Those that invented and worked on this thing, or that think it's a good idea, should be condemned to watch The Running Man in loop for at least ten times. And then read the original material back-to-back for a couple of times, for good measure.

On the Apple ][ you needed the 16k RAM expansion card to run UCSD Pascal: that card replaced the upper 16k of the 64k RAM map so that the Pascal system could store its virtual machine (!) and replace the original ROM with the operating system.
It was a fascinating environment, and an incredibly usable one, given its enormous limitations (150k per disk, and just a few kb of usable RAM).

I learnt both programming AND english on that; the documentation was of the highest level.

Japan has been doing this for decades: you buy your tokens at the entrance, and exchange them for the various dishes with the cook. No one in the shop touches the money.

Acting is much more than looks alone. It often helps, but if it's helping too much then you're not really acting.
The perception trick that makes seeing an actor a valuable experience is very, very subtle: the slopes of uncanny valley are indeed steep, as the first Final Fantasy movie demo'ed to everyone.

They're too young to remember those. We are so old that we read them from paper, not on a screen.

So, basically, are they offering a solution for the exact problem they created?

And this, without even acknowledging that all their critics were right all the time, even while they were being attacked for criticizing the overinflated claims of the first wave of marketing?

If you are thinking about Tullio Simoncini (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metodo_Simoncini), he is a scammer and a convicted killer. He killed at least one patient, and has been convicted in Italy and Albania for malpractice and fraud. And he was saying something completely different form what this study is saying.

It's interesting that all these identification schemes pop up... The Java ecosystem solved this long ago: http://maven.apache.org/reposi...

In short, together with usual digital signature and such, you must also provide proof of owning the domain name that your library's package name relates to: this makes really hard to auto-generate spam packages; and even more focused attacks are much, much harder.

So anything that can be used to cause adverse effects to other people, can be considered malware? That's a pretty broad definition.

How much does lowering CPU power usage help? How much of a computer's power usage comes from the CPU, instead of the GPU, the screen, the LEDs, the disks, etc?

That is exactly the problem that Phusion Passenger solves. It is a Node.js application server, built on Nginx, and not only provides world-class HTTP management but also things like auto-scaling processes, supervisoring, load balancing, resource management, etc.

I'd like to see you try.

Oh yeah, BSD doesn't have GNU make installed by default. Good luck.

I can make my Makefile just as simple by targeting Linux + gcc.

Want to make it work on Clang? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger.
Want to make it work on BSD? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger.
Want to make it work on Solaris? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger.
Want to make it work on Windows? Oh my Makefile needs to be huge.

Autotools exist for a reason.

Unfortunately - on platforms where Qt isn't the native UI already - Qt just emulates (draws) the native UI, it doesn't actually use the native UI controls.

On Windows, Qt does a very good job of emulating the native UI. But then again I'd argue that Windows has few truly native UIs. You always notice small differences in how controls behave between different apps. I guess all the different versions of MFC, WPF, VCL, WinForms and whatever implement controls slightly differently from what the Win32 API offers and even between different versions of itself. But users are used to these inconsistencies, so no big deal.

On OS X, the situation is unfortunately a lot worse, probably because Cocoa is so different from everything else that it's hard to emulate properly using primitives from other toolkits. For example you can notice that Qt draws the focus border around buttons differently than Cocoa does. The biggest difference being that Qt buttons are focusable but Cocoa buttons are not. Toolbars also look different: in Cocoa they blend in with the window title bar. Qt doesn't do this - the toolbars look very much Windows-like. The border spacings and alignment are also off. Developers often don't take time to align and space all the controls properly to give them a Cocoa look.

That is one, and probably the most common, attack vector. There are other ways to introduce attack vectors as well, documented under the "Other exploitable scenarios" section. Even if you believe you are not vulnerable you should upgrade.