Keep in mind that if Apple had continued their previous versioning scheme, we'd be on OS 19 (or OS XIX) by now. The 'X' actually stands for 10, not 'Xtreme' or something.
If you are a Polynesian, perhaps it is a trivial detail. If you live in the area itself, a country bordering one of the principles (eg: Most of Eastern Europe), or a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA),
Your clauses and antecedents* were jammed together a bit squintingly, and I keep hearing lately that Ukraine is supposedly part of NATO, so I went with that interpretation. I took "a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries" to mean "protect Ukraine" and asked where exactly that pledge was made.
You seem to think that I'm arguing that there's nothing to worry about with this whole situation. That is most assuredly not what I'm saying.
* I assume:
"the area itself" = Ukraine
"one of the principles" = former Russian territories?
Lastly, the point I was making was that "a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries" DOES NOT mean NATO as you seem to be saying, but rather only Russia, the US, and the UK (China and France gave weaker assurances).
But the solution to that treaty violation is not to leave the Crimeans in a country they no longer want to be part of.
Assuming the results of that referendum with 123% voter turnout is legit. I'm just gonna let you think about that sentence for a minute. (Putin seems to be adept at this maneuver...remember when his popular support totals jumped by 20% overnight, to over 100% total polling the last time he was elected?)
And you're complaining about "forever binding the Ukrainians to Ukraine"? How is NOT violating their border considered a transgression? This is/was a UKRAINIAN province.; why the hell should RUSSIA get to decide where it goes?
And technically, they gave Crimea to Ukraine back in 1954; the Budapest thing was a reaffirmation that the Soviet Oblast borders were to be followed.
the warm and close alliance between The US and Russia up until the 20th century
In other news, up until WWI broke out, Germany was still hoping for an Anglo-German alliance, and up until WWI France and Britain were at each others' throats in almost every war.
Times change. Talking about the tsars, the Soviet Union, and post-Soviet Russia as the same thing is foolishness.
At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together.
You mean the events that never would have happened if they weren't on opposite sides? I assume you're referring to the Cold War.
"Most loyal"? Dear lord...have you been *watching* Putin the last few years?
Yeah, I just found that. Apparently the "assurances" don't exactly include mandatory military intervention per se though.
I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of.
You mean except for the part where Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine that they explicitly wouldn't fuck with their borders.
Ohhhh...we had our fingers crossed. Gotcha!
Oops...those quotes were from the actual NATO article. That list of member countries doesn't even have the string "Ukraine" anywhere on the entire page, though.
or a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA),
Why do people keep saying this? According to that very article, Ukraine is not a member of NATO:
[In 2009] Ukraine and Georgia were also told that they could eventually become members.
After the 2010 election in Ukraine, pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych declared his administration would not be pursuing NATO membership.
Those are the only 2 times Ukraine is mentioned in the entire article. Or is this "pledge to defend" a secret or something? Ukraine is neither a member of NATO nor the EU currently.
The more I read about Islam, the more I find that Mohammed nicked all the dogma from other religions of the time and acted like they were his idea.
I would differentiate software engineer and developer from programmer, yes. A computer programmer is one who programs computers, whereas the others have been specifically trained to interact with related people and in more theoretical computing considerations. A programmer asks himself, "How can I get the computer to do this?" A SE/dev asks himself, "What's the best way to tell the computer to do this?"
I'm sure there's no consensus on my random rule of thumb, though.
Honest answer? Because it offends people's sensibilities that what are being hailed as the lucrative jobs and the future of the economy aren't being pursued by a large chunk of the population.
Now I'm wondering why I've never heard this pulled out in an argument before....hmmm.
A programmer is one who programs. Write a program: You're a programmer now. Period. Being a *bad* programmer doesn't mean you're not a programmer.
But these bizarre blanket statements seem to be pretty similar to that "we need more girls in STEM" article recently. Why? Why do we need more girls in STEM, or everybody to be programmers? Give them the chance but if they don't want to, fine.
Good lord, there's 4 different Wikipedia articles for Tautology, and they all look like they're talking about almost exactly the same thing.
Tautology (rhetoric), a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth
Tautology (grammar), the use of redundant words
Tautology (logic), a universal truth in formal logic
Tautology (rule of inference), a rule of replacement for logical expressions
"Unibus timeout fatal trap program lost sorry" - An error message printed by DEC's RSTS operating system for the PDP-11
