I think intuiting the comment is fairly obvious - there are serious difficulties with Java as a language, as it has structural imperfections that encourage exploits.

If you think a comment is necessary, then consider the above.

Friends of mine who are very serious about information security are not interested in having Android smartphones for several reasons - but the fact that Android is built on top of Java is a main and important reason.

You can not like or agree with this if you choose.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/06/03/oracle-promises-secure-java/

Well, those are the people who are too stupid to figure out Java, like OP stated.

Sure, except they're not. I'm talking specifically about people who's living is security, and who don't like the language itself. Whether or not that somehow gives you butthurt. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/06/03/oracle-promises-secure-java/

Makes putting my passport in some sort of signal-baffling enclosure feel a bit less paranoid.

Except for people who hate java, and don't trust its security at all.

People are always down for a change that improve things - if they have a choice and they can refuse if they don't like it.

But how many people would like to sit behind the wheel to drive to work, and suddenly find their entire dashboard reorganized and the wheel moved to a different angle six inches to the left?

As only one example, it always amazes me when supposed computer professionals are surprised when users were just fine with things exactly how they were. I still don't like the stupid ribbon interface of MS Word, and I have yet to find a single office person who actually prefers it.

It's only the legacy of the corporate purchases of the Windows OS and Office that keep the Microsoft going.

Everything else, but especially this. And the Windows OS has always been given away with little or no visible cost to the consumer, as a delivery system for MS Office. Which means that the MS Office division has ALL the clout, calls ALL the shots, and when something else interesting starts happening elsewhere in the company the MS Office division starts raiding to get control influence over that project, snag all the smart people, and end up scuttling the technology as a threat to their hegemony.

Probably the only reason Xbox did so well was that its market was in no way a threat to MS Office's power. As a game console, it was entirely unrelated and stepped on no toes, so it was able to actually organically develop.

Florida is one of the worst states regarding global warming denial.

Of course, they would probably blame it on Obama's weather machines. And not their own hot air.

Like the subway system currently in NY also. Just like some mainframes, also. Fix something that needs fixing first.

Stamp the ground, plug your ears, jam your head down a hole! The fact is that the IRS abused (profiled as you say) people from a single political movement during, and in a way which did definitely affect, the election. Even the IRS admits this is a fact. Ignore this fact at your own peril.

Yep, that's exactly what you're doing.

I said FROM THE BEGINNING this was profiling. I NEVER SAID this was a good thing.

And it's absurd to state that this affected the election. That is, as I'm sure you would say if our roles were reversed, quite an extreme claim to show with no evidence. In fact, I demand that you show your evidence for that claim right now.

I mean, my God!

I guess you are still sticking with, "It was OK because Obama won."

Not only am I not "sticking with" that, that was never my position to begin with. I'm saying it's not conspiracy, because a conspiracy very specifically requires collusion from the top with malicious intent. Which YOU have NO EVIDENCE of. As I've said multiple times, just as police can profile kids as stoners without colluding across states and police departments or even WITHIN police departments, so this sort of profiling doesn't require a conspiracy either.

I hope this at last gets through this time. But if not, that's fine too. Cheers, and may all be well with you.

..which does not support the claim "MORE tea-partiers [are] completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size"

No, the larger analysis of that, which you really shouldn't have needed but I still provided just to prove the point, is my *other* response to this question. Please go look at that. And then, if you like, provide your counter-analysis, and FIND a political group that has more anti-tax members.

This was a more common-sense answer, which I perhaps should have expected you to ignore. So, if it's numbers analysis you are requesting, go respond to that one, rather than ignore it.

Here is a hint: Something that supports a claim has to actually include the thing being claimed, rather than specifically exclude the thing being claimed.

You mean, like I did in the other comment you're now ignoring. Interesting.

As re: feeling is not thinking, physician heal thyself. Aso, consider that projection is a fascinating phenomenon.

Alright, fine. Still profiling IMHO, and not some sort of top-down conspiracy. Unless you can prove otherwise. If you can, please do so.

I guess you are sticking with, "It was OK because Obama won.", or, "I am too ignorant, or in denial, to acknowledge direct and blatant abuse, even when told about it directly from a news source which almost always champions views apologizing for such abuse."

Nope, none of the above. It appears you've been skimming my comments, or for whatever reason what I'm actually saying is being rejected before analysis.

I'll say it again, just to give it one more chance:
This was profiling, not persecution.
Profiling is not necessarily good, and can be bad. But Persecution is worse than profiling.
Profiling does not at all need a conspiracy to occur.
This was not a conspiracy.

So, there you have it. Good day, sir.

Do you understand the difference between profiling and deliberate, top-down-ordered political persecution?

Put it to you this way: do you think the added attention Muslims tend to be given regarding terrorist attacks is profiling or persecution?

I don't see how any of that follows.

Also, as this occurred after the election, I don't see how this benefits Obama. That's what I'm saying. This makes sense as profiling, and does not make sense as top-down political persecution.

I'm not being paid or having tax debt forgiven for this. Are you being paid by the GOP, or has someone affiliated with the Republican Party in Congress promised to cut your taxes?

If TEA Party members and people who belong to groups with "Patriot" in the name were statistically more apt...

No. I don't have to prove that it was *good* profiling for it to be profiling. It can be bad, inaccurate and stupid profiling too. Bad profiling happens all the time. It's still profiling. What makes it profiling, is that someone - *rightly or wrongly* - suspected a group of people with certain characteristics would be more likely than the average to indulge in certain behaviors. And that's what I see as likely being behind these behaviors - not vengefulness.

Which makes even more sense given the additional information you point out - that this was for nonprofit groups after the election. That would have zero usefulness for the Obama administration - if you believe the Tea Party was a threat to Obama, the time for Obama to use his world-running conspiracy powers would have beeb to do this would have been **before** the election.

And separately, the idea that this "effectively shut down political opposition" is just silly. If anything, the Tea party and other right-wing groups have stepped up their opposition to Obama to even greater butthurt tantrum levels.