I quoted directly from the article of the interview. Sorry I did not indicate that, just sort of assumed it would be conveyed.

Yeah, the interview doesn't exactly paint her in any better of a light than people already hold her in. In her own words she basically states she's racist and sexist with a possible religious bias:

(emphasis mine). The way that's phrased, to me, states that she was not offended, but chose to manufacture offense via the photo & tweets, and that resulted in real world damage to peoples lives. Not just to the two men, but their families, as well.

While I do think that a lot of the stuff that was done and said to her after this incident are despicable, it doesn't make her any less of a hurtful, spiteful, vindictive, hypocritical, hateful excuse of a human being. Additionally, her comment about Downs Syndrome is just...disturbing.

Not to be pedantic or argumentative, but how are you sure your open hardware design isn't manipulated or back-door'd after you hand it over to a 3rd party for manufacturing? There is no single person in the world that build a useful general purpose (in today's standards) computer from hardware to software, guaranteeing that no one else has had an opportunity along the way to manipulate it in some fashion. At some point, you have to start trusting people/organizations/companies. The fewer involved, the greater level of trust you can reasonably assume. We've already seen how the "many eyes" postulation may be flawed (see: openssl). I chalk that up more to human nature: everyone assumes everyone else is looking, so until you personally have a problem, you don't look, you just assume & trust. I know I do this; I only read others' code when I'm bored or have to. Once I'm sufficiently bored by reading others' code that I'm not paid to read, I get back to my regular job.

There's another part that I didn't bring up: Dish will be fined. But, where does that money go? To the people impacted by their acts? No. It will disappear into the fed government somewhere. Whatever fines are collected should be distributed to the people that they violated - and I'm not one of them.

Fair enough, I did read it several times, but managed to miss, each time, the "and require" part under Section 15. I'd suggest that it wouldn't withstand a challenge under the 4th or 5th Amendments, but seeing as how the SCOTUS has previously ruled the 1st Amendment doesn't (always) apply during public school, I'm not sure how well that would fare.

Market Cap of Dish Network is roughly $34B, so the max potential fine is roughly 30x what the company is worth. If levied, it means *poof*, gone. Won't happen. There will be a fine, but I'll be surprised if it ends up being more than even $30M.

You can browse to "chrome://plugins" and explicitly disable the built-in flash.

Pray tell: what is illegal about being pressured to accept a plea bargain?

I don't follow your interpretation of the law you linked to.

That seem's pretty straight forward: it is unlawful to request or require dissemination of a password.

What I suspect you object to is this:

What I read this to mean (and I'm not a lawyer, of course), is without approval or consent, they may monitor school-provided equipment and provided email. i.e., if you utilize your school's email service, they may read that at will, without your consent. Note the possessive in "post-secondary school's electronic mail". This seems pretty plain to me they are not allowed to monitor, say your gmail access (unless they have a man-in-the-middle setup and you access it utilizing the school's network, read: electronic equipment).

As an Illinois resident, I read through it several times, just on the chance I missed something. Like you, I see no where that anyone, either the victim or the accused are being compelled to provide even so much as a screen name, let alone full on credentials for any sort of account. Another misleading click-bait headline just to rile everyone up.

I could get behind this, but I'd go one step further: include lawyers whose suits are tossed out for being frivolous. 3 lawsuits tossed for being frivolous (not necessarily for without merit, lacking standing or losing), and you're disbarred, never to practice law again.

Not a UFO, already determined that even in the summary. We know what it is, thus "identified". Not "unidentified". Thus no UFO. Why is this a story? That a few people called in and didn't recognize a few lights in the sky?

I think "Crash Override" is an extremely poor choice of names. I mean, who in the community doesn't know 1995's "Hackers"? Johnny Lee Miller's character had a handle "Crash Override". He spent the entire movie trying to get into Angelina Jolie's character's pants (and succeeded), and he (the actor) married Jolie in real life, if only for a few years. If you want to talk "messages", what does choosing such a moniker for this movement represent? At its best, willful ignorance (which I doubt) or an alternate purpose, which then begs the question of for what? I'm not going to go so far to say Quinn is either stupid or ignorant, so that again beg's the question: why "Crash Override"?

This is usually just plain wrong. I have extremely seldom ever seen "at" used in production code. Why? Because it's usually duplicating a bounds check you've already done. If you're going to naively randomly access a location into a vector without checking if it's within bounds, sure, but that's kind of a nasty smell (also, are you handling the exception that may/will occur?). Most vector accesses occur something like looping from 0 until (but not including size), or using begin/end (either the free functions or the members). At best, the optimizer might be able to deduce you're never modifying the size of the vector during a loop and elide the repeated bounds check. At worst, you're evaluating "if ((_M_end - _M_start) <= i) throw std::out_of_range();" on every iteration.

Regarding point #4, forward declarations aren't to save compilation time or declare linkage. Yes, they can be used to do both, but the prime function is to, well, declare a name and just enough information to be somewhat useful before it is used (i.e. reduce very simple otherwise circular-references). I can forward-declare 'struct A', but I cannot instantiate/allocate it until it is defined (need to know the size, layout, etc.). You can declare a pointer to 'struct A', because well, you know the size of the pointer. Same reason you can't define "struct A { struct A a; };", but you can define "struct A {struct A* p_a; };".

Regarding "#ifdefs", yeah, there shouldn't really be a need for them in this day and age, but they won't go away due to legacy code. If you removed them, you'd break every single codebase in the world. Not going to happen. Additionally, due to the historical lack of variadic macros, there are numerous libraries that rely upon multiple inclusion of the same header to fake variadic macros. If you assumed a "#pragma once", you'd break various Boost libraries as well as even some STL implementations. Headers guarded with ifdef's can only safely be precompiled and reused if any and all preprocessor defines referenced are identical across all usages and inclusion order of every & all predecessor headers is exactly the same for all usages, otherwise you very well may violate the one-definition-rule.

Recently infected? Feels more like a primordial specimen that couldn't step out of the initial pool.