https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/

If only they would allow directed donations. I'd gladly donate a hundred bucks towards the Electrolysis project but more likely my money would go towards FirefoxOS (ugh).

Yet Another Decent Thing Destroyed by the Reagan Administration.

I should have known.

Allow me to paraphrase your argument.

1. Buying US Treasuries
2. *waves hands*
3. Nothing

I doubt that will prevent anybody from redeeming their mature US Treasury Bonds for... dollars.

To get from "buying US Treasury bonds" to "nothing" you have to claim that dollars are nothing. I can go to the supermarket and trade those dollars for beer. So, "ha!"

(And yes, trust in the repayment is part of the value. That is already factored into the price. Welcome to middle school economics class. For extra credit, look up the credit ratings on US bonds.)

Politifact rates it as only "half true." http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Here is another Russian source that includes some relevant facts you left out, mainly the part about Ukraine having not actually done what you accuse because you excessively focus on a "vote" when there are more steps than a single vote for a law to be enacted, or repealed. The law wasn't repealed. http://en.ria.ru/world/2014030...

Reading your description, or the RT description, it would appear that the pro-EU groups in Ukraine supported the repeal. The fact is that the Parliament took an unpopular vote, that resulted in Ukrainian speakers in Kyiv protesting(!), and none of the major pro-EU politicians supported that vote. None of the pro-EU candidates in the recent elections supported repealing the 2012 law.

So while it is "half true" that they voted to repeal the law, it is not true as stated, and certainly not true in the claimed implication that the pro-EU Ukrainians are anti-Russian-speakers.

Here is an in-depth analysis. https://www.opendemocracy.net/...

Regardless of how you feel about the protests, there were free, fair, credible, and widely recognized elections after those events. Fail.

The current government of Ukraine is 100% legit by any standard. Russia engages in misdirection, which you follow quite a ways here, but they don't have any actual complaint about the most recent elections, nor have they brought any complaints to the UN Security Council.

If somebody threatens you and leaves it ambiguous, then that is a credible threat; it leaves you having to act as if it might happen, because you're left thinking it might happen.

There is actually a lot of really aware and sophisticated legal history of this stuff, because of organized crime taking such threats to the level of an art. "You don't want `something' to happen to your family, do you? Nobody wants anything bad to happen to their family. When little Billy goes to Famousname Elementary School every morning, you want him to know he is safe. When he takes his lunch break at 11:35am, you want to know he is safe." That is totally actionable as a threat, especially in the context of trying to coerce a behavior, like, "Big John doesn't like it when you write bad things about him in the paper. Then his mind is all full of bad things."

Interestingly, the same is true if you want to make a joke about yelling fire in a theater while actually in a theater; it is ill advised, and it is your responsibility to make sure that it is clearly a joke. (to a normal, reasonable person like the other real people in the theater) If it is ambiguous, and people are left to think, "wait, is there really a fire?!" then all it will take is one of them running for the door and you "yelled fire in a theater."

A similar thing with threats; if you tell the joke to somebody who is NOT the target of the threat, that is pretty safe. Even if they can't tell if you're joking. But if you want to tell the target of the threat the... threat... it is up to you to make it clear as a joke if it is indeed a joke.

It is widely understood to be true that Java has, as an actual, real-life thing in its "pros" column (and in its "cons" column) that it is easier to use by low quality, replaceable programmers. That is not an original claim, or something that is disputed by mainstream sources. That is true both for people who support Java, and those who are against it.

Here is a video interview with Larry Wall, one of the most respected (and qualified in linguistics) language designers, who says, "because it is sort-of considered an `industrial language,' and programmers are sort-of interchangeable parts, managers like it for that reason..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No, Dilbert is an engineer who is good at math but too socially retarded to get a real job for a company that respects him. It is presumed that he was rejected by all the companies that are desirable to work for, and feels trapped.

He is the Sub-Genius.

I didn't cite it because their blog posts, first blaming Ruby/Rails and a few months later, retracting that and explaining the problems, are some of the most popular blog posts in the history of Ruby, and a major milestone in the public discussion of these issues.

If you don't even know about it, you're too far outside the developer community for my comment to have been targeted at you. Sorry, I only worry about the nerds when I post. Everybody else can suck it. And if a nerd didn't know, they'd find a search engine, and ask, instead of whining at the internet to contain citations.

OO can't be to promote re-use, because it is just a type of structured programming, and all structured programming is promoting re-use very very heavily. That was never an advantage of OOP.

But what he's talking about is the other direction; the library should protect itself from bad clients, but the client shouldn't have to protect itself from bad libraries. The library should be able to encapsulate its own testing. That is true in any structured programming paradigm.

And specifically as to C++, that is perhaps why OOP using plain C is so much cleaner (in the best case where strict conventions and best practices are followed, such as glib/gdk/gtk)

No, you can choose to agree with the opinion, or not to.

Force requires an actual action. If you decide your only choices are to believe, or deny reality, it sounds like you already agree with the opinion, and have some cognitive dissonance because it conflicts with what you expected to believe. Notice how the other party isn't involved in any of that? Those actions are all your own.

That it is a story when it happens in the US proves that it is unusual, that it is an outlier.

You thought "news" was the stuff that is normal, and they ignore the unusual stuff?

Judging from your user id, a few decades before your great grandpappy was born.

And I did use a bunch of "magic words," like kill, cook alive, etc.

Also, I paralleled a hate crime and attempted to let the horror of it speak for itself; I made no attempt to explicitly declare the actions as deplorable.

I stand by my claim, though. There will be outliers, and you can find excessive responses to art, and ignoring real violence.

You didn't even address the main point, which was that you were spewing bigoted anti-Americanism based on an outlier that will exist in any populous nation, and accused us of being unique in having negative outliers.

You might need a citation for that. Where did I claim to be policing everyone, or to be your mommy?

Are you absolutely sure that being against his arrest requires you to misconstrue the actual events?

Is your reading comprehension truly so low that you couldn't read what I said and discover that I was advocating an in-school mental health response?

Do you claim I have no business discussing how schools in my own community should respond to situations? Who is the "busybody mom," again?

I clearly meant the largest holder that isn't... ourselves. In the context of trade wars and international relations, it should be assumed that the external parts are being discussed.

Loans to them don't matter, because the debt is mostly one-way, China buying US bonds. A tiny bit of debt in the other way can be subtracted off the top and ignored. Doesn't matter who it is to or the details, because it is a tiny, tiny bit.