No, he was caught trying to deliver schematics for an aircraft carrier to the FBI. Since he thought he was trying to deliver them to the Egyptian government, that makes him a scumbag, but let's not pretend an actual crime that would have occurred without the FBI's action has been thwarted here. They didn't step in and stop something bad from happening, they just found some guy who likes money more than ethics and made a good headline out of him. Arguably doing so maybe has some deterrent effect, but don't misrepresent what happened or blow it out of proportion.

Eh, okay, maybe they're adequate, but they have the huge disadvantage you noted: no lasers!

Yes, but, as has been pointed out, that's because SW is a very good fit for JJ Abrams' style. This kinda drives that home.

The mission did not fail in most of its stated objectives. By definition that makes it a success.

It's not a complete success, and we can learn from what failed to attempt to design future missions to avoid these particular failure modes, and while we can lament the failures that did occur, we cannot truly call the mission as a whole a failure.

There is no such contract. When you back any project on Kickstarter, you're agreeing to fund the game and (if it was part of the package) receive a copy when it's done. There's no contract for specific features, things can change in development, and all you're guaranteed to receive is the game when it's done, with whatever feature set it ultimately ends up with. Programs often don't have the exact feature set on completion as they were estimated to have at the start of a project, so they make sure their estimated feature set is not set in stone as part of any contract.

In any case, the game still supports single-player mode. It just requires an internet connection, since it's getting data from the servers as it goes.

Not at all. His message is, if you think it's real, then start doing science! He doubts it's real because the people who claim it is refuse to even try actual science -- you know, that thing where you document experiments and publish with sufficient levels of detail that allow the results to be independently verified.

Even if you think it's real, you have to admit that what they're doing is not science. Or at least, you have to admit that if you're honest and know what "science" is. It might be invention, but it absolutely isn't science.

Sort of, but most of it's waste energy. Show me a process where the amount of power you receive back into the power-grid from setting off an H-bomb is greater than the energy you used constructing it...

Ah, yes. One of Heinlein's most unrealistic, least believable premises ever, and that's saying a lot.

Meanwhile, in the real world, your invention will be reverse-engineered in a matter of months if not sooner.

Then you write your systemd log in text format. If you can't figure out how to do that, you're not qualified to be reading the log file output.

It takes less space, especially if you're archiving them for long periods, causes less I/O in general and less disk fragmentation over time as you compress and delete them every day/week. Note that indeed, you do the same on most classic BSD or SysV init systems by compressing the old logs, requiring you to use a tool to dump them to text if you want to read them later... but that's not as efficient.

Do you turn off the compression of logs on your boxes, or do you admit that having to use a tool to read them isn't so big a deal when you aren't grasping at straws to justify why you hate a particular piece of software?