his lawyers convinced an appeals court that coding for a system meant to buy and sell stock across state and international borders wasn't "interstate commerce"
The system itself wasn't being sold, which is what the law protects. Remember, there's usually a somewhat poor real-world analogy (car related, if you're lucky) you can use when dealing with cases like this.
that my specific area of expertise is in recognizing bullshit
You seem to be adept at spewing it as well.
You have no medical background, yet you dismiss ADHD diagnosis and treatments because you don't like the language and the tinfoil hat you're wearing is beeping.
my PhD is in understanding English, critical theory and literary theory.
That and $1 will get you a cup of coffee.
Have you studied in this field long? When did you graduate medical school, if you don't mind me asking.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you didn't, but you have a little knowledge and that's good enough for you. Boldly going where angels fear to tread!
You have to assume that they're using one as well, since they're optional.
Honestly, there are ways around something like this.
Passwords with drawn password locks in the middle, or multiple keyfiles come to mind.
Although with enough mental discipline it might be possible for a subject to thwart the test.
How would you determine a keyfile or drawn password lock?
When will these idiots learn, you can't impose a pentalty based on content.
Tax all games at 1% or none.
How does that make it a crime all of a sudden?
Even if the password is 'password' it's still breaking in.
Just because you have a really poor lock doesn't mean the door is open.
I went back to look for that answer you told me about, was it in the first or second post?
Let's see, in the first one he accused the poster of having multiple aliases, went off topic about microsoft in another unreferenced thread. Provided some quote from another thread, again, no clue where it came from. Then went back to accusing the poster of having multiple aliases and trolling. Finished up with a 'why don't you provide an answer' when the OP did provide one, not a clear one, but an answer none the less.
Now, on to the second post.
"For your answer to have been correct, the OP would need the ability to foresee the future." Not really sure why the OP needs psychic powers to know that you evaluate and use the right tool for the job. I don't remember psychic training in my application design class, but I'll assume I was out that day. Either way, I'm not sure what the question was in that case .
For your answer to have been correct, the OP would need the ability to foresee the future.
In what way? You made no rational arguments, you just engaged in a puerile rant about how much you dislike the poster.
After looking at some of your posting history, that seems to be your baseline, so I'll just stop here.
cheers,
And why didn't you provide an answer to the submitter, rather than troll?
Oh! Oh! I have an answer. Pick me!
It's because you're trolling just as hard!
You spent 5 of 6 lines attacking the person who wrote the post, 1 line talking about some other topic and zero arguing the merits of the post.
Yay! I solved the puzzle. I'll take the cupcake for $10 and the rest on a gift certificate Pat.
I personally agree with the OP, you use the best tool for the job. If you are designing your own tools just to save money, then you're under-valuing your time as a developer. If in this case MSSQL works, then use it, if in another case MySQL works, use it.
Ambiguity: Telling the truth when you don't mean to.