Obviously I see the difference between them, and several times have noted differences. The thing you seem to miss time and time again is that they don't have to be "the same" to make comparisons. The world isn't black and white which you seem to need to make it into. For me the comparison is enlightening about what we value, what we don't value, who we find responsible, and who isn't responsible. If you try to paint this into black and white terms, the entire point of view vanishes into your dichotomy.
The whole argument is one of perspective. You may disagree with the perspective, and that's fine. But I'm not convinced you understand the nature and reason for the comparison.
Obviously I don't agree. The consumables that corporations produce, while being dangerous over the long term, do provide a level of nutrition. In other words, they aren't "all bad". Yes, you could find better nutrition, but it is nutrition nonetheless and therefore help people live. The person in question did nothing to help make a person's life better, just a way to end it.
I guess. Tobacco products provide enjoyment for the tobacco user. This guy provided some level of comfort, identification, and assistance to his victims. Why do you think they talked to him? So what's your point? The situations are similar enough that you can find apt comparisons between them. You gloss over the long term versus short term thing as if it doesn't matter. If you help "kill" someone over the span of 120 years or you help kill someone immediately, there is a HUGE difference.
It matters, I just don't think it matters as much as you think it does. The two situations don't have to be exactly the same to further discussion and think about the matter in different ways. If a comparison were exactly the same in every way we wouldn't distinguish between the two. Why do you think there's such a big difference between the two? (Your value of "120 years" also might be just a bit off of the average human lifespan, so it seems like more than a little hyperbole)
You gloss over the difference between causality and direct involvement. The consumables you mention increase the likelihood of death at an earlier than otherwise age, but they do not directly cause it...But helping someone kill themselves is completely direct.
I don't agree. The guy didn't "directly" cause the death. The persons who committed suicide did. Both this guy and tobacco companies are indirect methods of killing people. I simply don't think you understand the meaning of direct.
I really wish people like you would stop and think before posting. Your post is so stupid (honestly) that I would think it is a troll and not an honest, reasonable assessment of the situation.
I thought a lot about the situation. It's too bad your only defense seems to be "you didn't think about this". We happen to disagree about some basic philosophical points and ways of thinking of this. Saying I didn't think about this before posting is merely insulting.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried.
What is it that makes you skeptical of global warming, but not skeptical of this? Is it merely the fact that this disaster has already happened and is completely undeniable, but that the global warming disaster is merely predicted to occur based on well established theory?
If you wait until there's undeniable proof, it's already too late. Honestly, what would it take to convince you we need to take global warming seriously and act before the disaster unfolds?
So the difference being what? One has a single "evil person" who does what they do for their own personal sick joy. The other is a group of people working for a large corporation doing what they do for a paycheck. Single evil deceitful individuals should be held responsible for encouraging bad behavior that could potentially result in death, while groups of people doing the same shouldn't? Or is it simply the suicide is an unacceptable form of bad behavior, and eating scientifically proven unhealthy foods in an acceptable form of bad behavior?
The situations are different to be sure, but I do think they're similar enough to warrant comparison between them. What's the real root of the crime here?
Both wind situations wind up with people dead that might not have otherwise died. Both situations involved the direct "choice" of the person who dies. Both situations involve personal gain from the person encouraging bad behavior. Both situations involve deceit. (If you don't think advertisement is a form of deceit, you're not paying attention)
There's plenty of people on this planet I think are extremely deceitful, encourage terrible behavior that winds up directly harming people, and largely do it for their own gain. Some of them even have radio/TV shows! I find what the guy did despicable. But I'm also not entirely sure that what this guy did is, or should be illegal.
Joomla is one of the worst GUIs I've ever seen (and thankfully I don't have to use it with any real frequency). It's bad to the point where I asked a Joomla expert how to change a URL link and the ONLY way he could show me how to do it was to provide a screenshot of the UI with arrows and labels. (Joomla doesn't believe in actual.. you know, text labels for it's inexplicable looking tiny icons). The UI is more of a mish-mash of different things that have little or no relation to one another, so you wind up hunting around just to change one element of a page. Making a GUI where it's easier to just go in and hand edit text takes talent.
It also has a horrendous security record, mainly due to the plugins. Anyone reading this considering it as a CMS should look elsewhere if you actually have to support the thing.
You seem to have never worked in 10k+ clicks per second environment.
Like the other 99.99% of the people out their. No.
It still sounds like your architecture wasn't really built to handle your current load, and it's more evolutionary than anything else. If 3% cost increase kills you in the IT world, your business is going to fail soon anyway. 3% returns are what happens in extremely mature markets, not ever changing never mature market of the internet.
At $10M per and a significant fraction of that just to do a teardown and evaluation I'm not sure that anyone wants to fund that kind of research.
Until now. The airlines likely won't do it (and don't have the expertise anyway), but to Airbus or Boeing, the limits of flying through an ash cloud might just be a major selling point.
Re:Why can't we do better? Are you fucking kidding
on
Volcano Futures
·
· Score: 1
The reason nobody can say is there's no metrics for uptake by a jet and no guarantee that the ash plume is going to be consistent with whatever testbed is set up.
No. The reason nobody can say is there's been essentially zero reason to DO the controlled tests until possibly now. How often do ash clouds interrupt busy air traffic corridors? Never?
I guarantee you that if ash clouds were an every day occurrence, the limits of the technology to fly through them would be well known. Since it's rare, they aren't. It's no more complicated than that.
Heh. What a lot of work for so little in return. I'm sure it works for you, but I think you're underestimating the average 8th grader. Playing the guessing game of how you think people will react is a losing game. What I just can't fathom is why you don't just put in real security to begin with rather than play these bizarre games which actually sound more complicated, convoluted, and difficult to maintain than just having done it right in the first place.
It sounds like most of what you call obscurity isn't. The other parts someone could already figure out what you're doing without access to the code. Do you really think switching IPs isn't something an 8th grader could figure out in under 5 minutes?
As far as real security "costing a fortune", my guess is that's because you've painted yourself in a corner. Why does it have to cost a fortune if your infra-structure was setup properly and your code was maintainable to begin with?
If what you say is true, access to the code means you're fucked.. well, you're already fucked since insiders naturally have access to your code, and changing the code isn't like just changing passwords.
Any definition beyond that is lacking. Does that mean art has no definition? Well yes, which I think was kind of Warhol's point. Considering the shit I've seen in art museums before, I'd say Warhol was spot on.
and simply being concerned because the bad guys have more ability to search for flaws.
Much of the world relies on security systems that are completely open and available to everyone. One of the prime examples is openSSH. Another prime example in openSSL. I don't hear too many people worried that these systems are more vulnerable because attackers have access to the code. The latter is a pretty natural human reaction to an event like this, regardless of how well designed their security system is, because all designs, and all code, potentially contains flaws, even if designed and implemented by the most brilliant security researchers.
Panic and stupidity are also natural human reactions. Since when did something being "natural" become a justification for something? I can understand the reaction, but that doesn't mean it's right.
It's pretty stupid to rely on code remaining secret. Code is something that's very difficult to make secret as it gets copied all over the place. How many people at Google already have access to it? It seems to me that if Google really wants to be secure they should just release the damn code so "the good guys" also have access to it, since apparently "the bad guys" already do.
The question is what's the history of this particular volcano, not the history of all volcanoes. Humans have been living in Europe for thousands of years now. Had their been a volcano depositing ash for decades, I think someone might have noticed that before. So speculating that this could go on for "decades" is completely unsupported by evidence.
ferries, channel tunnel, trains, automobiles, nope, just won't do... I have driven from London to Athens in less time than many of these people have been sat in airports wringing their hands... I also suspect that it may be CHEAPER to hire a car and drive back home, than to attempt to live in an airport for a week.
Sure, if you knew ahead of time it would be a whole week before air travel resumed again. The first reports I heard were that travel was only suspended until friday, so I'm sure a lot of people hoped it'd just be a couple days. Nobody could possibly know how long the volcano would erupt. Now that it's gone one for more than a couple days the other travel options become a lot more attractive.
Indeed. In fact the height the ash plume reached has changed from Wednesday to Saturday from 8 miles down to 3:
In Iceland, the volcano continued to erupt, but volcanologists said was it less explosive than at the beginning of the eruption on Wednesday, which blasted glassy abrasive ash, destructive to jet engines, eight miles into the sky. The plume was now rising to a height of just three miles, and the volcanologists said this would deposit ash only in Iceland and in the surrounding waters. It was not high enough to travel thousands of miles across Britain and the rest of Europe.
Uhh.. Do you really think people don't already know the basic demographics of the city they live in already? These aren't secrets, so examples are more than a little stupid. As far as your weird "child molester" app goes, somehow I don't think anyone will actually write that application. Even if somebody did, I find it more than a little hard to believe that the thing stopping child molesters is the lack of visualization software to commit their crimes.
Is that really the best you can come up with? Both are extraordinarily lame scenarios.
I think we've all seen the videos where the police use the taser as a compliance and punishment device, and not to protect their own safety. (And I'm not just talking about the "don't tase me bro" guy. Second, not when a taser discharge is treated the same as other firearm discahrges by police forces.
Bullshit. The video's I've seen include people talking on a cell phone and the cop tases them because they're not obeying his commands. You really think that was treated the same as other firearm discharges?
It's obvious the police use these things to enforce authority and create intimidation, not as a replacement for the 9mm. Maybe in your part of the country they do use it as a gun replacement, but from what I've seen and read that's the exception, not the rule.
You're torn about a system that requires you to send a text message stating who you are that could contain anything (including, and commonly the president of Mexico, Calderon)? How can someone be torn about such an idiotic system? Let me think for about 2 minutes of the major problems with this system:
Doesn't address anyone with a cell phone they got outside of Mexico. Doesn't address wi-fi phones with VOIP. Even if you clean up the above problems, you create a marketplace for illegally registered cell phones in someone elses name. Great, now another criminal enterprise creating fraud, violence, and money to fund more fraud and violence.
The whole thing smacks of just window-dressing. Governments aren't this stupid, though they believe everyone else is. With every difficult problem there's a call for the government to "do something". It's quite obvious to me that this is simply Mexico's way of looking like they're "doing something".
Tell you what, Mr Regulator. Why don't you install "cell phone stops" every 1 mile on the roads, where we can safely pull over and make or receive calls before you tell us that we can't use them.
Are you actually serious? You're really so addicted to making and receiving calls that you feel the need to build special stops "every mile" along the roadside for the express purpose of being able to make a call?
Grow up, and realize you might be out of communication sometimes. If you're such a junkie you can't stand the thought of missing a call for the perhaps 10-15 minutes it might take to pull off to an exit and make your important call.. then you need treatment, not cell phone stops.
Remember that panhandling is illegal in many cities for exactly that reason.
No. Panhandling is illegal because most people find it annoying, and the panhandlers are in no position to find lawmakers to oppose making it illegal. Your idea that it "leads to mugging" is ridiculous.
Anyone that's ever walked around a decent size U.S. city has been approached for money before. This has happened to me perhaps a hundred times. I've yet to be mugged or even seriously threatened by a bum panhandling. Most of the time it's the "gas can scam" with someone claiming they "ran out of gas" and need some small amount of money. This is really just panhandling with a touch of fraud added in.
I'm not uncomfortable around homosexuals in social settings. But the thought of guy-on-guy is pretty yucky to me. Does that make me a homophobe?
No. Dan Savage (sex advice columnist) has commented several times that gay men find hetero sex pretty disgusting. Most people would say they'd find sex between old people disgusting.
My conclusion is that sex is essentially kind of disgusting unless you happen to find the particular people involved sexy. Homophobia (or discrimination in general) would only come into play if you thought the parties involved were themselves disgusting for engaging in the act rather than the act itself being disgusting. I don't like limburger cheese, think it's kind of disgusting, and don't want to eat it myself or be near someone eating it. But I don't think less of anyone that enjoys it.
find the most obtuse, difficult to maintain, esoteric software stack in the industry today, give it away for free, then charge for support.
You've really miss-categorized the Microsoft software stack in a couple of important ways. First of all, it's not free. Secondly, while they do charge for support, they make most of their money off of people hoping the NEXT version will magically fix all the problems of the last one. You're certainly right about everything else though. It's quite difficult to maintain it, with patches suddenly breaking random parts of the stack in completely random and unexpected ways. It's often times Microsoft's own software that breaks!
With new technologies, and the technologies developed as a result of the previous technologies so far has proved you wrong.
Huh? New technologies can't escape the fact that the world is made of atoms. Moore's law is largely the same technologies of photo-lithography on silicon improved and improved again. I'm sure there's a lot of innovation that occurs, but it can't escape the fact that the silicon atom is of a finitely large size. quantum computing technologies. The latter will usher in a whole other subset of programming and processing philosophies.
Maybe. When betting that some insanely promising new technology is going to take off "just around the corner", you're taking a huge risk. It might happen as you say, or it might be way to hard to adapt to be useful to anyone but cryptographers and scientific researchers.
Stability (by definition) is the antithesis to the IT industry.
Baloney. Eventually the Moore's law gravy train that's been responsible for a lot of the continued development and the rapid change will be over. When that will happen I don't know, but it will. Much of the innovations of new languages has been at least in part been a result of Moore's law. Sure, the change and innovation will likely never stop, but it will slow. Even farming has innovation and change in it and it's one of the oldest activities we have.
Think I'm wrong? Imagine what the world would be like if Moore's law stopped 20 years ago with the transistor count of the 486. That will herald a different era, likely geared towards doing more with the same amount of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously I see the difference between them, and several times have noted differences. The thing you seem to miss time and time again is that they don't have to be "the same" to make comparisons. The world isn't black and white which you seem to need to make it into. For me the comparison is enlightening about what we value, what we don't value, who we find responsible, and who isn't responsible. If you try to paint this into black and white terms, the entire point of view vanishes into your dichotomy.
The whole argument is one of perspective. You may disagree with the perspective, and that's fine. But I'm not convinced you understand the nature and reason for the comparison.
You analogy is ridiculous, and you know it.
Obviously I don't agree.
The consumables that corporations produce, while being dangerous over the long term, do provide a level of nutrition. In other words, they aren't "all bad". Yes, you could find better nutrition, but it is nutrition nonetheless and therefore help people live. The person in question did nothing to help make a person's life better, just a way to end it.
I guess. Tobacco products provide enjoyment for the tobacco user. This guy provided some level of comfort, identification, and assistance to his victims. Why do you think they talked to him? So what's your point? The situations are similar enough that you can find apt comparisons between them.
You gloss over the long term versus short term thing as if it doesn't matter. If you help "kill" someone over the span of 120 years or you help kill someone immediately, there is a HUGE difference.
It matters, I just don't think it matters as much as you think it does. The two situations don't have to be exactly the same to further discussion and think about the matter in different ways. If a comparison were exactly the same in every way we wouldn't distinguish between the two. Why do you think there's such a big difference between the two? (Your value of "120 years" also might be just a bit off of the average human lifespan, so it seems like more than a little hyperbole)
You gloss over the difference between causality and direct involvement. The consumables you mention increase the likelihood of death at an earlier than otherwise age, but they do not directly cause it...But helping someone kill themselves is completely direct.
I don't agree. The guy didn't "directly" cause the death. The persons who committed suicide did. Both this guy and tobacco companies are indirect methods of killing people. I simply don't think you understand the meaning of direct.
I really wish people like you would stop and think before posting. Your post is so stupid (honestly) that I would think it is a troll and not an honest, reasonable assessment of the situation.
I thought a lot about the situation. It's too bad your only defense seems to be "you didn't think about this". We happen to disagree about some basic philosophical points and ways of thinking of this. Saying I didn't think about this before posting is merely insulting.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried.
What is it that makes you skeptical of global warming, but not skeptical of this? Is it merely the fact that this disaster has already happened and is completely undeniable, but that the global warming disaster is merely predicted to occur based on well established theory?
If you wait until there's undeniable proof, it's already too late. Honestly, what would it take to convince you we need to take global warming seriously and act before the disaster unfolds?
So the difference being what? One has a single "evil person" who does what they do for their own personal sick joy. The other is a group of people working for a large corporation doing what they do for a paycheck. Single evil deceitful individuals should be held responsible for encouraging bad behavior that could potentially result in death, while groups of people doing the same shouldn't? Or is it simply the suicide is an unacceptable form of bad behavior, and eating scientifically proven unhealthy foods in an acceptable form of bad behavior?
The situations are different to be sure, but I do think they're similar enough to warrant comparison between them. What's the real root of the crime here?
Both wind situations wind up with people dead that might not have otherwise died. Both situations involved the direct "choice" of the person who dies. Both situations involve personal gain from the person encouraging bad behavior. Both situations involve deceit. (If you don't think advertisement is a form of deceit, you're not paying attention)
There's plenty of people on this planet I think are extremely deceitful, encourage terrible behavior that winds up directly harming people, and largely do it for their own gain. Some of them even have radio/TV shows! I find what the guy did despicable. But I'm also not entirely sure that what this guy did is, or should be illegal.
The Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinville, OR has a very nice collection of air and space exhibits.
McMinville Oregon you say? Why not just put the thing in Bumfuck Egypt? It's slightly bigger than McMinville.
Joomla is one of the worst GUIs I've ever seen (and thankfully I don't have to use it with any real frequency). It's bad to the point where I asked a Joomla expert how to change a URL link and the ONLY way he could show me how to do it was to provide a screenshot of the UI with arrows and labels. (Joomla doesn't believe in actual.. you know, text labels for it's inexplicable looking tiny icons). The UI is more of a mish-mash of different things that have little or no relation to one another, so you wind up hunting around just to change one element of a page. Making a GUI where it's easier to just go in and hand edit text takes talent.
It also has a horrendous security record, mainly due to the plugins. Anyone reading this considering it as a CMS should look elsewhere if you actually have to support the thing.
You seem to have never worked in 10k+ clicks per second environment.
Like the other 99.99% of the people out their. No.
It still sounds like your architecture wasn't really built to handle your current load, and it's more evolutionary than anything else. If 3% cost increase kills you in the IT world, your business is going to fail soon anyway. 3% returns are what happens in extremely mature markets, not ever changing never mature market of the internet.
At $10M per and a significant fraction of that just to do a teardown and evaluation I'm not sure that anyone wants to fund that kind of research.
Until now. The airlines likely won't do it (and don't have the expertise anyway), but to Airbus or Boeing, the limits of flying through an ash cloud might just be a major selling point.
The reason nobody can say is there's no metrics for uptake by a jet and no guarantee that the ash plume is going to be consistent with whatever testbed is set up.
No. The reason nobody can say is there's been essentially zero reason to DO the controlled tests until possibly now. How often do ash clouds interrupt busy air traffic corridors? Never?
I guarantee you that if ash clouds were an every day occurrence, the limits of the technology to fly through them would be well known. Since it's rare, they aren't. It's no more complicated than that.
Heh. What a lot of work for so little in return. I'm sure it works for you, but I think you're underestimating the average 8th grader. Playing the guessing game of how you think people will react is a losing game. What I just can't fathom is why you don't just put in real security to begin with rather than play these bizarre games which actually sound more complicated, convoluted, and difficult to maintain than just having done it right in the first place.
It sounds like most of what you call obscurity isn't. The other parts someone could already figure out what you're doing without access to the code. Do you really think switching IPs isn't something an 8th grader could figure out in under 5 minutes?
As far as real security "costing a fortune", my guess is that's because you've painted yourself in a corner. Why does it have to cost a fortune if your infra-structure was setup properly and your code was maintainable to begin with?
If what you say is true, access to the code means you're fucked.. well, you're already fucked since insiders naturally have access to your code, and changing the code isn't like just changing passwords.
"Anything you can get away with"
Any definition beyond that is lacking. Does that mean art has no definition? Well yes, which I think was kind of Warhol's point. Considering the shit I've seen in art museums before, I'd say Warhol was spot on.
Roger Ebert should know better.
and simply being concerned because the bad guys have more ability to search for flaws.
Much of the world relies on security systems that are completely open and available to everyone. One of the prime examples is openSSH. Another prime example in openSSL. I don't hear too many people worried that these systems are more vulnerable because attackers have access to the code.
The latter is a pretty natural human reaction to an event like this, regardless of how well designed their security system is, because all designs, and all code, potentially contains flaws, even if designed and implemented by the most brilliant security researchers.
Panic and stupidity are also natural human reactions. Since when did something being "natural" become a justification for something? I can understand the reaction, but that doesn't mean it's right.
It's pretty stupid to rely on code remaining secret. Code is something that's very difficult to make secret as it gets copied all over the place. How many people at Google already have access to it? It seems to me that if Google really wants to be secure they should just release the damn code so "the good guys" also have access to it, since apparently "the bad guys" already do.
it's not uncommon for eruptions to last decades.
The question is what's the history of this particular volcano, not the history of all volcanoes. Humans have been living in Europe for thousands of years now. Had their been a volcano depositing ash for decades, I think someone might have noticed that before. So speculating that this could go on for "decades" is completely unsupported by evidence.
ferries, channel tunnel, trains, automobiles, nope, just won't do... I have driven from London to Athens in less time than many of these people have been sat in airports wringing their hands... I also suspect that it may be CHEAPER to hire a car and drive back home, than to attempt to live in an airport for a week.
Sure, if you knew ahead of time it would be a whole week before air travel resumed again. The first reports I heard were that travel was only suspended until friday, so I'm sure a lot of people hoped it'd just be a couple days. Nobody could possibly know how long the volcano would erupt. Now that it's gone one for more than a couple days the other travel options become a lot more attractive.
Indeed. In fact the height the ash plume reached has changed from Wednesday to Saturday from 8 miles down to 3:
Uhh.. Do you really think people don't already know the basic demographics of the city they live in already? These aren't secrets, so examples are more than a little stupid. As far as your weird "child molester" app goes, somehow I don't think anyone will actually write that application. Even if somebody did, I find it more than a little hard to believe that the thing stopping child molesters is the lack of visualization software to commit their crimes.
Is that really the best you can come up with? Both are extraordinarily lame scenarios.
First, FTFY, that's an assertion not a fact.
I think we've all seen the videos where the police use the taser as a compliance and punishment device, and not to protect their own safety. (And I'm not just talking about the "don't tase me bro" guy.
Second, not when a taser discharge is treated the same as other firearm discahrges by police forces.
Bullshit. The video's I've seen include people talking on a cell phone and the cop tases them because they're not obeying his commands. You really think that was treated the same as other firearm discharges?
It's obvious the police use these things to enforce authority and create intimidation, not as a replacement for the 9mm. Maybe in your part of the country they do use it as a gun replacement, but from what I've seen and read that's the exception, not the rule.
You're torn about a system that requires you to send a text message stating who you are that could contain anything (including, and commonly the president of Mexico, Calderon)? How can someone be torn about such an idiotic system? Let me think for about 2 minutes of the major problems with this system:
Doesn't address anyone with a cell phone they got outside of Mexico.
Doesn't address wi-fi phones with VOIP.
Even if you clean up the above problems, you create a marketplace for illegally registered cell phones in someone elses name. Great, now another criminal enterprise creating fraud, violence, and money to fund more fraud and violence.
The whole thing smacks of just window-dressing. Governments aren't this stupid, though they believe everyone else is. With every difficult problem there's a call for the government to "do something". It's quite obvious to me that this is simply Mexico's way of looking like they're "doing something".
Tell you what, Mr Regulator. Why don't you install "cell phone stops" every 1 mile on the roads, where we can safely pull over and make or receive calls before you tell us that we can't use them.
Are you actually serious? You're really so addicted to making and receiving calls that you feel the need to build special stops "every mile" along the roadside for the express purpose of being able to make a call?
Grow up, and realize you might be out of communication sometimes. If you're such a junkie you can't stand the thought of missing a call for the perhaps 10-15 minutes it might take to pull off to an exit and make your important call.. then you need treatment, not cell phone stops.
Remember that panhandling is illegal in many cities for exactly that reason.
No. Panhandling is illegal because most people find it annoying, and the panhandlers are in no position to find lawmakers to oppose making it illegal. Your idea that it "leads to mugging" is ridiculous.
Anyone that's ever walked around a decent size U.S. city has been approached for money before. This has happened to me perhaps a hundred times. I've yet to be mugged or even seriously threatened by a bum panhandling. Most of the time it's the "gas can scam" with someone claiming they "ran out of gas" and need some small amount of money. This is really just panhandling with a touch of fraud added in.
I'm not uncomfortable around homosexuals in social settings. But the thought of guy-on-guy is pretty yucky to me. Does that make me a homophobe?
No. Dan Savage (sex advice columnist) has commented several times that gay men find hetero sex pretty disgusting. Most people would say they'd find sex between old people disgusting.
My conclusion is that sex is essentially kind of disgusting unless you happen to find the particular people involved sexy. Homophobia (or discrimination in general) would only come into play if you thought the parties involved were themselves disgusting for engaging in the act rather than the act itself being disgusting. I don't like limburger cheese, think it's kind of disgusting, and don't want to eat it myself or be near someone eating it. But I don't think less of anyone that enjoys it.
find the most obtuse, difficult to maintain, esoteric software stack in the industry today, give it away for free, then charge for support.
You've really miss-categorized the Microsoft software stack in a couple of important ways. First of all, it's not free. Secondly, while they do charge for support, they make most of their money off of people hoping the NEXT version will magically fix all the problems of the last one. You're certainly right about everything else though. It's quite difficult to maintain it, with patches suddenly breaking random parts of the stack in completely random and unexpected ways. It's often times Microsoft's own software that breaks!
With new technologies, and the technologies developed as a result of the previous technologies so far has proved you wrong.
Huh? New technologies can't escape the fact that the world is made of atoms. Moore's law is largely the same technologies of photo-lithography on silicon improved and improved again. I'm sure there's a lot of innovation that occurs, but it can't escape the fact that the silicon atom is of a finitely large size.
quantum computing technologies. The latter will usher in a whole other subset of programming and processing philosophies.
Maybe. When betting that some insanely promising new technology is going to take off "just around the corner", you're taking a huge risk. It might happen as you say, or it might be way to hard to adapt to be useful to anyone but cryptographers and scientific researchers.
Stability (by definition) is the antithesis to the IT industry.
Baloney. Eventually the Moore's law gravy train that's been responsible for a lot of the continued development and the rapid change will be over. When that will happen I don't know, but it will. Much of the innovations of new languages has been at least in part been a result of Moore's law. Sure, the change and innovation will likely never stop, but it will slow. Even farming has innovation and change in it and it's one of the oldest activities we have.
Think I'm wrong? Imagine what the world would be like if Moore's law stopped 20 years ago with the transistor count of the 486. That will herald a different era, likely geared towards doing more with the same amount of stuff.