How about some links to some stories about Democrats "doing bad things" that omit the fact that they're Democrats? Or would you instead like to continue arguing with your strawman about whether Democrats never do anything wrong?
Who cares what time it is, except "twilight", when hiking in BFE (whatever that is)?
The watch I bought from him runs on batteries too. But when it stops, I suppose it will be right twice a day. Except at night in the BFE, when I won't be able to read it.
Earlier this year I bought an analog wristwatch from an old coot who claimed to be "the last certified watchmaker left in New York City". I bought one from him, though I could tell from my NTP-sync'ed mobile phone that his own watch was 2 minutes slow.
I was in a room with a Master of the Way of the Dodo.
You mean like the "disbelief" (and ethical) suspension required to run the communications operations of a Republican Congressmember, like the crook getting burned in this story?
Let's see some evidence of your assertion. I'm sure you can cherry-pick the many stories about (usually made-up) Democrats "doing bad things" that omit that they're Democrats. And from the tiny representation in stories of Republicans "doing bad things" (like breaking the law from an elected office), I'm sure you can find those few that mention that they're Republicans.
While you're at it, let's see what "Sandy Berger story" you're talking about, since you insist on changing the subject to something totally irrelevant to this Republican's crime. Then I'll easily show with a quick Google how overexposed were the Republican lies published without criticism in mass media about whatever it is that you obviously heard on the Rush Limbo Junkie Dream Hour.
No, really, I want to see how you turn this story about a Republican criminal racketeer into a story about Democrats, by making things up. After all, if you're going to carry water for these Republican criminals like your Republican media pipeline, I'm here to help you drown.
The way to deal with this is for browsers to look for standard redistribution licenses, like Creative Commons gradations, in a standard place, like http://website.domain.tld/copyright-license.xml , much like robots.txt against searching. Then the browser should display a big brown "BULLSHIT" stamp across any page published on the Web without access control.
And make posting messages to maillists with 40-line ".sigs" threatening torture and nuke attack when anyone redistributes some message posted from some corporate email account a call to arms for finding the poster. With a mob of angry list subscribers armed with torches and pitchforks.
We'll get this Intubeweb thang unkinked and safe for democracy someday.
Forget it - even ECODE and CODE tags don't preserve the (multiple) newlines that make it really readable. And Slashdot's lame filter complains that 33.0 characters per line is too few.
Maj.min.patch-build is pretty standard, but what the numbers mean has been all over the place. In Silicon Valley where I learned the meanings (starting in 1990), in NYC (mostly Wall Street) where I saw it confirmed, and in Toronto where I taught all my own developers out of school, those numbers mean the same thing I mentioned. Clear meanings usable by SW producers and consumers alike. Telling you when to upgrade, and what the costs/risks would be. A separate meaning from the development process' goals: the meaning is the results.
As for K&R etc, I usually ride that hobby horse when it's ontopic. Just to keep the ball rolling, I go with:// Comment describes function's function. type3 functionName(type arg1, type2 arg2) {// Comment describes function's approach.
type3 localVarNameT3, anotherT3;
*type3 localVarNameT3Ptr;
type4 localVarNameT4;// Comment describes first phase.// Comment describes first step;
statement;
localVarNameT3Ptr =
(f() > 2)? arg1 : arg2;// Comment describes second step on all iterations.
while(localVarNameT3 = 0; localVarNameT3 2)? arg1 : arg2;// Comment describes second step on all iterations.
while(localVarNameT3 = 0; localVarNameT3 = GLOBAL_DEF; ++localVarNameT3)
{// Comment describes each iteration.// Comment describes first step.
if(step())
{// Comment describes what step's true result means.
localVarNameT4 = localVarNameT3 * 2;
}
else
{// Comment describes what step's false result means.//
}
}// optional "while" repeat condition, if lots of braced blocks
cleanupStatement();// Comment describes next phase.// Comment describes first step of next phase;
anotherStatement;...// Comment describes return value's meaning.
return(localVarNameT3Ptr); }// function1Name// Comment describes function2Name's function. void function2Name(type arg1, type2 arg2) {// Comment describes function2Name's approach....
I remember 80s MS. I learned C with MS C v5, so I guess they "got it out of beta" by then. As I recall, they did - it was IBM which hadn't gotten the PC out of beta, because it still required extra packages to cope with "Extended Memory", "Expanded Memory" and even "memory models" (ranging to "huge" for >1MB, I think I recall) hardcoded as compiler flags.
I agree that MS was abusing the naming system before Netscape was created in 1994. But what SW did MS release in the 80s that was even v3? Not that such history contradicts your statement...
Your nomenclature is meaningful only (to some people) within your organization. What does "a good deal" or "fairly" mean? Or even "the rest of the bugs"? Numbers assigned to those conditions don't mean anything except whenever it was convenient to declare those completely unaccountable statuses "the next version". There's no info value in the numbers, and no way to know when to assign the numbers.
There is a relationship between versioning (and its numbers) and development/release workflow. But your scheme is just more arbitrary names. Who gives a shit, except marketing? The scheme I detailed is not only objectively informative to everyone, private and public, but had been used for years with those meanings until Netscape simultaneously exploded both SW distribution and marketsprach naming.
Does anyone link the Java VM right into a kernel, so it doesn't have to load like an app every time a Java app/let starts? Maybe just as a kernel module? Would that violate the sandbox security? How about a pool of VM daemons? Maybe listening to a network socket into which Java bytecode can be sent for execution, like a webserver that runs against code, not request data. But more tightly integrated to the OS than, say, Tomcat or another JAS.
If not, will the open source of Java help any existing projects do any of that?
It's still going to have bugs, like all SW (and everything else). Most of its users won't notice the difference with the qualitative version change, except maybe the usual new features magically appearing. So what's the difference between "Beta" and "release", when the Beta was a "public Beta release"?
I bet it's just some way to start charging money for access. Might as well drop the "Beta" designation, and just call "releases" the "money release".
FWIW (little, post-Netscape), "Alpha/Beta/Release" aren't subjective names. "Alpha" is a version tested (used) by people who also designed/implemented it. "Beta" is a version tested by people who didn't design/test it, unless perhaps the design/test team did get them to produce and/or review acceptance tests/criteria. And "Release" is the version that has been tested OK against release criteria.
To be complete, correct version numbering isn't very subjective, either. The format is >major<.>minor<.>patch< . Bugfixes (not new features) increment the "patch" number. Format changes, in API, transmission (eg. network) or storage (eg. files) still backwards compatible increment the minor number. Feature changes still using the same UI increment the minor number. Format changes not backwards compatible, feature changes which change the UI, or transformational bugfixes which change either formats or UI to break backwards compatibility all increment the major number. Incremental builds can extend the numbers with a dash (eg. "2.13b4.77-154", for the 154th build of the 77th bugfix of the 4th beta of version 2.13), but only in Alpha and Beta versions, not actual releases. A good project's bug reporting will list bugs by their reported ID in lists of which bugfix release fixes them. "Release Candidate" numbers are just nicknames for the last in the series of Betas. Much as the the b1 version is identical to the last Alpha version.
That's it. Each number change should have an Alpha/Beta/Release version, though Alphas can sometimes be skipped with tiny bugfixes. So there's no need for "odd/even" version numbering to reflect "development" versions. And numbers are sequential, except of course when a higher order number increments, resetting the smaller order number (eg. 2.13.77 -> 2.14.0 ->2.14.1). Version numbers have been hijacked by marketdroids, which just confuses the market they bamboozle, which is ultimately bad for sales, and even worse for costs of support. The version number should tell people whether to upgrade, and whether their old data, training and related activities will be noticeably impacted (with associated extra costs).
Netscape broke everything with it's "public Beta" release that defined Web SW distribution. Microsoft has made the curse ubiquitous with SW versions 1, 2, 3 standing in for Alpha, Beta, Release, but mixing it up with new features to substitute for bugfixes. And Service Pack versions that form an entire new chain, and ongoing patches, and every other unmanageable version numbering "scheme" possible. And Linux distros continue the damage with the odd/even numbering and arbitrary versioning, with major releases measured in minor numbers, requiring various extra versions, and version numbering of each release for each distro.
But the numbering schemes change monthly, quarterly. If developers just return to the simple discipline, we'll get back to numbers that actually mean something helpful to users and developers, not just marketdroids counting up to their next bonus.
Actually, the CF USB host cards get most of the way there. Thanks for the tip.
Though it would be even better to find an SDIO USB host, because my preferred PDAs use SD/IO, but apparently they're not out yet. So maybe I should be whining about the "silos" of different physical interface slots ghettoizing functions, instead of functions like USB host available in generic chips that connect with tiny adapters to any of the CF/SD/MS/etc interfaces.
And that's why the US Treasury announced a surplus, from all the fines collected from all that spam violating the CAN-SPAM Act. We're funding free WiFi for every American, while exterminating all the spammers!
I'm not talking about law. IANAL, and I'm not even a parent. It's clear to me that parents are responsible for their kids actions, until those kids are responsible for them themselves. That's mainly about 16-18, depending on the kind of action and the individual kid. The law might have to err on the side of caution in making a single age standard for everyone, or switch to some kind of analytical test (though testing for copyright responsibility seems totally impractical).
Someone is responsible for every act. If the kid's not responsible, then their parent is. Even if someone else "made them do it", their parent is responsible for making sure the kid isn't made to do it. Or is responsible for remedying some rare cases of kids forced by someone responsible. Or by that person's parents, if the forcer is another kid.
If a parent can't understand what their kid is doing in real effects, like breaking copyright laws, then that parent is irresponsible to let the kid have the power do do wrong that way, outside their control.
I don't have to be a lawyer, or a parent, to understand the basics of personal responsibility. Maybe because my own parents raised me right. Not to be a lawyer;).
This whole thing is stupid six ways from Sunday. Of course the mother is responsible for her children's lawbreaking behavior, even if she doesn't know how they do it, or how the law works. If she didn't know "glock from Spock", would she not be responsible if her kids smuggled plastic guns onto a transatlantic flight?
But they didn't smuggle guns. Maybe they did redistribute some files. In which case they might be liable for negligible damages. And the stupid copyright law should be changed, even if just for the survival of a music biz that obviously can't figure out how to make money from the "remix culture" that is where all the cool kids are. All the RIAA knows how to do is rip off musicians and resell the same crapola in new crapola-wrap, protected by politicians they bribe.
Will the legacy of the RIAA finally be to not only kill Rock & Roll, but to put actual chains on kids by making their parents totally irresponsible?
What about no PC USB networks? I want my PDA as GUI to use my camera and its storage, without a PC in the loop. But those "peripherals" are all USB slave devices, requiring a USB master, like the PC, to control the comms. Is this MultiSwitch the master, making a PC another slave? Or some other way to hook smart little USB devices directly on a truly universal bus, without a PC calling the shots?
Well, there might not be a need by Palm for a Linux-based OS, if they're going to become a Windows platform with PalmOS extras. And thence to oblivion, as PalmOS development will just rot, especially with the pathetic support Palm offers to Palm developers.
But mobile developers have a need for a Linux-based OS. Especially if it can run legacy PalmOS apps, and its familiar GUI that millions of enthusiastic customers already know. And if it can run the many existing Linux apps, even as components, under a PalmOS GUI layer. That is a great architecture, especially if GNOME or KDE is also an option, which is the plan. Because Linux is the best developer environment going, the main reason Microsoft is afraid of the platform. And Linux is a much better OS for mobile devices than power-hungry Windows or moribund PalmOS. Access has got one.
So there's plenty of reasons Access should deliver the product whose announcement was so warmly received. Where's the release?
When Access bought PalmOS last year, they announced they were rewriting it into a PalmOS GUI layer for backwards compatibility, and putting that on top of a Linux distro (from the China Mobilesoft company they'd also bought). They said they'd release it by the end of this year, on a new Palm phone. There's a new Treo750 out: does it run Linux? If not, there's a newish Treo700W that runs Windows - can that phone's full functions run some other Linux that runs on "Windows" mobile PCs?
Frankly, it's obvious that you are a partisan Republican who thinks politicians are crooks only when they get caught.
You and the 50M other Republican kleptocrats are the reason that presidents act above the law. Catchphrases like "nothing new here" and "a republic, not a pure democracy" (especially when you capitalize those nouns") reveal your interest in politics, not justice. Even your Rumsfeldian "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Tra la la la la.
There's no "debate" going on here. You're not interested in the truth. You're interested in the Republicans you voted for getting away with murder. I agree that we shouldn't "debate" this any more, because neither of us will gain anything except our low expectations of each other confirmed.
Slashdot Mirror
How about some links to some stories about Democrats "doing bad things" that omit the fact that they're Democrats? Or would you instead like to continue arguing with your strawman about whether Democrats never do anything wrong?
Who cares what time it is, except "twilight", when hiking in BFE (whatever that is)?
The watch I bought from him runs on batteries too. But when it stops, I suppose it will be right twice a day. Except at night in the BFE, when I won't be able to read it.
Anything more recent than 45 years ago? And I suppose it was Democrats who assassinated the president and his later presidential frontrunner.
Earlier this year I bought an analog wristwatch from an old coot who claimed to be "the last certified watchmaker left in New York City". I bought one from him, though I could tell from my NTP-sync'ed mobile phone that his own watch was 2 minutes slow.
I was in a room with a Master of the Way of the Dodo.
You mean like the "disbelief" (and ethical) suspension required to run the communications operations of a Republican Congressmember, like the crook getting burned in this story?
Let's see some evidence of your assertion. I'm sure you can cherry-pick the many stories about (usually made-up) Democrats "doing bad things" that omit that they're Democrats. And from the tiny representation in stories of Republicans "doing bad things" (like breaking the law from an elected office), I'm sure you can find those few that mention that they're Republicans.
While you're at it, let's see what "Sandy Berger story" you're talking about, since you insist on changing the subject to something totally irrelevant to this Republican's crime. Then I'll easily show with a quick Google how overexposed were the Republican lies published without criticism in mass media about whatever it is that you obviously heard on the Rush Limbo Junkie Dream Hour.
No, really, I want to see how you turn this story about a Republican criminal racketeer into a story about Democrats, by making things up. After all, if you're going to carry water for these Republican criminals like your Republican media pipeline, I'm here to help you drown.
The way to deal with this is for browsers to look for standard redistribution licenses, like Creative Commons gradations, in a standard place, like http://website.domain.tld/copyright-license.xml , much like robots.txt against searching. Then the browser should display a big brown "BULLSHIT" stamp across any page published on the Web without access control.
And make posting messages to maillists with 40-line ".sigs" threatening torture and nuke attack when anyone redistributes some message posted from some corporate email account a call to arms for finding the poster. With a mob of angry list subscribers armed with torches and pitchforks.
We'll get this Intubeweb thang unkinked and safe for democracy someday.
Forget it - even ECODE and CODE tags don't preserve the (multiple) newlines that make it really readable. And Slashdot's lame filter complains that 33.0 characters per line is too few.
Maj.min.patch-build is pretty standard, but what the numbers mean has been all over the place. In Silicon Valley where I learned the meanings (starting in 1990), in NYC (mostly Wall Street) where I saw it confirmed, and in Toronto where I taught all my own developers out of school, those numbers mean the same thing I mentioned. Clear meanings usable by SW producers and consumers alike. Telling you when to upgrade, and what the costs/risks would be. A separate meaning from the development process' goals: the meaning is the results.
// Comment describes function's function. // Comment describes function's approach. // Comment describes first phase. // Comment describes first step; // Comment describes second step on all iterations. // Comment describes second step on all iterations. // Comment describes each iteration. // Comment describes first step. // Comment describes what step's true result means. // Comment describes what step's false result means. // // optional "while" repeat condition, if lots of braced blocks // Comment describes next phase. // Comment describes first step of next phase; ... // Comment describes return value's meaning. // function1Name // Comment describes function2Name's function. // Comment describes function2Name's approach. ...
As for K&R etc, I usually ride that hobby horse when it's ontopic. Just to keep the ball rolling, I go with:
type3 functionName(type arg1, type2 arg2)
{
type3 localVarNameT3, anotherT3;
*type3 localVarNameT3Ptr;
type4 localVarNameT4;
statement;
localVarNameT3Ptr =
(f() > 2)? arg1 : arg2;
while(localVarNameT3 = 0; localVarNameT3 2)? arg1 : arg2;
while(localVarNameT3 = 0; localVarNameT3 = GLOBAL_DEF; ++localVarNameT3)
{
if(step())
{
localVarNameT4 = localVarNameT3 * 2;
}
else
{
}
}
cleanupStatement();
anotherStatement;
return(localVarNameT3Ptr);
}
void function2Name(type arg1, type2 arg2)
{
BTW, I write the comments first.
I remember 80s MS. I learned C with MS C v5, so I guess they "got it out of beta" by then. As I recall, they did - it was IBM which hadn't gotten the PC out of beta, because it still required extra packages to cope with "Extended Memory", "Expanded Memory" and even "memory models" (ranging to "huge" for >1MB, I think I recall) hardcoded as compiler flags.
I agree that MS was abusing the naming system before Netscape was created in 1994. But what SW did MS release in the 80s that was even v3? Not that such history contradicts your statement...
Your nomenclature is meaningful only (to some people) within your organization. What does "a good deal" or "fairly" mean? Or even "the rest of the bugs"? Numbers assigned to those conditions don't mean anything except whenever it was convenient to declare those completely unaccountable statuses "the next version". There's no info value in the numbers, and no way to know when to assign the numbers.
There is a relationship between versioning (and its numbers) and development/release workflow. But your scheme is just more arbitrary names. Who gives a shit, except marketing? The scheme I detailed is not only objectively informative to everyone, private and public, but had been used for years with those meanings until Netscape simultaneously exploded both SW distribution and marketsprach naming.
Does anyone link the Java VM right into a kernel, so it doesn't have to load like an app every time a Java app/let starts? Maybe just as a kernel module? Would that violate the sandbox security? How about a pool of VM daemons? Maybe listening to a network socket into which Java bytecode can be sent for execution, like a webserver that runs against code, not request data. But more tightly integrated to the OS than, say, Tomcat or another JAS.
If not, will the open source of Java help any existing projects do any of that?
It's still going to have bugs, like all SW (and everything else). Most of its users won't notice the difference with the qualitative version change, except maybe the usual new features magically appearing. So what's the difference between "Beta" and "release", when the Beta was a "public Beta release"?
I bet it's just some way to start charging money for access. Might as well drop the "Beta" designation, and just call "releases" the "money release".
FWIW (little, post-Netscape), "Alpha/Beta/Release" aren't subjective names. "Alpha" is a version tested (used) by people who also designed/implemented it. "Beta" is a version tested by people who didn't design/test it, unless perhaps the design/test team did get them to produce and/or review acceptance tests/criteria. And "Release" is the version that has been tested OK against release criteria.
To be complete, correct version numbering isn't very subjective, either. The format is >major<.>minor<.>patch< . Bugfixes (not new features) increment the "patch" number. Format changes, in API, transmission (eg. network) or storage (eg. files) still backwards compatible increment the minor number. Feature changes still using the same UI increment the minor number. Format changes not backwards compatible, feature changes which change the UI, or transformational bugfixes which change either formats or UI to break backwards compatibility all increment the major number. Incremental builds can extend the numbers with a dash (eg. "2.13b4.77-154", for the 154th build of the 77th bugfix of the 4th beta of version 2.13), but only in Alpha and Beta versions, not actual releases. A good project's bug reporting will list bugs by their reported ID in lists of which bugfix release fixes them. "Release Candidate" numbers are just nicknames for the last in the series of Betas. Much as the the b1 version is identical to the last Alpha version.
That's it. Each number change should have an Alpha/Beta/Release version, though Alphas can sometimes be skipped with tiny bugfixes. So there's no need for "odd/even" version numbering to reflect "development" versions. And numbers are sequential, except of course when a higher order number increments, resetting the smaller order number (eg. 2.13.77 -> 2.14.0 ->2.14.1). Version numbers have been hijacked by marketdroids, which just confuses the market they bamboozle, which is ultimately bad for sales, and even worse for costs of support. The version number should tell people whether to upgrade, and whether their old data, training and related activities will be noticeably impacted (with associated extra costs).
Netscape broke everything with it's "public Beta" release that defined Web SW distribution. Microsoft has made the curse ubiquitous with SW versions 1, 2, 3 standing in for Alpha, Beta, Release, but mixing it up with new features to substitute for bugfixes. And Service Pack versions that form an entire new chain, and ongoing patches, and every other unmanageable version numbering "scheme" possible. And Linux distros continue the damage with the odd/even numbering and arbitrary versioning, with major releases measured in minor numbers, requiring various extra versions, and version numbering of each release for each distro.
But the numbering schemes change monthly, quarterly. If developers just return to the simple discipline, we'll get back to numbers that actually mean something helpful to users and developers, not just marketdroids counting up to their next bonus.
Actually, the CF USB host cards get most of the way there. Thanks for the tip.
Though it would be even better to find an SDIO USB host, because my preferred PDAs use SD/IO, but apparently they're not out yet. So maybe I should be whining about the "silos" of different physical interface slots ghettoizing functions, instead of functions like USB host available in generic chips that connect with tiny adapters to any of the CF/SD/MS/etc interfaces.
That's just another way they're keeping you down.
I can't wait to connect all my USB devices to each other with FireWire. Or use all those cheap FireWire versions of my devices.
And that's why the US Treasury announced a surplus, from all the fines collected from all that spam violating the CAN-SPAM Act. We're funding free WiFi for every American, while exterminating all the spammers!
I'm not talking about law. IANAL, and I'm not even a parent. It's clear to me that parents are responsible for their kids actions, until those kids are responsible for them themselves. That's mainly about 16-18, depending on the kind of action and the individual kid. The law might have to err on the side of caution in making a single age standard for everyone, or switch to some kind of analytical test (though testing for copyright responsibility seems totally impractical).
;).
Someone is responsible for every act. If the kid's not responsible, then their parent is. Even if someone else "made them do it", their parent is responsible for making sure the kid isn't made to do it. Or is responsible for remedying some rare cases of kids forced by someone responsible. Or by that person's parents, if the forcer is another kid.
If a parent can't understand what their kid is doing in real effects, like breaking copyright laws, then that parent is irresponsible to let the kid have the power do do wrong that way, outside their control.
I don't have to be a lawyer, or a parent, to understand the basics of personal responsibility. Maybe because my own parents raised me right. Not to be a lawyer
This whole thing is stupid six ways from Sunday. Of course the mother is responsible for her children's lawbreaking behavior, even if she doesn't know how they do it, or how the law works. If she didn't know "glock from Spock", would she not be responsible if her kids smuggled plastic guns onto a transatlantic flight?
But they didn't smuggle guns. Maybe they did redistribute some files. In which case they might be liable for negligible damages. And the stupid copyright law should be changed, even if just for the survival of a music biz that obviously can't figure out how to make money from the "remix culture" that is where all the cool kids are. All the RIAA knows how to do is rip off musicians and resell the same crapola in new crapola-wrap, protected by politicians they bribe.
Will the legacy of the RIAA finally be to not only kill Rock & Roll, but to put actual chains on kids by making their parents totally irresponsible?
What about no PC USB networks? I want my PDA as GUI to use my camera and its storage, without a PC in the loop. But those "peripherals" are all USB slave devices, requiring a USB master, like the PC, to control the comms. Is this MultiSwitch the master, making a PC another slave? Or some other way to hook smart little USB devices directly on a truly universal bus, without a PC calling the shots?
Well, there might not be a need by Palm for a Linux-based OS, if they're going to become a Windows platform with PalmOS extras. And thence to oblivion, as PalmOS development will just rot, especially with the pathetic support Palm offers to Palm developers.
But mobile developers have a need for a Linux-based OS. Especially if it can run legacy PalmOS apps, and its familiar GUI that millions of enthusiastic customers already know. And if it can run the many existing Linux apps, even as components, under a PalmOS GUI layer. That is a great architecture, especially if GNOME or KDE is also an option, which is the plan. Because Linux is the best developer environment going, the main reason Microsoft is afraid of the platform. And Linux is a much better OS for mobile devices than power-hungry Windows or moribund PalmOS. Access has got one.
So there's plenty of reasons Access should deliver the product whose announcement was so warmly received. Where's the release?
When Access bought PalmOS last year, they announced they were rewriting it into a PalmOS GUI layer for backwards compatibility, and putting that on top of a Linux distro (from the China Mobilesoft company they'd also bought). They said they'd release it by the end of this year, on a new Palm phone. There's a new Treo750 out: does it run Linux? If not, there's a newish Treo700W that runs Windows - can that phone's full functions run some other Linux that runs on "Windows" mobile PCs?
Frankly, it's obvious that you are a partisan Republican who thinks politicians are crooks only when they get caught.
You and the 50M other Republican kleptocrats are the reason that presidents act above the law. Catchphrases like "nothing new here" and "a republic, not a pure democracy" (especially when you capitalize those nouns") reveal your interest in politics, not justice. Even your Rumsfeldian "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Tra la la la la.
There's no "debate" going on here. You're not interested in the truth. You're interested in the Republicans you voted for getting away with murder. I agree that we shouldn't "debate" this any more, because neither of us will gain anything except our low expectations of each other confirmed.
See you in court.
No, it's obvious. If you want it from an actual prosecutor, read the book.