And since people attempting to exploit vulnerabilities in Linux servers want to succeed... the US government must want to succeed in eradicating "Terror" and "Drugs", all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding... just because of the names of those two programs?
That's not really a huge issue. Coca-cola isn't in the habit of drawing attention to the fact that there are coalitions of people exposing their use of paramilitary fighters to intimidate or kill union organizers... and so on.
Did you try it? It seems like it must have been implemented in waterbear, because everything feels like it was thrown together and nothing seems to work.
Every Tennessee whiskey meets the standards necessary to be called a bourbon; the use of the label "Tennessee whiskey" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more.
I think a huge proportion of the commenters on Slashdot lean right-libertarian. Not sure how this works with the other poster's suggestions (probably very little) but on principle it's possible to be both conservative and not a scientific imbecile.
Uh. "applying the policy evenly" is exactly the same insane logic. You can't apply a discriminatory policy evenly. If this is defensible, then so are minimum-IQ poll tests.
I don't think this is entirely right. At the time of the introduction of OS X (10.0), Cocoa and Carbon were given equal weight. Apple even rewrote NeXT's file manager in Carbon to prove the API's viability; this Carbon Finder wasn't replaced until the current version of OS X (10.6). Apple gradually changed its tune on API preference, and it's fair to say the writing has been on the wall for at least 3 major versions of the OS. But the only glimmer of evidence that Carbon wasn't meant to be included in OS X was that it didn't appear in OS X Server (1.0), which was never meant to be a replacement for classic MacOS, and was never marketed as such. Carbon was always part of Apple's strategy to not bleed developers (besides just Adobe; Microsoft being another major one, but hundreds of others as well) in its second major technology transition, the same way that Fat Binaries were part of Apple's strategy in the first.
I wouldn't say Adobe had any reason to believe they would need to port to Cocoa so abruptly until just before 10.5 was released. Apple did a poor job communicating with developers on the future of OS X's APIs, and that kind of an abrupt API change would cause severe gnashing of teeth from any other vendor. Apple got (mostly) a free pass, just on the basis that no one really expects Apple to be respectful of backwards compatibility in transitional periods.
I'm fairly sure YouTube doesn't use VP6 (flv) at all anymore (feel free to prove me wrong). There is almost certainly 100% H.264 OR WebM content, but there are still circumstances where the HTML5 player will not be used (ads embedded in the video).
There were government programs that encouraged (or at least tolerated) that kind of abuse, but they were not financial regulations; they were social engineering projects similar to "the projects" of yesteryear, but with a much more innocuous face, largely promoted by "compassionate conservatives" (which is why the Bush administration was able to make claims that minority home ownership peaked during their tenure: poor people were being funneled into predatory mortgages while the other services they depended on were being cut). This was in no way financial regulation, it was manipulation of the market by way of interest rates, coupled with a distinct *lack* of regulation.
I should clarify, I'm not the one who you replied to originally. But I think I addressed this already. Obama is the one who is the President who got bribes to do favors for Goldman. If it had been McCain, he'd be the one named. Just because there's systemic corruption doesn't mean that naming *specifics* (not names) is useless; it does no good to say "the system is corrupt, end of discussion", when discussing the consequences of Goldman's contributions to the campaign which actually won. It *underscores* the corruption to highlight the contributions.
But it's going to be a lovely day when we realize that we're the ones being stolen from, we're the vast majority, and if we can be stolen from so much for so long, we must have a lot to our credit, and we can do without the thieves.
And, had McCain won in 2008, you'd be posting an equally disturbing list of contributors to his campaign as well... Right?
Well, I would. They were both bought and sold. Everything else you said about where the power lies is true, which is why that list is pertinent to the discussion. Goldman is guilty of having bought its own immunity. Obama is guilty of having been the schmuck in charge of ensuring that, because McCain couldn't be bothered to muster a better campaign and put himself in the same position. The fact that either of them is bought and sold doesn't excuse their shameful policies. But the fact that Obama is prez and McCain isn't... well, it's a fact.
What do you get out of framing this response as "Obama is just this guy, you know?" You don't strike me as a particular Obama supporter. You don't seem to think that the criticism is invalid. Is it *just* that the criticism lacked a mention of, well, the guy who *didn't* get put in charge of the matters Obama's being criticized for? That's not a very serious problem.
And when it's Palin (or whoever), that's who will be the corrupt prez. Better that we're looking at that list of donors (which isn't going to change much term to term) than just the person holding office with shit politics. The list is exactly the context you're looking for. WTF else do you want?
Now lets look at "performant", it seems to be an adjective. Adjectives ending in -ant, -ance, or -ent (depending on the preceding consonant) generally mean "meets a minimal requirement". See "conformance" and "compliant" etc. These words also carry a requirement of a secondary reference to an external entity. One must be conformant or compliant with respect to something.
By that logic, "he was compliant" would be invalid; it's not valid, it just leaves the compliancy's reference to implication by context. With this in mind, "performant" too leaves the "performancy's" reference to implication by context, and the context surely modifies its meaning. In some cases "performant" means "meets minimum performance expectations"; in others, it means "exceeds baseline performance". Seriously, no one has any difficulty inferring these meanings. Accept that it's become a word.
Bisexuality is being half homosexual and half heterosexual.
Actually, it's not. It's a misnomer at least twice over. Strictly, it's being anything other than "straight" or "gay" but including attraction to both the "opposite sex" and the "same sex", anywhere on the "Kinsey scale" (0.0...1 through 5.9...9) except 0 or 6. In common usage, it is also commonly used for people who are not "straight", not "gay" and also have attractions not described on the "Kinsey scale" (including attractions to people who are intersex and/or genderqueer, as well as attractions which entirely disregard sex or gender).
Slashdot Mirror
And since people attempting to exploit vulnerabilities in Linux servers want to succeed... the US government must want to succeed in eradicating "Terror" and "Drugs", all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding... just because of the names of those two programs?
That's not really a huge issue. Coca-cola isn't in the habit of drawing attention to the fact that there are coalitions of people exposing their use of paramilitary fighters to intimidate or kill union organizers... and so on.
Oh, is this the new version of:
1. Bush is responsible for war crimes.
2. Oh, because Clinton isn't, you Clinton-lover!
?
Just want to make sure I'm up to date on my political strawman arguments.
Did you try it? It seems like it must have been implemented in waterbear, because everything feels like it was thrown together and nothing seems to work.
Every Tennessee whiskey meets the standards necessary to be called a bourbon; the use of the label "Tennessee whiskey" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more.
Bulleit is usually priced similarly, and also great.
I wish to subscriber to your newsletter. Please tell me more!
I think a huge proportion of the commenters on Slashdot lean right-libertarian. Not sure how this works with the other poster's suggestions (probably very little) but on principle it's possible to be both conservative and not a scientific imbecile.
Make duration of employment a condition of employment, with only very clear exceptions.
Mmm, sandwiches.
Uh. "applying the policy evenly" is exactly the same insane logic. You can't apply a discriminatory policy evenly. If this is defensible, then so are minimum-IQ poll tests.
Drink. Really fast. And then drink faster.
281,474,976,710,656.
Wah! I'm defensive about my privileges! Wah!
I don't think this is entirely right. At the time of the introduction of OS X (10.0), Cocoa and Carbon were given equal weight. Apple even rewrote NeXT's file manager in Carbon to prove the API's viability; this Carbon Finder wasn't replaced until the current version of OS X (10.6). Apple gradually changed its tune on API preference, and it's fair to say the writing has been on the wall for at least 3 major versions of the OS. But the only glimmer of evidence that Carbon wasn't meant to be included in OS X was that it didn't appear in OS X Server (1.0), which was never meant to be a replacement for classic MacOS, and was never marketed as such. Carbon was always part of Apple's strategy to not bleed developers (besides just Adobe; Microsoft being another major one, but hundreds of others as well) in its second major technology transition, the same way that Fat Binaries were part of Apple's strategy in the first.
I wouldn't say Adobe had any reason to believe they would need to port to Cocoa so abruptly until just before 10.5 was released. Apple did a poor job communicating with developers on the future of OS X's APIs, and that kind of an abrupt API change would cause severe gnashing of teeth from any other vendor. Apple got (mostly) a free pass, just on the basis that no one really expects Apple to be respectful of backwards compatibility in transitional periods.
I'm fairly sure YouTube doesn't use VP6 (flv) at all anymore (feel free to prove me wrong). There is almost certainly 100% H.264 OR WebM content, but there are still circumstances where the HTML5 player will not be used (ads embedded in the video).
There were government programs that encouraged (or at least tolerated) that kind of abuse, but they were not financial regulations; they were social engineering projects similar to "the projects" of yesteryear, but with a much more innocuous face, largely promoted by "compassionate conservatives" (which is why the Bush administration was able to make claims that minority home ownership peaked during their tenure: poor people were being funneled into predatory mortgages while the other services they depended on were being cut). This was in no way financial regulation, it was manipulation of the market by way of interest rates, coupled with a distinct *lack* of regulation.
It's cool. I responded without saying so, and Slashdot doesn't exactly call out posters' identities very well.
I should clarify, I'm not the one who you replied to originally. But I think I addressed this already. Obama is the one who is the President who got bribes to do favors for Goldman. If it had been McCain, he'd be the one named. Just because there's systemic corruption doesn't mean that naming *specifics* (not names) is useless; it does no good to say "the system is corrupt, end of discussion", when discussing the consequences of Goldman's contributions to the campaign which actually won. It *underscores* the corruption to highlight the contributions.
That's great. So when are the Goldman execs going to the gallows where they belong? No one is above the law, my foot.
Yeah, prison is swell. Sure. Which is why you're jumping at the opportunity to get yourself placed in the program.
Right?
But it's going to be a lovely day when we realize that we're the ones being stolen from, we're the vast majority, and if we can be stolen from so much for so long, we must have a lot to our credit, and we can do without the thieves.
And, had McCain won in 2008, you'd be posting an equally disturbing list of contributors to his campaign as well... Right?
Well, I would. They were both bought and sold. Everything else you said about where the power lies is true, which is why that list is pertinent to the discussion. Goldman is guilty of having bought its own immunity. Obama is guilty of having been the schmuck in charge of ensuring that, because McCain couldn't be bothered to muster a better campaign and put himself in the same position. The fact that either of them is bought and sold doesn't excuse their shameful policies. But the fact that Obama is prez and McCain isn't... well, it's a fact.
What do you get out of framing this response as "Obama is just this guy, you know?" You don't strike me as a particular Obama supporter. You don't seem to think that the criticism is invalid. Is it *just* that the criticism lacked a mention of, well, the guy who *didn't* get put in charge of the matters Obama's being criticized for? That's not a very serious problem.
And when it's Palin (or whoever), that's who will be the corrupt prez. Better that we're looking at that list of donors (which isn't going to change much term to term) than just the person holding office with shit politics. The list is exactly the context you're looking for. WTF else do you want?
Now lets look at "performant", it seems to be an adjective. Adjectives ending in -ant, -ance, or -ent (depending on the preceding consonant) generally mean "meets a minimal requirement". See "conformance" and "compliant" etc. These words also carry a requirement of a secondary reference to an external entity. One must be conformant or compliant with respect to something.
By that logic, "he was compliant" would be invalid; it's not valid, it just leaves the compliancy's reference to implication by context. With this in mind, "performant" too leaves the "performancy's" reference to implication by context, and the context surely modifies its meaning. In some cases "performant" means "meets minimum performance expectations"; in others, it means "exceeds baseline performance". Seriously, no one has any difficulty inferring these meanings. Accept that it's become a word.
Bisexuality is being half homosexual and half heterosexual.
Actually, it's not. It's a misnomer at least twice over. Strictly, it's being anything other than "straight" or "gay" but including attraction to both the "opposite sex" and the "same sex", anywhere on the "Kinsey scale" (0.0...1 through 5.9...9) except 0 or 6. In common usage, it is also commonly used for people who are not "straight", not "gay" and also have attractions not described on the "Kinsey scale" (including attractions to people who are intersex and/or genderqueer, as well as attractions which entirely disregard sex or gender).