Because when the "power is off" it is not off.
Why not just say "it is not transmitting"?
Next thing you know they'll change their EULA to say "...when powered off we reserve the right to send data to Google services..."
Pffft... Luxury. We write code in a shoebox.
I believe the poster meant to say "...does not care about languages subjectively." as in "tools in a toolbox - pick the right one for the job."
Of course, that statement always has to be bounded by the skillset of the engineers involved (e.g. picking C for a *nix systems application/daemon is a clear choice unless no one on your team knows C.)
...two aerospace companies in U.S. defense industry have had this technology for at least 6 years - whether they plan to use or it not she didn't know.
This is exactly what people need to accept about Golang if they're going to embrace it.
Google was happy to share it, but their desires for Go are primarily aligned with Google's needs - not the community's. It's not personal, it's business.
BTW, enjoy the debugging...
We use it in very specific places because it works well there (some of our services junctions points) and has excellent concurrency primitives. This lets us overlook the drawbacks that would arise by using it as a general purpose language. I suspect that we use it in the fashion that Google initially intended to use it (they use it much more pervasively now I believe.)
It makes a lot of sense if you're working in multiple operating systems. BTW, I have a triple boot Macbook AIR with Windows 10, El Capitan, and Mint which I am replacing with this - I use OSX so rarely now for anything other than building that I'm pushing that responsibility onto a Mac Mini that's laying about.
Looking to do so...
"Israel wouldn't not have been founded in 1948 without terrorism". I would object to "Israel was founded on terrorism"
Technically the two are equivalent. If the second statement was "Israel would not exist without terrorism" then I think you'd be correct.
The fundamental issue is that it was terrorism that led to the State of Israel that exists today. It doesn't mean Israel wouldn't exist without it, but it would be a different Israel founded at a different time (probably.) It's possible (though I think unlikely) that Israel itself would not exist in Palestine without terrorism. Personally I think it likely that Israel would come into existence in some form in some part of Palestine in the mid-50's - but that's pure speculation.
The Jane analogy is a good one, but the two statement are very different than my contention relating to Israel and terrorism.
My statement would read more like:
"Jane would not have acquired that dress on Tuesday without shoplifting"
"Jane's dress was obtained through shoplifting"
Taking the analogy further the remainder of what I'm claiming is:
"Jane really wanted that dress, and would likely have acquired it some day through means other than shoplifting - but that's not what happened."
Technically the Yishuv is just the population of Jews in Palestine, it doesn't suggest any authority in any sense. Rather like the inverse of the "South African Diaspora" where it represents a body of people, and a place, and a time, but nothing political (in these two cases.)
No doubt there was organization, just as there was organization in any significant Jewish community in the world (a sad requisite as a response to centuries of systematic abuse.)
most terrorists don't call in bomb threats
I think you mean that they don't do this anymore as it has proven more effective, thank you Irgun, to "whoopsie" and sink the ship with the deportees on it and "whoopsie" kill 90+ people in a hotel bombing.
It was a real smart warning plan too. Have a 16 year old kid call the hotel switchboard and leave a warning with the switchboard 15 minutes before the attack. Not anyone in authority, the switchboard. Then call the French Consulate and warn someone there 10 minutes before the attack. Then finally, call the newspapers and warn them a few minutes before the actual attack.
Even if they'd called the manager of the hotel with the first call it is unlikely you could evacuate the hotel in that period of time if the manager immediately believed what you were saying and sent out a general alert. Maybe they had disaster planning training and could have, probably not.
the british authorities' official position was that nobody with any capacity to do anything had received a warning. They did not deny that a warning had been sent.
Irgun's own description of their warning makes it clear that nobody with the authority to act in time had been notified. They told the switchboard operator. They didn't call the hotel and have the switchboard operator connect them to anyone, they just told the switchboard operator and hung up. If they'd called the French Consulate an hour or two earlier there might have been a chance that the hotel could have been evacuated, but they didn't. They called them 10 minutes before the bombing.
All of this is irrelevant anyhow. Calling ahead and telling someone you're going to blow something up just means you're a terrorist who wants to minimize casualties (if only they were all so nice.)
I think any objective observer would say, the outcome that they were going for was nobody dead and less a hotel.
No rational adult would think that. Most rational objective adults would say that this was a "cover your ass" move like other terrorists have done in the past so that you can later claim "we warned you." Otherwise you wouldn't warn some random person at the hotel and only 15 minutes before the attack...
It's not ad hominem when you pretend that something that any objective viewer would term is terrorism that you suddenly pretend that Palmach is an army fighting the British army. That bombing the King David Hotel is one army attacking another. That bombing a ship carrying civilians is one army attacking another. You are, quite literally, being intellectually dishonest.
That it isn't terrorism because .
The Jewish leadership, itself, labeled the King David attack an "unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals" - so it seems pretty ridiculous for you to try and justify it as a legitimate 'operation.'
You'll excuse anything apparently.
First off a vital component and founded upon are different levels
In this case they're not because "founded upon" is meant quite literally. Without terrorism, Israel does not get founded in 1948.
It would be an interesting mental exercise to try and predict if (I believe it was inevitable in some form) and when it would have happened otherwise. For all the violence there was in the Zionist movement - there were many people that were against the violence. If I recall correctly, Albert Einstein himself denounced Menachim Begin as a fascist and leader of a terrorist party (this is after the founding of Israel I believe - 1950-ish?)
The British were unlikely to stay much beyond the early 1950s regardless.
Agreed, I believe the British had been looking for a reasonable way out even before WWII.
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.