Sure, it could be that. But it could also be:

• A cleaning person plugging a vacuum cleaner into the power strip on the rack instead of into the wall outlet that's on an external circuit (combined with improper power filtering in the equipment).
• Electrical noise caused by some other crappy piece of equipment in the rack (combined with improper power filtering in the equipment).
• Errors caused by higher operating temperature.
• Errors caused by emissions from natural Uranium or other radioactive elements in the soil.
• A software bug.
• A hardware bug.

And if it happens disproportionately on one class of equipment, unless there are material differences in the amount of shielding, any one of those five is probably much more likely than cosmic rays, IMO. :-)

My wife was looking over my shoulder when the "Cisco Blamed A Router Bug on 'Cosmic Radiation'" headline went by, and asked:

"What's their next excuse? Global Warming?"

If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

Nice sound bite, but this can be a rational decision for a society to get things done. Heaving too much regulatory burden on business can slow or stop progress.

After all, most likely you have no problem with government spending wads of billions on things with little or no return, covering hurricane losses, propping up industries and Amtrack, or creating a colossal high speed rail in California, or spending more on a Boston subway or Denver air port automated luggage system than the moon landing* .

* Exaggeration, but a small one.

Nice sound bite, but ths can be a rational decision for

You've discovered that cheaters gain an advantage.

Agreed. And more importantly, if you have braces, it is possible for the IDE to programmatically fix the indentation so that it is easy to read. There's absolutely no sane reason to require a programmer to use whitespace for any reason other than between tokens that would otherwise be a single token if shoved together. All other use should be superfluous, and the IDE should make it readable for you without the need for a person to do it.

And the reason braces should be in every programming language, IMO, is that it makes it easier to jump to the end of a block. When I have nested blocks in a properly braced language, I can hit percent in vi, and I'm at the end of that block. I don't have to move the cursor to the beginning of the line and laboriously hit the down arrow key a line at a time until I find a line that isn't indented as far. Therein lies the path to madness.

Want to dramatically improve the programming world in a single project? Design a meta-language for code formatting so that a set of text-based rules can enforce everybody's own quirky code formatting standards. Make it handle at least the twenty or so most popular programming languages. Then open source it under a BSD license so that the interpreter can be readily built into every IDE on the planet. Then, we can finally dispense with all of these silly programming languages that use whitespace syntactically once and for all.

Two major issues. One- indent only code is nearly impossible to find bugs in. I've seen teams of programmers look for weeks for the source of an issue, it ended up being 1 line that used a tab instead of spaces. Indentation fails because of such issues.

Secondly, you can't copy paste cleanly from the web with an indentation based language.

Either of those is a disqualified by itself. Both together make it such a brain dead choice nobody should even look at a language that uses it

OK. The folks who run Project Shield have been informed!

I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:

If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.

That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.

By the way, I've sworn to much the same text in my police deputy's oath. I volunteer for disaster services. It didn't limit me from opposing any law, I just have to follow them while they are still on the books.

Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.

With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.

The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.

Some people call that "democracy.

Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?