Most compilers can catch errors like this. For example in this C situation you would find it when compiling with gcc and looking for the warning:
warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_94.html

That way if you really wanted to assign i to 1 in the if you would need to use if ( (i=1) ) {.
Assignment like this is very common in C/C++ for pointers, esp when working with lists.
while ( (list = list->next) )

The only fiction is what you are saying. Here are the facts:

Soviet anti-religious legislation
The government of the Soviet Union followed an unofficial policy of state atheism, aiming to gradually eliminate religious belief within its borders and replace it with widespread atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-religious_legislation

Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Communist Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

The USSR had a active campaign to remove religion since 1921
1917-1921
1928-1941
1958-1864
1970s-1990

Persecution of Orthodox Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

Considering nearly every protocol and major advancement on the internet has been through DARPA the world will probably be fine. But making unfounded ridiculousness claims is a great way to hype up a book you are going to sell in stores.

The US regularly commits acts that if committed against us would cause a full-scale war. It's unacceptable.

What a fucking joke. Cyber warfare has been going on since the early 80s at the height of the cold-war nuclear espionage in which two superpowers were itching to attack each other. It never went to a full-scale war even when it resulted in the deaths of senior officers. So before you try to discuss something learn some history rather than going on an extreme tangent. It's a sad day when quoting spiderman like a child gets rated as insightful.

You are off base with this. The budget estimate of 1 trillion is for the entire life cycle with fuel, weapons, maintenance, and crew for the next half century. The F22 is a fifth generation fighter and not comparable at all with the Mig-29 or the Su-27. Those are 4th generation aircraft comparable to the F-18 super-hornet. The competitor for the F-22 and F-35 is Russia's Sukhoi PAK FA which is not even in production yet. Not only does it look like its American counterpart; the cost of development & production is similar. Plus they are further behind and still in the design phase with only 4 produced. Cost can only go up from there.

There is no shortage of planes to use for combat, there is an entire stock yard of planes kept by the military. There are 4000+ planes kept in Sonora Desert where they can just drain the fuel and oil and have the planes sit there forever either for future use or parts. Factor with the 4000+ planes currently in use plus production capacity and we have plenty.

You are also forgetting that now cruise missiles and drones preform the majority of attacks that were once only done by planes in the past (ie WWII). America has no shortage of missiles. One Tomahawk missile is around $600K and the US has thousands of them. This is just 1 type of missile among the dozens the US has.

I think you have your Presidents confused. Bush (Part I) was the one that banned assault weapons which were foreign made. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html. Clinton's ban covered mainly domestic weapons since they were already banned by the previous administration. Bush (Part II) never pushed for it to be renewed after the 10 year expiration. In both cases the NRA fought against the bans and lost; they did win in convincing for Clinton's ban not to be renewed.

For god's sake man read the article. It says right there:

a judge last year reduced the penalty imposed on a Minnesota woman from $1.5 million to $54,000.

You don't get the same verdict every time otherwise there would never be a concept of circuit courts or appeals

The new trial isn't even about guilt.

READ THE ARTICLE

The 1st Circuit said a new judge assigned to the case could reduce the award again, but the record labels would then be entitled to a new trial.

Until there is a final decision on the fine it isn't the concern of the court. The 1st Circuit has to rehear the arguments for the award. Then there can be either an appeal or a whole new trial. The only issue the court decided on was the constitutionality of the Copyright clause.

He admitted to copying and sharing hundreds of songs according to the article. His defense was that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional which is obviously a ridiculous and a desperate act which is why the court didn't listen to it.

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. ------Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

What is exactly is there to listen to when the Constitution makes it clear Congress has the power to enforce copyright?

I *think* the commenter referring to this:

Who: Professor Norgaard

What: "Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated"

Where: Planet Under Pressure Conference 2012

When: Wednesday 28 March 2012

The real question is was this peer reviewed and was she even capable of making decision on how to diagnose a mental illness. She only has B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology. It would be more credible if she had an M.D. Psychiatry or a P.h.D. is Psychology. My guess is that she just wanted to be controversial and didn't even consult the DSM-IV-TR.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123260/If-dont-believe-climate-change-sick-Oregon-professor-likens-skepticism-racism.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/30/climate_scepticism_racism_slavery_treatment/ http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pup_session.asp?

So farts really are deadly! Well I, for one, refuse to fart any more.

The US government does not have full immunity and you can sue it since 1948, see the The Federal Tort Claims Act. The site's best bet is to see if the RIAA provided false or inaccurate information and sue them directly, ie say for liable. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html

When I buy equipment whose purpose is to broadcast I cannot blame someone for listening. In the case of the window I am taking steps to make sure no one listens in and you are going out of your way with explicit equipment to override my intention. This violates a key tenant of the law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy. A more accurate one would be this: You are outside outside on a public street and see that my wifi name is foobar. Do you really think I have the legal right to now ask for your arrest for violating my privacy.

Probably never... he just read the report. Give reading a try, you might find that you like it.