My point is that the reason US pols started getting antsy had nothing to do with how many people were killed, it was the way they were killed.

According to the internet, over a quarter million people die every day. A portion of those can't be saved, but a good portion probably could. Where's the line drawn between sacrificing the future well being of my immediate family for the benefit of someone I've never met, never would meet and quite possibly who will, no matter what outside parties try to do, continue to make bad decisions and will drain you dry if you let them. At some point you have to recognize that taking action can result in a net negative result. The whole moral requirement goes both ways, you may say that those who are better off have an obligation to those who are worse off, but at the same time those who are worse off have an obligation to improve their lot and become a net contributor. Much like a life guard and a drowning swimmer, sometimes they'll take you down with them.

I read an article today where they were talking to Syrian refugees and the people in the refugee camp are developing anti-American sentiment because we're not fighting on their side. If the US intervenes then they get lambasted. If they don't they get lambasted. Well fuck it then.

Not sure if I made a point or not.

You do realize that nobody was suggesting that anyone get involved in Syria when it was only 100,000 dead. It was when they started using CW that the concern was expressed. Not a legit moral position to take, but certainly your argument is rebutted.

Personally I think the US should go to the UN and say, "Hey, CW are bad. MMMKAY?" And if China and/or Russia say, "Yes, but ...". Then the US and the rest of the Western world should respond with, "Oh, so CW proliferation is not a big deal now? Then we'll go ahead and start selling into emerging markets, like Chechnya and Tibet." Of course I'm a bit of a provocateur.

Or just send a note to the Hague suggesting the Bashar al Assad is a war criminal and bring charges. It's a bit symbolic, but it's what the Europeans seem to want to do.

After reading your blog I'd have to say that no you didn't.

You're confusing the English with technology. A backup hamburger -- in case the hamburgler steals my first one -- is not a backup of my data. A backup is a short term copy of my data. An archive is a long term copy of my data. Neither one changes after they've been created. A good backup has left the building. RAID, UPSes, generators, etc. are availability measures, not backups.

sqlite3 not standalone enough? j/k. kinda.

or it uses iOS, then it's not bleeding edge.

Well as long as you have a reasonable and objective definition of bleeding edge...

I'm not even sure this is a bug. It's kind of like complaining that my C compiler didn't optimize out my infinite loop:

int main(int argc, char **argv) {

    printf ("Die bastards\n");
    while (1) ;
    printf("Please die bastards\n");
    exit (-1);
}

Whose problem is it?

Indeed. This "bug" seems pretty stupid. I mean on the submitter's part. Why would any vendor spend much time solving this problem when it should be simple enough not to write such stupid SQL to begin with. Anyone who spent time working on this probably had nothing much better to do.

I mean really, I get it, but what is the use case for 'if a constant is equal to a different constant'?

I bet there are more sqlite and berkeleydb's out there than mysql.

There's "drop" and there's "drop". I don't drop my tablets on the floor on a daily basis. But I pick them up and set them down dozens of times each day. Sometimes I set them down flat, sometimes leaned against a book or sofa leg. Sometimes I throw them onto my bed or sofa. And occasionally I do drop them.

My desktop I pick up and set down approximately zero times a day and my laptop I pick up and set down two or three times a day and mostly it's not running when I do that.

No kidding. I'm thinking that the majority of people live, breed and die within a few hundred miles of where they were born and this goes on generation after generation. One would expect a certain homogeneity in the range of genes within that population.

Ready to wet your pants? Think about this:

How do you know that Intel and AMD haven't included back doors in their processors that elevate a running thread to ring 0? (or -1?)

Whatever. I've got a write only disk. Doesn't need encrypting.