circulated a video on Facebook of her appearing drunk and disheveled in a bathroom at a party. The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide.

Why just Facebook? Clearly Sony did nothing to prevent the video from being recorded by the handicam they manufactured. For that matter, the architect of the house where the party took place did nothing to prevent the poor girl from being drunk and disheveled in the bathroom he designed.

And if the architect can't be bothered to be responsible in the first place, where was he when she was being harrassed? Where was he when this poor young girl needed someone to talk to, to explain that people can be horrible sometimes, and it doesn't mean she is any less of a person? That she needs to develop the strength in herself to withstand these kinds of attacks, because they are a part of life in a world that is sometimes cruel? Where was the architect when she needed to understand that getting too drunk and making a fool of herself was a dangerous, but ultimately healthy cautionary tale for a young girl, and that she should take it as a learning experience on the risks of underage drinking and those who might take advantage of her? I mean, obviously her parents -- the ones filing the suit -- weren't doing their job, so where was the architect?

Look, parents: If your daughter gets in a situation like this and kills herself, we don't want to have to point out that you are the best chance she had, because that is a horrible reality for you and it does not necessarily mean you caused her death. You may not have done anything wrong -- these horrible tragedies just happen sometimes. But if you are going to pull out the lawyers and start insisting that the blame be placed on someone -- if you are going to corner society, through its legal system, into putting the blame on someone -- you leave us little choice but to point out that the people most responsible for your daughter's ability to cope with the harsh realities of the world are you. If you can't accept that it is not Facebook's fault, how can we not point out that you are vastly more responsible for your daughter's psychological wellbeing than a website?

Actually, both geurilla and conventional warfare were used by American forces in The Revolution. I didn't didn't say geurilla tactics won the war, I said they were used by one side and not the other, and implied that the willingness to adapt to the battlefield reality unrestrained by traditional propriety -- including the use of unconventional tactics -- was an important element in winning the war. You can point to a dozen other factors from supply lines to Lafayette, as well. So I could just as easily take the piss out of your post by saying, "Actually, the belief that conventional tactics by the American forces won the war is a popularly held misconception. If it were not for long supply lines and war-weariness at home, England would have stayed in the fight longer and broken the American forces."

Also, a tip: The phrase "popularly held misconception" almost always suggests you are calling the other person a member of the unwashed masses. That tends to invite a stern retort, so make sure you have your research down cold when you tread such ground.

I can't help but get an image of the English soldiers in the American Revolution, standing out in the field in ranks, getting shot by George Washingtons troops, thinking, "WTF, man, you're not allowed to hide behind stuff!" Washington thinking, "Well, yeah, but... we're winning."

American diplomats in China saying, "Like, what the fuck, guys? We're not at war, why are you stealing our stuff?" Chinese guy just completely baffled thinking, "Ummm, because we're trying to win? You fuckers have been twisting our nuts in a global economic vise for half a century because you can't get over your own propaganda from the 1950s, and you don't get what we're doing? Idiots."

Strip away the right/wrong of it and just look at the realpolitik, it's kind of funny.

is this accurate? im really confused.

I think you may be mistaking what are actually contrasting and often contradictory statements of discrete individuals across several communities for a monolithic statement of belief by a single collective mind.

Why do you care what I look like?

Why do you care what I think you look like?

He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Did you mean to say, "Note" or "Not"? I want to make sure I am giving you the benefit of the doubt -- that you may have intended to disclaim the implication that his actions could be considered treason.

If you did mean "Note", then the above is a non-sequitur. You charge him with this:
a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution

You identify the relevant legal statute:
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

And you imply that the former is a violation of the latter:
such a thing is the basis for treason.

He did not levy war against our nation, he did not adhere to our Enemies, and he did not give them Aid and Comfort. At the most he may have presented a clear and present danger, which grants authority to law enforcement officers to detain or use force to stop the immediate threat. Beyond that moment, the detention authority of the civilian government is only granted under the limits of due process.

In the end Facebook, despite what we want to believe, is a public venue and we should not be plotting revolutions using it.

In this sentence the word "should" can have one of two meanings: You might be saying, "He would be unwise to use this means, because it would elicit the just and lawful scrutiny of the law enforcement community, which would be unhelpful to his pursuit." Or you could mean, "He should be stripped of due process for saying what he did."

If you mean the former, you are quite correct, obviously. But I would hasten to add that regardless of his interests, we prefer it when he speaks in public. We want him to make his plans in public. We want our law enforcement community to hear about his intentions, and to have the opportunity to consider whether he presents a threat and should be detained. We want our health professionals to have the opportunity to detect an illness and engage in community outreach to offer him the help he may need. Regardless of whether his speech has any merit or even if it is a violation of law, and even if he would be a fool for doing so, we want him to speak in public.

But I digress. If you mean the latter, that he should be stripped of due process, you are speaking against the bedrock freedoms on which this nation was formed. The right to speak freely is the right most fundamental to Our Grand Experiment and due process when accused based on dangerous speech is an absolute necessity to the preservation of that right.

He was denied due process. Regardless of whether he broke the law, he was not given due process. That is the problem that is being examined.

The government has some responsibility to monitor public communications to keep the country safe.

The government is not being charged with violating his right to privacy or surveillance without authorization. They are being charged with denying him due process.

In either case, be it prevention or help, I don't see how this is a bad thing.

There are legal means for detaining people when they are believed to be a threat. The government can take them into custody. The government can hold them without explaining its reason for a brief period, and can charge the person with a crime and hold them for much longer, subject to the limitations of due process. They are accused of detaining him unlawfully. They are accused of exceeding the authorization that we, the people, sovereigns of this nation, have granted them. They are accused of breaking the law -- something which, as far as I know, still has not happened to Brandon Raub.

Here's the math that explains why you are wrong. When it comes to compatibility issues, like standards, it is easy for a laissez-faire system to get stuck on a local maxima. It is one of the primary reasons that a well regulated market can be a closer approximation of the theoretical ideal free market than can laissez-faire. This sort of problem is exactly why people institute governments.

Police printed the 15 parts required to assemble The Liberator in 27 hours and assembled it within 60 seconds with a firing pin fashioned out of a steel nail.

27 hours for a .38? You could make a dozen 12 gauges in that time, and really get your rampage on. Let me know when they start regulating black pipe and twine.

" I think smoking crack is extremely out-of-character for him"

—bwahahahhahah

"video of drunken bumblingness, ..., or just general belligerence"

—it has that *as well*, including slurs against Justin Trudeau, gays, and the kids he spends his afternoons coaching instead of working.

"kudos to the epic trolls who started the rumour"

—The video is not a "rumour". It's out there and has been seen by journalists who didn't have the $200K on them at the time.

That post is not very useful or informative. While I would like to believe that MariaDB has done clever things with query planning and execution, it would need a much more rigorous investigation than posed here. For example, he doesn't even explain the form of his queries and the nature of his schema.

It would also require benchmarking against, say, PostgreSQL, which looks very attractive versus versions of MySQL, for both technical and licensing reasons.

Damned straight. You rock.

Thanks for the correction, and for the link to the DMCA claim -- retraction here.

Thanks for the correction -- retraction here.