And you missed mine, which is that once gimp meets a person's functional requirements, the name is unlikely to matter to many more people. I would suggest that it only significantly gets associated with the negative meaning of a homophone for its name by people because it isn't adequate in the first place.
Plus, you can call it whatever the heck you want.... it's open source you could even make a fork.... if the fork is just a name change, then such a fork would be quite trivial, if your fork isn't widely adopted by the community, then wouldn't that suggest that the name isn't as big a deal as you are implying?
Woolsey said Snowden, who divulged classified [information] in 2013, is partly responsible for the terrorist attack in France last week that left at least 120 dead and hundreds injured
What is his alleged basis for concluding that the information that Snowden released in 2013 had anything more to do with those attacks than any other entirely random element, such as merely the invention of the smart phone? I'd be sincerely surprised if there really was a connection, but it's nonetheless a sincere question. Is there any even hypothetical reason to sincerely suspect that the info that Snowden released actually contributed to these attacks, or are people that allege such a connection just using Snowden as a convenient scapegoat (presumably because they didn't like what Snowden did)?
I personally think we should go back to being nude, but I seem to be a minority. Also, you first.
There are some horrors which, once seen, cannot be erased from your brain. Trust me, you do not want me to go first... or ever, for that matter.
the point is that those that want access to the information cannot be trusted
Agreed, but even if they *COULD* be trusted (this is a hypothetical scenario here, I know, but hear me out)... it is still a bad idea, because if they are able to read your encrypted data, then so could somebody with less noble intentions. No matter how honest or trustworthy any governing body could ever be, they cannot prevent 100% of the bad guys from getting access to the exact same encryption defeating measures that the government might intend to use, so even if you give the government every benefit of the doubt about their intentions for how they would use these powers, you still wind up with catastrophic failure when somebody outside of the government, and over whom the government may have absolutely no control, gets access to the same data, and uses their ability to decrypt it for nefarious purposes, which may cause irreparable harm to completely innocent parties.
That's *EVEN IF* the government could be trusted to not abuse the power they would have. No further investigation into how trustworthy the government may or may not actually be is necessary to show how colossally stupid and dangerous the idea is.
They appear to be under the impression that the only reason one would have something to hide is because one has done something wrong.
Of course, nearly everyone has something to hide... and it is not because there is anything necessarily wrong. Does one wear clothes in public for example? Is there something wrong with their bodies that they feel they must do this, or do they do so simply because their bodies are private? Having something that you may feel is private or even something that you might feel somewhat embarrassed by if it were to be public does not mean that anything is amiss... it means you are human.
It is different in what you say and repeat here again: if I'm overqualified, that is my "problem". Not the issue of the boss giving out the job. It has nothing to do with money at all. It is a question of tasks and skills. If the tasks are super simple and my skills exceed those task why should the boss pay me more?
He shouldn't, obviously... but that's what I'm saying... if somebody is overqualified, then the employer won't generally pay what the person is qualified for. This is entirely independent of whether or not they are paying fairly for the work the employer actually want done.
You have either more quallifications or more experience than the job actually requires.
Which is different from what I said how, exactly? It is always the case that either an employer is willing to pay what your qualifications deserve or they are not. Being overqualified for a position only means that the employer isn't willing to pay you as much as your qualifications might deserve. This is not necessarily the employer always being cheap, because the job that they have available might genuinely not require the full extent of qualifications that you have, but that still always reduces to not wanting to pay what your qualifications deserve. If they *were* going to pay you what your qualifications deserved, then you wouldn't really be overqualified at all, because your qualifications would merit what they are willing to pay you.
A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.