So we're going to end up with a huge network of international *** on the one hand, and a bunch of draconian anti-free speech rules [codes] on the other.
You've dead-on nailed that. When you don't "feed the trolls," you usually end up with fewer of them vying for attention. They never totally disappear unless a lot more people [about five percent] carry, and use, weapons. That sorts itself right quick just as criminals start targeting less likely armed people, say tourists, instead. But we aren't allowed to go there. Whatever.
The standard t-test for detecting an effect is already probabalistic. In science and medicine a 95% confidence value is commonly used, which means a 1/20 of detecting something that isn't there.
Unless things have been radically relaxed in the last decade, the standard in hard sciences and medicine remains a 99% confidence interval. It's the social sciences that allow for a 95% confidence interval. Having worked in all the different schools out there, I think I have some confidence in my assertion.
Somebody will graft node.js or go or [that redhat thing that's almost a good scripting language] to systemd and then we'll
Which is the classic example of the dialectic. Speaking of "old farts," Aristotle definitely qualifies
OpenSSL libs were vulnerable.
OS that these libs were on is irrelevant.
The non primary sites can be sold off with preferential state ordinances and permissions intact, at a more than nominal profit.
They would also have achieved their primary goal of maximising the same same ordinances, permissions and supply lines for the primary site through competitive leveraging.
Nice chess move.
The earliest American land barons and economists built the US economy on the backs of slave labour too.
When someone is monomaniacal they are spectacularly effective at achieving a set goal.
If their sponsors are sociopaths (Like the Nazi's first AND the US later - for von Braun), the results can be achieved breathtakingly quickly.
Neither the Nazis, nor the US had altruism as their goal when supporting von Braun. - This is known
Whether his goals where altruistic, may be up for speculation, although I think space exploration is a pretty lofty ideal.
Did the end justify the means? In either case?
Probably not, but we now enjoy the end, while others had to pay the means, never forget that.
If anyone is fundamentally horrified and appalled by the fact that he used concentration camp slave labour, and that the US only used him to advance their instruments of war, I cannot say that I disagree with your moral standpoint.
I do however have to request that you hand over all your technological goodies and advances that are a direct and indirect result of the space program, since otherwise YOU are getting reaping the rewards of an end while despising the means.
You can't have it both ways.
Have I worked for you before?
No, the code did not write itself.
Somebody wrote a steaming pile of shit, and submitted it to one of the MOST important branches of open source development content.
Did they test it before committing?
Y) - Then why commit shit you know is shit?
N) - How can you commit without testing?
There is NO excuse for knowingly submitting code THIS broken.
There is even LESS excuse for unknowingly submitting feces instead of decent code.
If the developer of the code is actually talented, they will appreciate the enormity of their blunder, and instead of being a "modern-day oversensitive, metrosexual, lets not have any winners but give everyone a prize, oh shame but didn't he try hard, but what about his feelings?" fuckup, they'll not do it again.
If they're not talented, they can fuckoff and code for someone else.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]