Go find a STEM major to explain selection bias and other related systematic errors in field of statistics. ;-)

Quite the opposite. As an AC reminds us LLVM/clang is modular and better integrates into Integrated Development Environments and other development tools. Its quite the technical win in that respect.

Gcc intentionally thwarts such integration to avoid exposing various internals and creating a possible path around the GPL. I.e. politics is limiting the engineering, integration and usability of gcc.

So there are technical motivations to move to LLVM as well.

GPL v3 includes language to thwart anti-circumvention efforts, anti-tivo'ization requiring installation information like signing keys, etc.

I believe Linus has spoken against the anti-tivoazation clause in the GPL v3.

They played nice and were good citizens with GPL v2 for many years.

Plus Apple was a good citizen by supporting many FOSS projects and releasing various internal projects as FOSS.

http://www.opensource.apple.co...

I'm suspicious of people who see things so "clearly". :-)

Or perhaps you are viewing things through political filters.

Apple, and others, stopped using the "truly free" gcc because GPL v3 became quite restrictive.

The FSF overreached with GPL v3, they tried to be too forceful, they overestimated their importance and irreplaceability. The market responded by moving towards LLVM, a less restrictive option.

Denominating the value of your trade in dollars does not change the fact that the coins are sold by someone else. And it does not change the fact that this someone else pays the merchant a different value than what they received from the sale, i.e. the merchant is paid the exact dollar amount specified at the beginning of the transaction regardless of the actual proceeds from the sale. There are three transactions reported to the IRS here and only one is a sale of bitcoins.

You can't argue about the sovereign rights of individuals and ignore the sovereign rights of the state. Regulating and taxing commercial behavior is among those rights of the state, and if you are accepting money rather than generously offering hospitality then you are acting in a commercial manner.

Actually it is pretty black and white if we look at precedent. In particular general aviation.

To greatly simplify FAA rules, taking money beyond the other person's share of the fuel cost OR allowing the other person influence over when and where the plane goes, makes the flight commercial rather private and requires the pilot to have a commercial license rather than a private license.

So according to precedent, receiving $2 beyond the other person's share of fuel would make the drive commercial not private.

Think about it, if it is truly just sharing a ride then the driver's fuel cost is $3, but the driver received $5. The driver did come out $2 ahead, that would be the private sharing perspective. Arguing that the driver is $1 short of actual fuel costs is an absolutely commercial perspective, as if the driver wasn't going to make that drive anyway.

That dehumanization of the enemy and the lofty patriotic goals that you refer to, the combat vets I've know have said that was all just Hollywood. That's for the civilians at home and that the guys at the front generally knew that such things were BS. That they fought to protect themselves and the guys next to them. That quote from earlier, "don't confuse the people who fight wars with the people who start wars", that vet was referring to both sides. Other vets expressed the same sentiment to me. The only ones that they truly wanted to kill were the leaders in Berlin and Tokyo, and possibly the closely held political troops of the leadership like the SS. As for the regular forces it was regrettable that they got between them and the leadership, a necessary evil. Similar story today. It being regrettable that some Afghan farmer decided to pick up a rifle and get between them and Al Queda or Taliban leadership, a necessary evil.

I've known numerous combat vets from various wars and several vets who served during peacetime. None ever had any intention of dying for their country. I trust your just "being smart ass" again. :-)

As for joining the military to learn some trade or earn money for college, that absolutely happens. However even in peacetime these people are making a voluntary choice to risk life and limb and to forfeit personal liberties for an extended period of time. I know a Navy Corpsman who is saving up money for college, plans to go to med school, and then plans on returning to the Navy to pay for med school. In fairly recent times he was part of a humanitarian medical mission to Africa. Some really hairy stuff happens that never makes it to the news. By hairy I mean the corpsman has exited the Humvee with his M4 out as the driver speaks with the AK-47 toting locals blocking the road with their Toyota. When you enlist such stuff may be an unlikely remote possibility but you have basically agreed to take such risks at the discretion of your superiors.

Here is a second bit of wisdom that the WW2 paratrooper taught me as a child: "Don't confuse the people who fight wars with the people who start wars. They are not the same people. Soldiers don't get to choose what wars they will fight, what Presidents they will trust."

One of the few privileges that a U.S. soldier has is to refuse to commit a horrific crime. Save the hyperbole for political rants.

Other mercenaries who probably also lack confidence in the mission and/or the leadership and after re-calculating the risk/reward see breaking the contract as the best outcome.

So did I. The point you missed was that our selective service registration was **not** voluntary. We were required by law to do so. Actually enlisting was completely voluntary. All those who serve, drafted or volunteer, deserve respect. But those who volunteer deserve some extra respect. Which is entirely the case for those who have gone into harms way since Vietnam.

Also respect and canonization are very different things. You make yourself look foolish by conflating the two. Although those who volunteer to be combat medics or corpsman have taken a step closer to the later.

"for others" in my original statement is a euphemism for one's fellow citizens. So no, the mercenary is not doing the same thing. Plus the mercenary can break their contract and leave if they do not like the mission or lose faith in their leadership/mangagement. Yet another detail amongst many that make them a poor comparison.

The construction worker gets to go home every night to the wife and kids.

The construction worker decides every morning if he will go to work today.

The construction worker can leave the job site at any time if he thinks things are getting dangerous, or loses trust in his management.

The acceptable casualty rate on construction sites is zero.

Those in the military face very different circumstances.

You have just made the point of those you are arguing against. The **act** of volunteering to risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time is worthy of respect. The **act** of accepting many personal sacrifices over this period of time is worthy of respect.

The point that you missed is that going into harms way deserves respect, but **volunteering** for it deserves some extra respect. Today's military is all volunteer, hence the extra respect. Plus ordinary military training involves a certain risk to life and limb, even in peace time.

Another point that you miss is that desk jobs do not mean you had not gone into harms way in the past (the translator I mentioned), or will not go into harms way in the future (the clerk and electronics tech I mentioned, and a Navy radioman I did not mention).

You also seem unaware that one of the reasons the military utilizes civilian contractors so heavily for supply and support roles today is so that those in uniform may be assigned combat roles.