near the end of the function, as opposed to duplicated wherever an error might be found, which means at least one copy of the code is likely to be wrong, or shunted off into its own function, which would force all of the local variables holding dynamic resources to be made into globals or similar.

So formatting is worthless, then? And why do we have so many languages, many of them domain-specific? Compilers don’t care about how understandable the metaphors are or how many lines are needed to do a specific thing.

decent languages support labeled for/while cycles and apropriate "break label" constructs.

You often cannot develop software with the language you want, but must develop it with the language you have. C has no such features and, therefore, goto is used more often than in languages that have them. Fit the strategy to the tool.

if you do this kind of thing, you are MUCH better off separating lookup code to method or function

This is reasonable, but it assumes some other function can do the needed cleanup code or other data massaging just as cleanly. If the goto is being used because finding the value is an error condition, you often have to do certain things as soon as possible in the code so you do not lose important debugging information.

And, no, exceptions are not part of C, and setjmp/longjmp is, if anything, even less likely to pass code review. An advantage of goto is that you can keep the cleanup code in the same function, visually close to the rest of the logic and sharing the same locals.

I use return for that.

This is conceptually no different from goto, but I agree that it could be more intuitive for some people.

I’m a goto-user, but this is a bad reason to use them: If you regard language features as ‘just’ syntactic sugar, why aren’t you programming in raw machine code? That is what everything eventually gets turned into anyway.

You use gotos when the normal control structures are inadequate somehow. It doesn’t matter what the compiler does; source code is for humans.

Breaking out of a deeply-nested loop, as can happen when you’re looking for a specific element in a multidimensional array. The alternative involves adding state variables and complicating the logic terribly.

The Internet is all about price. As you point out, quality is meaningless. If it isn't free, it is going to garner only a fraction of the interest.

I disagree. I think both iTunes and the experiences of Radiohead and Trent Reznor disprove this statement.

I think this article sums it up reasonably well: "The Great Apathetic Revolution". In summary, people will do whatever is easiest as long as it isn't absolutely insanely expensive. iTunes makes it easy to pay $0.99/track, so people do that. It's easier than finding what they want on the torrent sites. It's also easier than finding and buying the album that has the song they want, which is why Sony gets so jihaddy at them.

Today we have "clever hackers" getting their content for free and "noobs" paying the fare for everyone.

This is true. It isn't fair, but it's less unfair than it used to be: It's easier for a poor person to become clever than to become rich. The Digital Divide is self-imposed to a larger degree than previous divides have been.