Or 3) He has no intention of going through with denuclearization, and this is just a stunt to get sanctions temporarily lifted.
NK has a long history of making promises to end their missile and nuclear weapons programs in exchange for some type of compensation, then reneging on those promises when it suits them.
If anyone depends on your software, then using major/minor/patch version numbers to distinguish which changes are backwards incompatible, feature additions, and bug fixes is very helpful to those downstream. See https://semver.org/
I would also be impressed, but I seriously doubt that it's true.
Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings. It's really hard for me to believe they lost 1 in 10 users in the US.
I agree that freedom of speech should absolutely be protected, but politically-motivated coercion is not simply "speech".
If you agree that incitement to violence would be unprotected by the first amendment, then it follows that a public official threatening someone's job over a political statement could fall into a similar category of unprotected speech.
Trump's comments were potentially illegal given his status as a member of the executive branch of government, and that he was encouraging a private entity to fire an employee based on what might be interpreted as a political stance.
Just remember that the yahoos cheering Trump's comments don't speak for all conservatives. While around 3/4 republicans currently "approve" of Trump (a pretty low bar, but it's a disappointing figure nonetheless), there are quite a few conservatives like myself who are vocally opposed to Trump and his attacks on personal freedoms in this country. I hope he gets prosecuted for this.
I agree that more training for those who want to carry firearms would be good, but gun owners rightfully fear more gun legislation. The government has a history of badly implementing good intentions when it comes to gun law.
As the other poster said, it's not really easy to stop cars from running people over. Happens all the time (usually not intentionally).
Also, it's not hard to turn a pressure cooker into a bomb as you're claiming. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...: "Pressure cooker bombs are relatively easy to construct". High explosives (like TNT, C4) are not required and low explosives can be used (gasoline, gunpowder), which is part of the reason for how easy they are to make.
Yeah, I agree. Most of the discussions in this thread seems to forget that tests should cover any type errors potentially introduced by using a weakly typed language.
I would go further and say that if you're using a compiled, strongly-typed language instead of a comprehensive set of tests, you're doing it wrong.
This. Actually getting robbed (or raped) will drastically alter your perspective.
In 2015 there were more than 327k robberies and 90k rapes in the US. That the author personally wasn't one of them is irrelevant and doesn't change anybody else's odds. It is confirmation bias which leads the author to conclude that fears of being robbed are unfounded (apparently a belief based solely on his own personal experiences).
As someone who has been robbed, I know that my biases lean in the other direction. However, the facts say that in the United States your odds of being robbed in a given year are roughly 1/1000. In certain urban areas, it will obviously be much higher. Thus, for many people, a fear or expectation of being robbed is not irrational or unfounded.
They do have their own police force. And, just as in other gun-free zones, only that police force may have weapons on the base (as you quoted). And in this case, as in the recent shooting, there weren't any police present when the shooting initially occurred.
So, when you said the base was "literally full of highly trained people with guns", that was wrong. Only a small percentage did. Maybe you don't realize how big a military base is, but there are some 45,000 soldiers and 9,000 civilians on the base. How many of those do you think were LEOs, MPs or on guard duty?
From the linked wikipdia article on the 2009 shooting:
According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform,[30] who - in accordance with military policy - were not carrying personal firearms.
Slashdot Mirror
Or 3) He has no intention of going through with denuclearization, and this is just a stunt to get sanctions temporarily lifted.
NK has a long history of making promises to end their missile and nuclear weapons programs in exchange for some type of compensation, then reneging on those promises when it suits them.
https://www.armscontrol.org/fa...
Many version numbers in software are meaningful.
If anyone depends on your software, then using major/minor/patch version numbers to distinguish which changes are backwards incompatible, feature additions, and bug fixes is very helpful to those downstream. See https://semver.org/
I would also be impressed, but I seriously doubt that it's true.
Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings.
It's really hard for me to believe they lost 1 in 10 users in the US.
My thoughts exactly.
Bad example maybe? Doesn't seem to have happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
XKCD: https://xkcd.com/505/
As long as our universe's time doesn't run 1:1 with the simulator's universe, our universe could be simulated on a TI-83 calculator.
I agree that freedom of speech should absolutely be protected, but politically-motivated coercion is not simply "speech".
If you agree that incitement to violence would be unprotected by the first amendment, then it follows that a public official threatening someone's job over a political statement could fall into a similar category of unprotected speech.
Trump's comments were potentially illegal given his status as a member of the executive branch of government, and that he was encouraging a private entity to fire an employee based on what might be interpreted as a political stance.
See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
IANAL, so I don't know how well such a lawsuit would actually fare, but it seems like a possibility.
Would mod up if I had points...
Just remember that the yahoos cheering Trump's comments don't speak for all conservatives. While around 3/4 republicans currently "approve" of Trump (a pretty low bar, but it's a disappointing figure nonetheless), there are quite a few conservatives like myself who are vocally opposed to Trump and his attacks on personal freedoms in this country. I hope he gets prosecuted for this.
I agree that more training for those who want to carry firearms would be good, but gun owners rightfully fear more gun legislation. The government has a history of badly implementing good intentions when it comes to gun law.
As the other poster said, it's not really easy to stop cars from running people over. Happens all the time (usually not intentionally).
Also, it's not hard to turn a pressure cooker into a bomb as you're claiming.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...: "Pressure cooker bombs are relatively easy to construct".
High explosives (like TNT, C4) are not required and low explosives can be used (gasoline, gunpowder), which is part of the reason for how easy they are to make.
Yeah, I agree. Most of the discussions in this thread seems to forget that tests should cover any type errors potentially introduced by using a weakly typed language.
I would go further and say that if you're using a compiled, strongly-typed language instead of a comprehensive set of tests, you're doing it wrong.
Nice! +1
An exaggeration, sure, but the above post shouldn't have been downmodded.
There are lots of instances of ISPs strangling municipal broadband movements either through lobbying or direct legal action.
This. Actually getting robbed (or raped) will drastically alter your perspective.
In 2015 there were more than 327k robberies and 90k rapes in the US. That the author personally wasn't one of them is irrelevant and doesn't change anybody else's odds. It is confirmation bias which leads the author to conclude that fears of being robbed are unfounded (apparently a belief based solely on his own personal experiences).
As someone who has been robbed, I know that my biases lean in the other direction. However, the facts say that in the United States your odds of being robbed in a given year are roughly 1/1000. In certain urban areas, it will obviously be much higher. Thus, for many people, a fear or expectation of being robbed is not irrational or unfounded.
This does not have anything to do with Congress' browser histories.
This tool makes it easier to determine if Congress visits YOUR WEBSITE ONLY.
This info is in the summary, but come on SlashDot, there is no need for the clickbait headlines.
Comey's memos were intentionally unclassified. The same can't be said of Snowden's leak.
I don't think Comey actually broke any rules.
Yeah, same here...
Trump has been a net benefit to the world
[Citation Needed]
Details on cushy ambassadorships via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...
Yeah, I was pretty skeptical when I saw "unlimited".
Sure enough, just Slashdot editors goofing up summaries again. Seriously BeauHD, unlimited does not mean the same thing as "rotating selection of 50".
Truthfully, I'm glad your interested enough in this topic to look into it further.
I suggest you don't take my word on any of this, and actually read some of the first hand accounts of what happened at Fort Hood in 2009.
True enough.
Of course I meant to say 'On Duty' MPs... As you quoted above, if they weren't on duty, they couldn't carry.
They do have their own police force. And, just as in other gun-free zones, only that police force may have weapons on the base (as you quoted). And in this case, as in the recent shooting, there weren't any police present when the shooting initially occurred.
So, when you said the base was "literally full of highly trained people with guns", that was wrong. Only a small percentage did. Maybe you don't realize how big a military base is, but there are some 45,000 soldiers and 9,000 civilians on the base. How many of those do you think were LEOs, MPs or on guard duty?
From the linked wikipdia article on the 2009 shooting:
According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform,[30] who - in accordance with military policy - were not carrying personal firearms.
Foot Hood is actually a pretty bad example to support the gun control argument. Fort Hood was and is essentially a gun-free zone.
All those "highly trained people"? They weren't allowed to carry firearms on base.