You seem very good at classifying the killings, but completely fail to classify the big picture by calling it a "war".

Here's the pedantic war reply I was expecting, despite the obvious fact that it's not legally a war.

If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?

pedant |ˈpednt| noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.

Or you know is tired of seeing every thread turning to an Apple flame.

This is actually very much relevant to the recent news. Yesterday you have Apple removing valid complaints from one user about their products, while Dell has a very different company approach to let the information flow transparently among their followers. This thread would not even have appeared if there were no such transparency.

Look at it a different way. If a bug was found that could kill sshd, then a local user could replace it.

Anything connecting to this replacement sshd would immediately be spotted as fraudulent due to keys.

Now imagine a million people from all over the world passing by. Would hiding the wallet in the shoe help?

Did we forget any to our way to the mall maybe? Animals seem to be able to handle their young ones without counting them too.

What would you do differently if it was 5 or 8 wolves? Having concepts like "a few" and "a lot" seems to be enough for this case.

Decide whether to send one or two of your group of 8 hunters after each of the wolves?

I'm going to guess that this was not posted in /r/TalesFromYourServer. The mere fact that it attracted so many comments means that it was posted on one of the "average" reddits.

It was posted on /r/nyc. Which isn't a default sub-reddit, but would probably still be subscribed by "average" users.

Of course, why should he stay more if he has been rehabilitated?

Because rehabilitation is a very nebulous concept. Does it mean having employable skills? Being nice to a parole board? Being apologetic? The reason many in the US are very skeptical about rehabilitation is because there's not a strong link between rehabilitation efforts and recidivism rates. There are far too many factors involved than whether the prisoner was treated "well" while incarcerated.

And if "rehabilitation" is all that's required for freedom, it shows a disconcerting lack of value for the victims of crime.

> there's not a strong link between rehabilitation efforts and recidivism rates.

[citation needed] for that claim.

I'm friends with a woman who works with prisoner rehabilitation and treatment of violent prisoners and sex offenders, and the work they do is scientifically sound, using evidence-based methods. There are very strong, proven casual links between the rehabilitation and recidivism.

Try, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sex+offender+evidence+ba...

> And if "rehabilitation" is all that's required for freedom, it shows a disconcerting lack of value for the victims of crime.

Indeed. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." -- Lord Hewart

Have you ever seen Shawshank Redemption? Sometimes you can tell when someone is truly rehabilitated. Yes, it is a hard problem, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to employ a system more just for all involved.

I think basing our ideas about incarceration on a Stephen King movie and novella isn't the wisest strategy, any more than using The Silence of the Lambs would be.

Also, it doesn't look very active: https://libdispatch.macosforge.org/trac/log/

Exactly, I think it is more relevant to compare to e.g. glib.