If that actually was cheaper, they'd probably be doing it already. Why do you think they became dicks in the first place, for the fun of it?

You in 1857: "The court clearly said Dred Scott isn't a person, so why are you still talking about his 'human rights'? Accept the verdict and quit persecuting those slaveowners!"

A criminal trial is a fallible process, even to the limited extent that its purpose is to actually discern the truth. This should be beyond obvious, but that goes double when a trial pits authoritarian systems of social control against the rights of historically disadvantaged and abused groups, including minorities, juveniles and alleged "delinquents". No one here, except perhaps you, is claiming that they "just know!" anything about this case. There is no reason free people cannot review the evidence and reach our own conclusions, regardless of what actions an imperfect and often biased judicial system took.

I imagine it'd be pretty difficult to build a successful merkin company in this economy.

Actually, why hasn't someone done a benign version of that already? (Or have they?) A virus using whatever infection vectors true malware does, with no payload other than a message that informs the user exactly how they got infected -- "If this was a real virus, you could've lost your data when you opened that suspicious email attachment/allowed ActiveX from this sketchy website/failed to secure port XX with a firewall." White-hat involuntary pentesting but on the global scale of something like Conficker.

until Star.Trek.(2009).Mr.BeRNaRD.3rdPeRIod.SoCiALSTudiES.avi hits the scene.

Posting to undo misclicked moderation.

Python's range() makes more sense if you look at it without an explicit starting value. range(5) returns [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] -- the legal indices for a list of five items.

That's not entirely true. The relatively high fixed costs of learning an OS's security model and writing a new virus to take advantage of that, compared to the relatively small cost of tweaking existing viruses written to exploit an OS you already understand well suggests malware authors would stick with Windows even as Linux desktop share grows to avoid duplication of costs and enjoy the advantages of economies of scale.

So "there's no viruses because it's not popular" is false, but virus targeting will not strictly follow market share for a variety of economic reasons, until Linux share passes a tipping point where the value that can be extracted from untapped targets exceeds the startup costs of writing viruses for a new security paradigm.

Wow! That's less time than it would take to figure out why you would actually want to watch that.

Christianity sure gave the colonizers who've been enslaving and swindling the continent for centuries a fine moral base.