You are given the opportunity to choose. Would you like to be beaten within an inch of your life with a blue bat or a red bat? Not being beaten doesn't seem to be on the menu.

It's like complaining that the supermarket charges a million dollars an ounce for anything that won't slowly kill you and failing to take responsibility for eating the toxic food.

If you need a paycheck, you are working class.

The comment in TFA about marketing seems dead on. I honestly cannot think of any other disclose security vulnerability that got it's own logo.

Count me out of they. I and many others state explicitly that Open Source reduces but cannot absolutely eliminate security bugs. Go ahead, dig up my posts on archive .org.

Y2K wasn't entirely FUD. Yes, the world is ending crowd were spreading FUD, but the fact is, there was a big effort in the mobnths leading up to Y2K to fix the many very real problems. Most of the fixes were successful, but it required paying enough to get people who moved up from coding in COBOL to management years ago to go back to coding for a while.

Actually, the GOP tends a bit higher on the authoritarian axis than Democrats. Strange but true.

I thought about that a bit. It's easy to remove all but the functions intended to be used parameterized, but that doesn't prevent you from doing something stupid, it just doesn't invite you to be stupid. There is certainly something to be said for that.

The solution for the second part would be a bit heavy weight and never really satisfactory. For example:

"SELECT info from STUFF where id=$uid;"

Pretty much anyone would agree that uid should be parameterized. However, what about:

"SELECT $field from $table where $other_field = $value;"

Which of those do we want to force into parameters for all cases? Surely we don't want to force the first query to be re-written as:

"SELECT $1 from $2 where $3=$4;", array('info','STUFF','id',$uid)

But short of that, we can't stop someone from being stupid.

Even better, roll it back to the original intent. Line 2, subtract $100,000. Line 3. If line 2 >0, divide by 10 and enter here. Else, don't bother filing.

By now, that number may be closer to $200,000 given inflation.

Originally, it was intended that the vast majority of people wouldn't even be required to file. Those who were were almost certain to already employ an accountant.

The really sad part is that the court's logic was approaching non-sequitur. The law is full of requirements for adverse disclosures. If adverse disclosures are a violation of free speech, then I don't have to disclose if I sell a car that was totaled and 'restored' and I don't have to disclose undocumented income to the IRS. Also, no need to disclose any known issues if I sell my house. Next, I suppose they'll rule that a restaurant need not post an extremely adverse health inspection.

Your logic failed. He didn't say the left never does. He just pointed out the ones the right makes, which were the ones relevant to the thread.

You have to remember that the lines are moving. Compared to Reagan, Eisenhower was a pinko. But compared to Bush Jr., Reagan was at least a left leaning Democrat.

Sure, the added input options might be nice, but that still doesn't alter the desire for a more traditional desktop UI. Of course that doesn't apply on an iPhone since that is clearly a mobile device. Small screen, held in one hand, no desk.

But note that virtual keyboards are already supported at the input layer. If someone actually wanted to do speech to text (and speech to text worked well enough) there's no reason a daemon process couldn't listen to the mike and then generate synthetic keystrokes. As a side benefit, that would work on the text consoles as well.

It is interesting to see how the wildlife has fared in the exclusion zone. Perhaps it is truly fair to say that general human activity is more harmful to nature than nuclear waste.

I also find it interestiung that there are a few people who never left the exclusion zone. They are still alive and living on food they grow in the zone.

I wouldn't call radiation healthy, but perhaps we need to review our understanding of the risks.

Oddly enough, because I have 'tree hugging' tendencies, I fully support nuclear power. It's the one tech we have for power that when done right releases no pollutants into the environment and otherwise minimises it's impact. No flooded land and disturbed fish and no chopped eagles.