Because that's what they're paying you to do? Well, that and I hate getting called on the weekend. Last project I put that much effort into, we'd take the weekends in shifts and the programmer on duty was guaranteed to get a frantic call that the system was down again. So I went in, added some data structures, redesigned how the program was launched so that if a data file crashed it, that file would be moved out of the way so processing could continue, and fixed about 150 memory overflows. We went from several hundred crashes a month to maybe one or two on a bad month. And that one or two turned out to be a corrupt index in a SQL database. After about 4 months, we stopped talking about the on call rotation. For the next three years after that, until the project ended, none of us ever got a call on a weekend again.

I'd say that depends on where you live and what you bring to the company. Can you afford it if that developer leaves? If he tells you he's going, would you make a counter offer? What would that counter offer be? Personally I'm not inclined to accept counter offers because it shows me the company is only interested in paying me the least amount it can get away with to continue to retain my employment, and not my actual technical merit. If I'm made a counter offer, I'll ask why I wasn't given that to begin with before I walk out the door. I'm one of those technical people there's a shortage of, and I don't like to work for dicks. That's why there's a shortage of me at any particular company.

We want things like roads and bridges and water and electricity, but we don't want to pay for them? The last major investment we made as a country was the Interstate Highway System, and we no longer understand the concept of investment or the idea of investing in infrastructure. The whole point of having a power network is that everyone doesn't need their own power generation capability, since that's expensive and a large electrical plant will be more efficient. But if you want a solid guarantee that your lights will be on at any given point, you're going to have to invest in your own generation capability. In the last three years I've had two outages that lasted more than 24 hours. The average outage where I live is between 1 and 3 hours.

While we're on the subject of investing in infrastructure, we've got a water crisis coming up very soon now. With undeniable climate change, a large part of the country is never going to have to enough water, while another large part of the country is always going to have way too much. I think we need an interstate highway system level project to move water around the country as needed. I think this will be vital for the well being of tens of millions of Americans over the next couple of decades, but no one is even thinking about such at thing right now.

So all of your fuss about having someone else do your work for you, challenging is just you looking for a meaningless fight?

You just doubt that the grand jurors listened to eye witness testimony from the half dozen in question (out of the 60 witnesses they heard from) that actually told them what they needed to hear. Yes, they heard from LOTS of other witnesses who had anything from minor variations to outright debunked fabrications to share, but - as the prosecutor seeking charges against Wilson said - they heard from a consistent, corroborated core of media-averse African American witnesses who told the tale you don't want to hear.

Why are you focusing on the known liars? What's the point? We all know that dozens of people reported pure BS in order to get attention or while grinding some I-hate-police axe or the like. I'm not mentioning those people because, just like the grand jury concluded, their testimony was anywhere from muddle-headed to outright fiction-for-malice's sake. You're the only one who cares what the liars had to say. But they're irrelevant. It's the physical evidence and the credible witnesses that it corroborates that count. And speaking of counting, you're still not finding it comfortable enough to count all fingers on one hand, and move on to the next hand? Really? Or should we just right back to your opening complaint, the implication of doubt and dismissal about their testimony because you hadn't bothered to read it?

Oh good grief. 15 years after the DotCon implosion, when industry leaders and Congress responded to the collapse in tech employment by ramping up H-1b guest worker visas, we're supposed to believe this is news?

A judge is the ONLY person who gets to decide how that information is made available. That means he goes over every bit of it for context, and the entire package is his product, with his reputation at stake for making mistakes in what's released and how it impacts the anonymity of the witnesses involved. There is no provider of that information except for the judge.

I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?

And, ranting? You're the one who's been linked directly to the body of documents that completely satisfies your fake concern that the eye witnesses didn't really exist, and that their testimony doesn't say what the grand jury concluded that it said. So much energy you're putting into pretending it's not there for you to read! Why?

Because everything put in front of the grand jury is also available, online, right in front of you. Not that you'd want to see that or anything, because it would take all the fun out of that petulant little fit you're having.

Knowing there would be people with the hearts set on vilifying the cop and the investigation, the prosecutor made the rather unusual decision to let the grand jury take an unusual amount of time to make their own investigative queries, to see any and all testimony they wanted (including obviously spurious stuff from all over the internet, and already debunked nonsense from the street - like Brown's running buddy's description of Wilson shooting out his cruiser window, standing over Brown and shooting him in the back ... all stuff that didn't happen, per the evidence and multiple completely-consistent eye witnesses). And then, so you could relax a little bit, he asked the judge overseeing the panel to pre-emptively make arrangements to immediately publish a mountain of information so you could exactly what the grand jury had to work with. What the grand jury saw wasn't just what the prosecutor wanted to show them, it included the output of an army of investigators from the DoJ trying to turn the case into a federal civil rights violation case, and more.

No, that's the account based on recordings of radio communications, and based on the testimony of multiple credible eye witnesses, corroborated by the physical evidence. And that's the account that the grand jury mulled over, along with a lot of obvious BS from all sort of other sources, that led the panel to realize there's no THERE there. Just like the DoJ investigation, in which Eric Holder was passionately, desperately hoping to find some sort of evidence of a civil rights violation, is coming up with a whole lot of nothing.

The people who keep trotting out the false narrative are just trying to wish away the 25 days of work done by the grand jury, and the untold thousands of man hours and millions of dollars tied up by Holder and the FBI, that are delivering exactly no police officer to string up.

That might be something to consider, except of course that's pure fantasy on your part. Multiple credible eye witnesses (unlike you, and unlike the people who changed their stories or finally admitted they didn't actually see it happen after all) pointed out that the officer didn't either of the two things you're mentioning. So why bring them up? What's your agenda, in manufacturing a false narrative?

Wow, you just keep on going with the whole feigned ignorance thing, don't you? The evidence presented to the grand jury could ONLY be released to the public through the piece-by-piece review of a judge (the same judge that sat the panel, not that you care, since the judge is fictional, right?). That judge is the one to decide whether or not the anonymity guaranteed to witnesses (who, you know, don't want to have their houses burned down by those thoughtful, peaceful protesters) is sufficiently preserved in the documents presented to people like you as you are offered the evidence you don't want to acknowledge.

Your supposed fundamental misunderstanding (again, I'm presuming that on this topic it's fake, and just as deliberate as your little bit of theater about non-existent witnesses) about the way that big pile of evidence was curated and released, and which checks and balances are in place, says plenty about your intentions here. What do you gain by saying there's no judge involved when the fact that there is one was plainly discussed in the press conference, in the summary documents, and by every last journalist and legal commentator asked to bundle all of this up for you? Yeah, the talking heads who are seeking to sell the idea that a grand jury is some sort of novel "secret proceeding" that was dreamed up just for the occasion to be unjust to the guy who assaulted the cop are going to assist you in your characterization, of course - their narrative loses a lot of its inflammatory BS vitality when actual details about the case and the process are discussed. And so they distort at every opportunity, and pretend that the evidence seen by the GJ doesn't matter, and that only a trial would show us the REAL evidence, blah blah blah.

Neither they, nor you, would have to spend so much energy trying to talk the evidence away or establish the myth that it wasn't published right in front of your eyes if they hadn't become so irrationally invested in the BS claims of a few people in the immediate aftermath of Brown's robbery and foolish assault. Media outlets who have been cheerleading for riots and who crave a minority victimhood cause du jour manufacture them if that's what they have to do to get attention. Pesky things like credible eye witnesses, physical evidence, and the documents that lay out exactly what was shown to (and asked for by) the GJ are terribly inconvenient, aren't they. You seem to know how that feels.

Found in the form of endless articles and breathless press coverage, referred to upstream and downstream from the deliberately misleading post. The user made an assertion that cannot, in the context of that person being an online, forum-using, plugged-in, slashdot type of human, be considered in any context other than deliberately misleading.

Which means you didn't even give the judge's published material a cursory glance.

I'm not asking you to trust anything I say. I suggesting that you know right where the testimony is, and the lengthy reports on the forensic evidence, and that you're pretending you can't find it, parse it, or incorporate those facts into your understanding of the situation. You can't be unable to do it, which means that either you're unwilling to do it, or you've got an agenda of some kind that calls for you to try to wish it all away.

No, I called someone a liar because - despite amply available facts to the contrary - they're spreading false information, on purpose. You know, deliberate deception. Lying.

Why? Here you are commenting on a matter for which all sorts of searchable, link-able documents have been provided, summarized, and repeated (in the sense of the germane details) for you to read. And yet you're pretending that you you're baffled about the availability of that information. You can't be that obtuse, and I was being generous calling you lazy - because you're acting like that information doesn't exist - why?

Not when the topic being discussed is that person's laziness, right? That's just a simple observation.

Well, right. Because the the facts were provided by the corroborated eye witness testimony in front of the grand jury, and by the abundant physical evidence - and nicely wrapped up in the widely disseminated documents that you have indeed been too lazy to read (or too unwilling to, since it establishes a narrative you don't like).

Wow, are you lazy. Well, lazy about everything except ad hominem - the comfort zone for people who don't like facts.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

The prosecution released all of that testimony, available for you to read. But to save you the trouble, it was summed up during the press conference, because it was very important, in context. But just for fun, consider reading it, just like all of the journalists who have already done so, and helpfully explained the same thing so that people like you can get their heads on straight.