First, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle."

From wikipedia:

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Note the difference between the assault rifle and the battle rifle. Assault rifles use smaller cartridges and are used at closer ranges than battle rifles. The larger sized rifle cartridges used in battle rifles make fully automatic fire more difficult. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously while the trigger is pressed; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

Assault is something you can do with a firearm (or knife, or hands), not a characteristic of the weapon itself.

Well done! You managed to find a ditionary! But on no! You stopped at the first definition.

You know words have multiple, often relared meanings, right?

2.
a. A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
b. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.

An assult rifle is a weapon used commonly in militry assults.

Pity, it works rather well here, I think the difference is that over here it's set up in such a way that a lower road toll equates to a profit for the state. The idea of a quantitative approach started here in the late 80's and has been widely copied around the world. The statutory injury payouts, compulsory government insurance, the whole thing would probably smell too much like socialism for your average American to stomach, but the results speak for themselves.

My understanding is that it's feasible to deliver about 30. With training you can load a five round stripper clip in no time atall. I can do it moderately quickly on my Peruvian Mauser and that's not nearly as easy.

3 out of 5 compilers are broken. Actually 5 out of 5 compilers are broken. 3 out of 5 are broken in that specific fashion. The problem stems from the mistaken belief that following the standard will result in a compiler that isn't broken. A compiler is code. I think we can agree on that. Let's look at something else that follows the standard but is broken:

printf("My nme id mud\n");

The above statement is supposed to print "My name is mud". It is 100% compliant to the standard, but it is broken. In case you haven't figured it out yet the standard is not bug free either. :-)

Another way to rephrase your original statement is: Don't be surprised if your standards compliant compiler is broken, to which I would add Don't be surprised if your standards compliant code is broken.

OK. Fine. I accept that if someone sucks at writing compilers they can follow the standard and do something phenomenally stupid. That has always been the case, of course. Now let's look at it in a non-TL;TD fashion:

Consider the followinf two statements:

1) "Yo, if dat nigga be Ja-Rule, he aint no solid nigga!
2) "If anyone who isn't trustworthy shows up to the party, don't let them in!"

Said statement can be made in two types of environments, the kind where it makes sense (we'll call that one the "Ghetto" platform) and the type where it doesn't (we'll call that one the "Academic" platform.)

Now on the Ghetto platform that statement makes sense and so we can infer something about Ja-Rule and when we do the subsequent statements have complete validity, he isn't trustworthy, and we don't let him in when he shows up at the party. On the "Academic platform that statement makes no sense so we ignore it (i.,e. optimize it away). On the Ghetto platform where we can say something about Ja-Rule based on the statement the statements that follow makes sense and we don't let him in. On the Academic platform we cannot infer anything about Ja-Rule so we do the check and we don't let him in. Since there is no guarantee that the only person showing up at the party will be Ja-Rule we certainly cannot infer from the first statement that there is no need to check each person to see if they are trustworthy before letting them in.

It's that simple. If you infer something from a non-sensical statement and use it to make determinations your compiler is broke. There is no way around it. Another way to say it is that you can have a compiler that may technically conform to the standard, but that doesn't make it any less broken.

Standard size of shipping containers are 20ft and 40ft, yes, imperial feet, not meters.

Is there a need to stick to metric system no matter what ?

How many cubits is that?

Wyden already had classified information about this stuff. He wouldn't do anything about it except give vague warnings.

What is so amazing to me are people like you who are always happy to criticize someone who took action for doing it "the wrong way." The problem with that attitude is that everyone has their own version of "the right way." Snowden got results, it ain't perfect but its 1000x more effective than what anyone else has done. He deserves enormous slack for that.

Yes but people who write maths are used to doing it LaTex, where it would take about 30 characters:

\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}

Typical open source bug handling - whinging

You're taking a dig at open source, but the only thing to compare it to is closed source. Let me quote some more of your comment:

somebody tries it on OS-X, where it works, someone else demonstrates the failure

You mean somebody actually did something? This is so far ahead of most typical closed source bug reporting which is usually drawn from one of these options:

1. *tumbleweed*

2. Oh yeah, it is a bug. Wait for the next version.

3. Oh yeah it is a bug. Upgrade to the next version which might fix it for $$$$$.

What don't you understand? The state can ask for taxes in the state currency. I can keep track of my finances, and pay them. Regardless of what currency or investment my wealth is in. This is the current system. Bitcoin changes nothing. True, the government needs to trust me to file my taxes honestly, but that isn't any different than currently. Audits Exist.

Now, the main problem I have with states and governments in general is that they're fucking bogus! Seriously. No Scientist would agree to be ruled the way governments want to rule: Let's just roll out some country wide plan with zero evidence it'll be successful based on the speculations of ideologues?! Fuck That! Get me a government that incrementally rolls out changes and evaluates the effects at each stage, making adjustments or halting if detrimental. Get me some Scientists and Engineers in power. Then you'll have a legitimate government. Until then, the government is NOT BENEFICIAL. Any who posit otherwise: PROVE IT. Oh, that would require applying science? EXACTLY.

So ... according to you a compromise means that you are willing to get rid of something we both agree is wasteful and unnecessary only if I am willing to give up something I believe is essential, non-wasteful, and perhaps even provides good ROI. This is exactly the kind of "compromise" the Tea Party recently proposed. They were only willing to do something they agreed needed to be done if others would make significant concessions in unrelated areas.

Doing something we both agree should be done is not a compromise; it is agreement. Demanding additional concessions in other areas before you are willing to do what you agree should be done is about as far away from compromise as possible; it is extortion and hostage-taking. It's basically saying "we're going to ruin it for everyone unless we get our way".

You have perfectly encapsulated the reason why there are no longer any compromises in DC.

No. The first important point is that the one taking the money out isn't the same person (or, in this case, bitcoin address) as the one putting it in. If one bank robber throws his money in a bit, and his accomplice comes by later and takes it out, it's really easy for Mr. Police Detective watching the hole to see who the accomplice is. But if the bank robber and a hundred other people throw money into the pit, then a hundred and one completely different people come by and take money out... who's the accomplice? This is what the mixing accomplishes.

It was wrong then, it's wrong now. It's always been wrong. Care to try again?

Just because others aspire to evil doesn't make it legitimate that we do so as well. That's not an excuse, that's sophistry. We are supposed to be BETTER than the Russians and the Chinese. We aren't supposed to cry like children that they had their hands in the cookie jar too, so it's OK if we did. No, that doesn't make it alright. We set ourselves apart. What is the USA? It's this: we hamstring ourselves, we restrain ourselves, we limit ourselves, in the restrictions and surveillance of our citizens AND THIS MAKES US FREE. THIS MAKES US OUT-COMPETE THE TYRANTS. The hawks have forgotten this. The hawks have forgotten that it is the step back from tyranny which gives you the room to breath the air of freedom; and it is the air of freedom which births prosperity.

Chase security, chase anti-terrorism, chase information awareness, but all you'll get is the opposite of what you're pursuing.

So, your typical bitcoin fan then...