I get what you're saying, but I guess I just disagree that the presence of guns automatically makes a situation more dangerous. As they say, guns don't kill people; people kill people. A civil person with a gun will cause less harm than a person without a gun who is intent on causing harm. That said, an uncivil person with a gun can cause considerably more damage than an uncivil person without a gun, but that's irrelevant if the group is entirely civil (which the Tea Party seems to be, or at least those actually bearing the firearms).

As to why bring a gun to a rally, I think it mostly has to do with the large overlap of 2nd-amendment advocates (NRA types) and the Tea Party. It may be a lot less common in some states versus others, but some people choose to carry firearms (either concealed or "open") everywhere they are legally allowed, if only to exercise their right to do so. Other people have real concerns over their own self-defense in general, so perhaps they carried at rallies, even though they may not have felt any explicit threat by attending the rally versus any other place where they live. I bet that some of the guns at rallies (especially rifles) were unloaded and used only as props to go with the colonial garb of some Tea Partiers. I can't say for sure. I've never actually been to any of these rallies, but I have come across the types of people that I just described around where I live, so I only have that limited insight into the minds of these people.

Sure. In America, it is still legal to own guns and carry them in most public places (usually requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed). It may be important to note that of all the Tea Party rallies, no weapons were ever fired, or at least nobody was killed. Going out on a limb here, but I think terrorists usually use their guns to kill as many people as they can, so maybe the term "terrorist" is misapplied to Tea Party people. There were actually a few cases of rape and even murder among the Occupiers, but it's just as ridiculous to call them terrorists.

Yeah, except a company which decides to use and modify open source software without giving back does not revoke anyone else' right to the code... so, in other words, it's not like that at all.

A bot scanning their addon repository is their (presumably temporary) solution? How about roll back to the previous version scheme until they can actually fix their software? Any plugin system which relies on hardcoded version numbers is clearly broken.

I have no idea how this made front page...

I really really really really really really want the old Google Search interface back. ;-( More importantly, I wish Google Search would actually search for what I type in. It's amazing and sad to see what they've done with their most useful product lately.

If your compiler isn't threaded, then at least run multiple compile jobs simultaneously--this is probably better anyway. If your build system can't do this, your tools are broken.

Perhaps you haven't had your coffee yet.

It's not so much about overuse. Rather, it's the misuse of macros and gotos (and any other coding construct) that can lead to bad code. Macros and gotos get a bad rap because they get misused more often than other constructs, mostly by those who are really new to programming. When used appropriately, these constructs can make code more readable and easier to maintain. It's too bad that so many students are being taught to avoid gotos at all cost; better to teach them when gotos can be used to good effect.

But but but it's more fun to sensationalize the truth so we all can have another pretend reason to hate Apple.

Perhaps you are not convincing many people because most of your questions are like this one, crafted to obliterate some silly-looking straw man. Even among the unwashed masses, there are few indeed who would be willing to argue that man has no impact on the environment. It's obviously impossible for us not to have an impact on the environment, for we are a part of the environment just as every other living species is.

Here is a good question, though, so I'll give you a straight answer. I am only a simple man and without formal training in the art or science of climate research. Your position would be more convincing to me if we didn't already know that this world has already experienced warming and cooling in the past. Many times. Before humans started burning fossil fuels. Almost as if the average temperature of Earth has been changing in cycles for a while. And many periods of climate change that this world has gone through have been much more severe than the one we're experiencing now. A rational explanation of this would go a long way. Bonus points if you could show how a higher average temperature of Earth would necessarily be a bad thing for humans. What has definitely not been shown is that rising CO2 is causing an increase of extreme weather; from the evidence that I've seen, the sun and solar fluctuations are still what drive our weather patterns.

Before some of these things are explained or proven, it will remain much easier to believe that politicians, businessmen, and scientists seeking funding are simply invested in trumping up this issue for their own personal gain. Sad, but true.

Thank goodness for BSD.

ducks

Regardless of Android's license, there is no legal requirement for Google to release any code except portions to which they do not hold the copyright and are licensed (to Google) under viral conditions (i.e. GPL). Google's own code (as long as it is not classified as a derivative of someone else's work under the GPL), even if it was released under the GPL (or any open source license) in the past, does not have to be provided freely because Google is the copyright holder and therefore is not subject to the license as if they were a licensee.

As far as I'm aware, Google is adhering to any licensing terms that they are subject to. They also open source some of their own code, as well. Non-story.

Only 200 million at most... what a dismal failure.