Tl;Dr You are claiming this will be ineffective, but effective enough to create an employment glut. That shows you really do not have a solid grasp on why you object, and just cobbled some reasons together. You should decide what is really bothering you, and hit with that, because your arguments will be much more solid.
1. I learned quick basic and Pascal by seeing what my brother typed to start it, and experimented from there. If they do slightly more in these camps, it is truly a boot camp and it serves the purpose. If they are willing to pay, the camp does not need to inspire.
2. No objection
3. If they are the type to learn from the internet, they probably would. But these people need a bit more hand holding. Just deciding what is worthwhile, and which language to start with, should be a 20 minute conversation with someone who knows about coding. But this person does not have, or does not like, that expert.
4. The glut will be in entry level tech support and basic office automation. They will not hold a code from scratch job beyond what HR needs to declare them firable. Everyone getting their panties in a bunch now will have no issues, because only a small number of people with the knack for code and tolerate being at a screen 8 hours a day will enter the industry this way.
5. No more so than for profit education in any other area, and this is explicitly short term, no credits. And if colleges are basically just selling diplomas, I'm way more concerned about that, and these camps just fell off the radar.
My only objection is they are selling class time that the audience is too ignorant to understand is nowhere near worth what it costs. In every other way, it fills a void that modern first world societies tend to develop, where people who need personal contact but don't know one in their social circles, or have someone who lives too far away, acan get that jump start.
That's about 3 years of billing on an average subscription. Given the nature of the business, that sounds about right. With a few exceptions, business tends not to look more than that into the future when it comes to financials.
If you declare the citizens your enemy, you have no business being in power.
And I would take a principled defeat over a compromised victory. So, if spying on citizens is the same as spying on enemy troops, I support ending the streak. If Soviets are US citizens, I support ending the streak. If citizens are members of al Qaeda, in statistical numbers to support widespread surveillance, fuck it the streak needs broken.
If the only sigint defense we have is knowing all the metadata we can about citizens, we lost. We have oceans between us and the enemy, and superiority. But somehow omniscience is vital? No thanks, let's just go back to arresting people for being the same religion incorrectly like the good old days.
The God of Abraham is the God of Muhammad, so it really is the same religion. And we disagree with their practice. So spy on the non citizens if you must, because a legal case can be made despite the wording of the US national documents. But we expect better for citizens, and I see no reason to compromise.
You lost me when you misused "jackboot" for rhetorical effect. I assume the remainder of your vocabulary is just as tenuous, and your message just as misapplied.
There are at least two statements at odds with current psychological understanding in your post. I normally do not respond to replies, and I think it best to continue that practice. So good luck.
Either you will learn doubt, or you will continue sounding like an idiot. For the record, in general, I am on your side of the argument. I just wish someone else had made it.
You are the reason the article exists. You talk about minimizing bugs, and the article talks about eliminating them. They are not the same.
Moving to a mostly functional language to eliminate bugs does not work. Reduce, maybe. But not eliminate. No one should make the mistake of assuming that mostly functional programming reduces bugs, either. It may just relocate them.
Mostly functional is not the same as functional, and remove is not the same as reduce. At least understand what you object to before objecting.
Some game play is so bad that I sell the game used, and just watch a walkthrough to see what happens. Sometimes just a wiki summary is good enough.
Unfortunately, I look like a happy customer when that happens, so I end up renting first. If it isn't available, I skip it entirely.
So while plot is what keeps you playing, game play can just be in the way of an otherwise mediocre story.
Now, what's wrong with the article. Skyrim does not have a linear plot, so "this happened then this" does not make sense. Not remembering a character name is hardly a bullet point, let alone backing for an idea. I played half of the game before starting the main story, and the other half in between. It gave context and atmosphere, but made it hard to remember.
On the other hand, you have games that can be replayed by a bot. Go to a place, push buttons in order, and profit. It is an interactive movie, just barely more than Rocky Horror.
You want enough plot to keep the gamer "turning the page". And if it doesn't make sense, the completionists May be the only ones who see it through. Not even a great plot - Dan Brown level writing will keep most people playing.
Do I get better equipment later? Maybe I play to see how that works, like Deus Ex, regardless of plot. Or Doom. Do I uncover endless newness like skyrim? No plot is needed, but what you have better be consistent. Like wow.
If your whole point is that people should be able to answer arbitrary questions about plot and character at the end, you should be in movies or theatre. Not games where user input makes any significant difference.
Just based on the short excerpt in the summary, Sotomayor did not base her consideration purely in the legal aspects. If her argument had merit, that bit should never have been mentioned in a ruling on authority.
It took a supreme court case and 5 justices to decide that what you assert is actually true. Now that it is settled, you just repeated the results.
In other words, what you have been told or decided on your own, was not a settled truth until this case.
I'm not sure why you posted, but I do want to caution you against believing facts that are not true. And, your asterisks are little emphasis compared to a supreme court decision.
Also, rounding to the nearest whole number, half of the justices disagree with you, and I'm not sure you have the credentials to make a case otherwise.
Putting the caller id stuff in the decision left a gaping hole for the case when a tip comes from an obviously spoofed number. And there may be a case for when prosecution cannot produce either the caller id or the recording.
You should know better, shame on you. This is not how you decide anything in a civilised society. If they could smell marijuana while tailing the car, we would be talking about genetic mutations, not supreme decisions.
Economists tend to use proxy measurements instead of doing a new survey measuring exactly what they want to talk about. It saves time and money. In this case, college educated people do tend to make up more of the upper and upper middle classes, so it is not a terrible proxy measurement.
Further, it avoids the immediate dismissal based on "author drew an arbitrary line that supports his idea." There is no argument about who is rich. Lots point out student debt, but miss the point that when it is paid off the educated have higher salaries and can catch up more quickly.
That said, there are so many oversimplifications in the article it is nearly pointless. Most notably, few people earning in the "rich" bracket get paid hourly overtime and decide "to work the extra hour." In USA, they are exempt, and have to work a minimum of 40 hours, usually slightly more. Most hourly jobs do not pay well, and do not give you the option for overtime regularly, and frequently give 30 hours to avoid giving full time benefits.
There is no mystery here that requires the input of an economist to solve. Obvious statistics answers it. The explanations apply to a very small percentage.
Also, this does not seem like a rush. Competent people who can write good code quickly, committing changes as they are found, can result in huge numbers of commits.
They just happen to have a reason to make all of the changes people have been suggesting for years to make it clean.
"rush" was a false premise. Mentioned twice, probably for maximum troll, because rush code is bad. Experienced coders writing in familiar, known patterns, is not rushed.
More generally, I think it's reasonable to assume that for a given product, there is a certain threshold amount of money/effort/person-hours such that if you throw that much effort at finding a new security vulnerability, you will always find a new one.
There are not infinite bugs, as you followed up in a comment below. (#46788587). This portion of your premise was invalidated by your own comment.
False premise
This may be the value that you could actually sell it for on the black market, or it may be the maximum amount of effort that a cyber-criminal would invest in finding a new vulnerability. If a cyber-criminal will only start looking for a particular type of vulnerability if they estimate they can find one for less than $50,000 worth of effort, then $50,000 is how much that type of vulnerability is worth to them.
The premise here is that there is a budget, and that someone is spending money to find a vulnerability. Sure you can argue economics and opportunity costs and time as measured by a wage. But the hackers finding these bugs are *NOT* thinking about this the way you do. You are apparently an economist of some sort, and you don't think like the people actually doing the things you write about.
Ivan sitting in a hut in Siberia may spend $10,000 per year on heating and food, making a $50k vulnerability worth 5 years of time. If he is more self sufficient, $50k could be worth nearly infinite time. But all he needs are 20 $500 vulnerabilities per year to keep himself afloat. Or 10 of your proposed $1000 bugs.
In fact, I could argue that Windows has infinite bugs, because even patches contain bugs and have to be re-patched. And new code comes out every 3 years, largely untested by white hats. If all the bugs are found, in every service pack and update, we just wait till the next version and look for all the new bugs.
Compare with this:
This means that no matter how many vulnerabilities you find and fix, by the definition of the infinite bug threshold there will always be another vulnerability that a black-hat will find it worthwhile to discover and exploit.
You did not say the same thing I said. You said infinite bugs, or effectively so. I am talking about a moving target, which you did not mention.l So I can't assume you meant a moving target.
The remainder of your text is basically argument ad nauseum based on either the infinite bug thesis, or economist theory like "spending an estimated $70,000 to find a vulnerability that is only worth $50,000".
Again, think of Ivan in the hut, who does not "spend" $70k. As an economist, it might hurt your head to think this way, but Ivan is having fun poking at the code. This is like a Sudoku or crossword puzzle, costing nothing. Opportunity costs? He is not giving anything up. He likes doing this, and people pay him when he gets something exploitable. It is his job, and he doesn't care how much he makes because he earns enough or more than his lifestyle requires.
Incorrect statement? Just the ones about infinite bugs. But incorrect premise, and incorrect application of theory are rampant. Lots of people seem to be trying to tell you this, but not finding the words. Describe the world as you see it from your ivory tower, but reality is far different.
Because this is not intended for people like you, who know how it used to be. This is for tablet and phone users, who may not understand that the tablet and desktop even run the same os, and think they cannot possibly use the same patch.
This is not a business friendly decision. Making touch work is not a business friendly decision. But it is the direction they decided to go.
That's why not. Business is already in the subscription model, so they don't have to care. Users are not yet, so they have to at least try. Not saying it will work, just answering your question.
Your solution is personalized to your experience, and all of your conclusions are based on your knowledge and behavior.
I do not want a hardware keyboard on my phone, but I might take an add on if it were cheap. I don't text while driving because I rarely text anyone. Therefore, my solution to this problem is going to be different.
Consider how your field of view would be enforced, especially if you object to using SUV to ensure there is nothing outside the field of view?
It is clear that you have given this little thought outside of your use case. My experience shows that 16 year olds look at the screen, hardware or no, and they are only half present in any conversation while typing. And these are the least experienced drivers. How does your solution work for them?
Since decimation means reduction to one tenth, that means a 10% chance that I am alive, and an unknown percentage that I am useful enough to Julie that she will go balls deep orally.
I mean, if I am one of the 1 in 10 to survive, she might as well keep my belly full and balls empty. Cos I got survivin genes, nest pa?
Oh, you're right, this *is* a masturbatory exercise. I'll be over there, telling Julie how many cuts of pork yield bacon, and you can just keep standing here, pissing on everything, as long as your kidneys hold out.
It is far easier to consider it a giant conspiracy of the elites, than to think that a significant enough part of the population agrees or at least doesn't mind?
How do you explain the middle class and upper middle class? Preferably without deflecting by pointing to the war on the middle class, because there are a lot of people not too busy just surviving.
And do all the elites think this is good and necessary? They all agree, and none are contributing to ACLU, eff, etc?
Does it really make people crazy that the government is protecting them from Brown people?
If you don't want to answer these here, at least answer them to yourself, preferably after doing some reading. You sound like an otherwise smart person who has been gobbling up spoon fed horseshit, you just need to learn to feed your brain yourself now.
Nope. Lack of self control causes violence. But lack of game control causes the anger and frustration that leads to a need for self control.
Basically this, if proven as opposed to found once and reported, explains why all studies that blamed video games found the same results consistently. Not because it was bad science, but poor design.
Prior studies were missing basic control groups that had input requirements similar to violent games with only the content different.
Every such study is now suspect at best, and more likely invalid. And, unless you see a flaw, this result means that anyone blaming purely the individual's self control is just as ignorant as blaming purely the game's violent content.
We are talking about gameplay and inability to master the controls, or control the outcome. Your example is not the worst example of inability to control the outcome, but would be more relevant if your friend punched people on his contacts list.
More relevant is the controller with 16 inputs plus directional controls, where X reloads the rifle, except next to a vehicle where you hijack it, but the one you're closest to instead of what you're facing, except if there is a person nearby so they get taken hostage.
My rage quit is usually when there is no possible way to tell the system what I want it to do. I'm being shot, but turning around to run or fight takes forever. Running for cover uses the same button as take cover and jump, so I get shot to death crouching in front of what I want to be behind. The loading hint that tells you a vital gameplay mechanic halfway through the game. The boss fight that has duck all to do with anything prior in the game, so you have zero practice even with the button combinations in this context.
On second thought, your example would be perfect if the friends list randomly switched controller schemes so sometimes X was call, sometimes delete, and sometimes send a flirty message, because
ANSWER HELLO FUCK DAMMIT ASS SIRI STOP ANSWER SUCL MY BALLD SPELLCHECK DON'T SUBNIT DO NOT
Slashdot Mirror
Tl;Dr You are claiming this will be ineffective, but effective enough to create an employment glut. That shows you really do not have a solid grasp on why you object, and just cobbled some reasons together. You should decide what is really bothering you, and hit with that, because your arguments will be much more solid.
1. I learned quick basic and Pascal by seeing what my brother typed to start it, and experimented from there. If they do slightly more in these camps, it is truly a boot camp and it serves the purpose. If they are willing to pay, the camp does not need to inspire.
2. No objection
3. If they are the type to learn from the internet, they probably would. But these people need a bit more hand holding. Just deciding what is worthwhile, and which language to start with, should be a 20 minute conversation with someone who knows about coding. But this person does not have, or does not like, that expert.
4. The glut will be in entry level tech support and basic office automation. They will not hold a code from scratch job beyond what HR needs to declare them firable. Everyone getting their panties in a bunch now will have no issues, because only a small number of people with the knack for code and tolerate being at a screen 8 hours a day will enter the industry this way.
5. No more so than for profit education in any other area, and this is explicitly short term, no credits. And if colleges are basically just selling diplomas, I'm way more concerned about that, and these camps just fell off the radar.
My only objection is they are selling class time that the audience is too ignorant to understand is nowhere near worth what it costs. In every other way, it fills a void that modern first world societies tend to develop, where people who need personal contact but don't know one in their social circles, or have someone who lives too far away, acan get that jump start.
That's about 3 years of billing on an average subscription. Given the nature of the business, that sounds about right. With a few exceptions, business tends not to look more than that into the future when it comes to financials.
Spying on the enemy.
If you declare the citizens your enemy, you have no business being in power.
And I would take a principled defeat over a compromised victory. So, if spying on citizens is the same as spying on enemy troops, I support ending the streak. If Soviets are US citizens, I support ending the streak. If citizens are members of al Qaeda, in statistical numbers to support widespread surveillance, fuck it the streak needs broken.
If the only sigint defense we have is knowing all the metadata we can about citizens, we lost. We have oceans between us and the enemy, and superiority. But somehow omniscience is vital? No thanks, let's just go back to arresting people for being the same religion incorrectly like the good old days.
The God of Abraham is the God of Muhammad, so it really is the same religion. And we disagree with their practice. So spy on the non citizens if you must, because a legal case can be made despite the wording of the US national documents. But we expect better for citizens, and I see no reason to compromise.
You lost me when you misused "jackboot" for rhetorical effect. I assume the remainder of your vocabulary is just as tenuous, and your message just as misapplied.
There are at least two statements at odds with current psychological understanding in your post. I normally do not respond to replies, and I think it best to continue that practice. So good luck.
Either you will learn doubt, or you will continue sounding like an idiot. For the record, in general, I am on your side of the argument. I just wish someone else had made it.
You are the reason the article exists. You talk about minimizing bugs, and the article talks about eliminating them. They are not the same.
Moving to a mostly functional language to eliminate bugs does not work. Reduce, maybe. But not eliminate. No one should make the mistake of assuming that mostly functional programming reduces bugs, either. It may just relocate them.
Mostly functional is not the same as functional, and remove is not the same as reduce. At least understand what you object to before objecting.
Some game play is so bad that I sell the game used, and just watch a walkthrough to see what happens. Sometimes just a wiki summary is good enough.
Unfortunately, I look like a happy customer when that happens, so I end up renting first. If it isn't available, I skip it entirely.
So while plot is what keeps you playing, game play can just be in the way of an otherwise mediocre story.
Now, what's wrong with the article. Skyrim does not have a linear plot, so "this happened then this" does not make sense. Not remembering a character name is hardly a bullet point, let alone backing for an idea. I played half of the game before starting the main story, and the other half in between. It gave context and atmosphere, but made it hard to remember.
On the other hand, you have games that can be replayed by a bot. Go to a place, push buttons in order, and profit. It is an interactive movie, just barely more than Rocky Horror.
You want enough plot to keep the gamer "turning the page". And if it doesn't make sense, the completionists May be the only ones who see it through. Not even a great plot - Dan Brown level writing will keep most people playing.
Do I get better equipment later? Maybe I play to see how that works, like Deus Ex, regardless of plot. Or Doom. Do I uncover endless newness like skyrim? No plot is needed, but what you have better be consistent. Like wow.
If your whole point is that people should be able to answer arbitrary questions about plot and character at the end, you should be in movies or theatre. Not games where user input makes any significant difference.
Just based on the short excerpt in the summary, Sotomayor did not base her consideration purely in the legal aspects. If her argument had merit, that bit should never have been mentioned in a ruling on authority.
It took a supreme court case and 5 justices to decide that what you assert is actually true. Now that it is settled, you just repeated the results.
In other words, what you have been told or decided on your own, was not a settled truth until this case.
I'm not sure why you posted, but I do want to caution you against believing facts that are not true. And, your asterisks are little emphasis compared to a supreme court decision.
Also, rounding to the nearest whole number, half of the justices disagree with you, and I'm not sure you have the credentials to make a case otherwise.
Putting the caller id stuff in the decision left a gaping hole for the case when a tip comes from an obviously spoofed number. And there may be a case for when prosecution cannot produce either the caller id or the recording.
You should know better, shame on you. This is not how you decide anything in a civilised society. If they could smell marijuana while tailing the car, we would be talking about genetic mutations, not supreme decisions.
No, just based on this decision.
However, it will happen, prosecutors will point to this as justification, and defense will claim the decision is too narrow to support that.
And there are other laws and case law and local things to worry about.
As always, consult a lawyer before flying off the handle on a slippery slope argument.
I hate to be on this side of the argument, but adding a single word changes your post completely, and that word is "yet".
It is unlikely at this point, but still possible. I repeat, unlikely.
Pseudo random, as it could be predicted based on the headline alone.
When we say rng we mean prng unless otherwise noted. That is the common usage, and it is hard to correct the common.
Economists tend to use proxy measurements instead of doing a new survey measuring exactly what they want to talk about. It saves time and money. In this case, college educated people do tend to make up more of the upper and upper middle classes, so it is not a terrible proxy measurement.
Further, it avoids the immediate dismissal based on "author drew an arbitrary line that supports his idea." There is no argument about who is rich. Lots point out student debt, but miss the point that when it is paid off the educated have higher salaries and can catch up more quickly.
That said, there are so many oversimplifications in the article it is nearly pointless. Most notably, few people earning in the "rich" bracket get paid hourly overtime and decide "to work the extra hour." In USA, they are exempt, and have to work a minimum of 40 hours, usually slightly more. Most hourly jobs do not pay well, and do not give you the option for overtime regularly, and frequently give 30 hours to avoid giving full time benefits.
There is no mystery here that requires the input of an economist to solve. Obvious statistics answers it. The explanations apply to a very small percentage.
Also, this does not seem like a rush. Competent people who can write good code quickly, committing changes as they are found, can result in huge numbers of commits.
They just happen to have a reason to make all of the changes people have been suggesting for years to make it clean.
"rush" was a false premise. Mentioned twice, probably for maximum troll, because rush code is bad. Experienced coders writing in familiar, known patterns, is not rushed.
False premise.
There are not infinite bugs, as you followed up in a comment below. (#46788587). This portion of your premise was invalidated by your own comment.
False premise
The premise here is that there is a budget, and that someone is spending money to find a vulnerability. Sure you can argue economics and opportunity costs and time as measured by a wage. But the hackers finding these bugs are *NOT* thinking about this the way you do. You are apparently an economist of some sort, and you don't think like the people actually doing the things you write about.
Ivan sitting in a hut in Siberia may spend $10,000 per year on heating and food, making a $50k vulnerability worth 5 years of time. If he is more self sufficient, $50k could be worth nearly infinite time. But all he needs are 20 $500 vulnerabilities per year to keep himself afloat. Or 10 of your proposed $1000 bugs.
In fact, I could argue that Windows has infinite bugs, because even patches contain bugs and have to be re-patched. And new code comes out every 3 years, largely untested by white hats. If all the bugs are found, in every service pack and update, we just wait till the next version and look for all the new bugs.
Compare with this:
You did not say the same thing I said. You said infinite bugs, or effectively so. I am talking about a moving target, which you did not mention.l So I can't assume you meant a moving target.
The remainder of your text is basically argument ad nauseum based on either the infinite bug thesis, or economist theory like "spending an estimated $70,000 to find a vulnerability that is only worth $50,000".
Again, think of Ivan in the hut, who does not "spend" $70k. As an economist, it might hurt your head to think this way, but Ivan is having fun poking at the code. This is like a Sudoku or crossword puzzle, costing nothing. Opportunity costs? He is not giving anything up. He likes doing this, and people pay him when he gets something exploitable. It is his job, and he doesn't care how much he makes because he earns enough or more than his lifestyle requires.
Incorrect statement? Just the ones about infinite bugs. But incorrect premise, and incorrect application of theory are rampant. Lots of people seem to be trying to tell you this, but not finding the words. Describe the world as you see it from your ivory tower, but reality is far different.
Because this is not intended for people like you, who know how it used to be. This is for tablet and phone users, who may not understand that the tablet and desktop even run the same os, and think they cannot possibly use the same patch.
This is not a business friendly decision. Making touch work is not a business friendly decision. But it is the direction they decided to go.
That's why not. Business is already in the subscription model, so they don't have to care. Users are not yet, so they have to at least try. Not saying it will work, just answering your question.
Your solution is personalized to your experience, and all of your conclusions are based on your knowledge and behavior.
I do not want a hardware keyboard on my phone, but I might take an add on if it were cheap. I don't text while driving because I rarely text anyone. Therefore, my solution to this problem is going to be different.
Consider how your field of view would be enforced, especially if you object to using SUV to ensure there is nothing outside the field of view?
It is clear that you have given this little thought outside of your use case. My experience shows that 16 year olds look at the screen, hardware or no, and they are only half present in any conversation while typing. And these are the least experienced drivers. How does your solution work for them?
Since decimation means reduction to one tenth, that means a 10% chance that I am alive, and an unknown percentage that I am useful enough to Julie that she will go balls deep orally.
I mean, if I am one of the 1 in 10 to survive, she might as well keep my belly full and balls empty. Cos I got survivin genes, nest pa?
Oh, you're right, this *is* a masturbatory exercise. I'll be over there, telling Julie how many cuts of pork yield bacon, and you can just keep standing here, pissing on everything, as long as your kidneys hold out.
Onion? This isn't Onion.
This. Is. SLASHDOT!
It is far easier to consider it a giant conspiracy of the elites, than to think that a significant enough part of the population agrees or at least doesn't mind?
How do you explain the middle class and upper middle class? Preferably without deflecting by pointing to the war on the middle class, because there are a lot of people not too busy just surviving.
And do all the elites think this is good and necessary? They all agree, and none are contributing to ACLU, eff, etc?
Does it really make people crazy that the government is protecting them from Brown people?
If you don't want to answer these here, at least answer them to yourself, preferably after doing some reading. You sound like an otherwise smart person who has been gobbling up spoon fed horseshit, you just need to learn to feed your brain yourself now.
Nope. Lack of self control causes violence. But lack of game control causes the anger and frustration that leads to a need for self control.
Basically this, if proven as opposed to found once and reported, explains why all studies that blamed video games found the same results consistently. Not because it was bad science, but poor design.
Prior studies were missing basic control groups that had input requirements similar to violent games with only the content different.
Every such study is now suspect at best, and more likely invalid. And, unless you see a flaw, this result means that anyone blaming purely the individual's self control is just as ignorant as blaming purely the game's violent content.
We are talking about gameplay and inability to master the controls, or control the outcome. Your example is not the worst example of inability to control the outcome, but would be more relevant if your friend punched people on his contacts list.
More relevant is the controller with 16 inputs plus directional controls, where X reloads the rifle, except next to a vehicle where you hijack it, but the one you're closest to instead of what you're facing, except if there is a person nearby so they get taken hostage.
My rage quit is usually when there is no possible way to tell the system what I want it to do. I'm being shot, but turning around to run or fight takes forever. Running for cover uses the same button as take cover and jump, so I get shot to death crouching in front of what I want to be behind. The loading hint that tells you a vital gameplay mechanic halfway through the game. The boss fight that has duck all to do with anything prior in the game, so you have zero practice even with the button combinations in this context.
On second thought, your example would be perfect if the friends list randomly switched controller schemes so sometimes X was call, sometimes delete, and sometimes send a flirty message, because
ANSWER HELLO FUCK DAMMIT ASS SIRI STOP ANSWER SUCL MY BALLD SPELLCHECK DON'T SUBNIT DO NOT
Context: "Bug was introduced to OpenSSL in December 2011 and has been out in the wild since OpenSSL release 1.0.1 on 14th of March 2012. "
After so many years of this shit, it has to be intentional, just so people will post corrections.
Wsh has scripting and comes with windows. Ie has the same.
And they can get .net and studio express for free if they are so inclined.
This is an improvement over basic, and no need to dismiss it just because its not pointy clicky like office.