100% renewable is a pipe-dream.

I call bullshit.

1. Because the consumption rate is far higher than the production rate, we'll eventually run out of non-renewable (actually, poorly-renewable) energy sources. From then on, it's inevitable that all energy we use is 100% 'renewable'.
2. Of course it's a pipe-dream if we're not willing to use it. There are plenty of opportunities we haven't taken yet. There are many ways to harness geothermal, gravitational (tidal power) and solar power, directly or indirectly, more than we've touched so far.
3. The only reason combustion engines are so efficient is because they're supported by decades of research. Give it time, and renewable energy can be efficient enough to replace it.
4. Besides increasing production, we should also work on reducing consumption. Don't assume that the trend of increasing energy use continues the way it does now.

A fully functioning metabolism tries to hoard fat so that when you're starving

Little food -> accumulate fat.

limit your intake of dietary calories in order to deliberately burn your fat reserves.

Little food -> burn fat.

See the problem here?

• .cn: China
• .ch: Switzerland (Confoederatio Helvetica; Latin, because the four languages used in Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra don't otherwise agree on the appropriate abbreviation)

A group of executives who don't know the difference between servers and routers? ("The network is the computer"...not.)

"The network is the computer" should probably be interpreted like Plan 9 from Bell Labs did (and to a much lesser extent, UNIX), where everything (including processes) is a file and network-transparency is key.

Next time, before attacking people on sentences you don't understand, inform yourself.

You might end up like Joe Bauers.

Ack. Second 'this' should have gotten a link to some German Ministry of Justice thingy.

Agreed. TFA eventually leads to this 'source', but it doesn't refer to actual court proceedings. This seems to be a much more authoritative source, by the way.

More eyes on the manual means more criticism, which might lead to the manual being improved.

Of course, it's useful to cooperate and work on standards, but when you put that above your own principles -- in the case of Mozilla, that should be "an open and accessible internet" -- you're essentially dead.

If W3C institutes a bad standard, you don't have to follow them. Instead, Mozilla should've told them that they're not following suit, or even that this is the last drop and W3C can go fuck itself, and find a more creative solution to the problem of financing the internet's infrastructure.

Every kid knows that!

It might just be an attempt to joke about Ingsoc, you illiterate clod!

Perhaps it has always been 55% (or lower). How did they come up with 95%? Perhaps they missed a lot of infections back then, because they didn't know what to look for, and they do know now.

This is nothing but thinly veiled Socialism.

True.

The free market always will provide a superior solution ... and probably already has.

False.

1) NEVER EVER try to build an editor in a structured language. Functional languages are a poor fit for procedural tasks.

Concrete examples, please. I've been using Haskell for a few years now, and I can't see the problem with "procedural" tasks. Especially when you don't define what that means.

3) The idea that you can build a provable system using a functional language is bat crap insane. In terms of proof it'll give you nothing that good unit tests wouldn't give you.

I suspect you (or your lecturer) encountered something like QuickCheck, which is indeed not more thorough than unit tests (but properties are much easier to write).

There are definitely techniques to truly prove correctness of software, which are based on dependently-typed functional languages like Coq, Agda and Idris. In these languages, the type system is so expressive that you can express theorems in it, and values of those types are proofs.

Have you played Bastion?