Don't try to pretend that you're the only one who doesn't like the health care bailout act of 2010. Don't pretend that it has anything to do with Benghazi, either.

I have asked you many, many, many, many, many times to show this "known, public lying". Not once have you even attempted an answer to the request. Not. One. Single. Time. This does not do anything to lend credibility to your claim.

Why are you accusing me of this? Have you actually read what I have written? I would have to conclude the answer to that to be no since my responses counter the allegations you just leveled against m with that statement.

You don't conceal anything; if you think you do then you are only kidding yourself. You don't have an actual policy argument against President Lawnchair; you hate him for being from a party other than your own. You have demonstrated that many, many, many times over.

You try to play this card about once a week even though it has no bearing on reality whatsoever. I have never called you a racist. Not. One. Single. Time. You know that. Why do you keep playing this strange card?

Use your special system architecture x-ray vision, folks. This is not simple, stand-alone site like Slashdot that just has to do some database queries and generate some XML, then uses JQuery or something to asynchronously load some advertising into a DIV. This is a system that must orchestrate a complex *synchronous* process involving servers that belong to outside organizations.

Case in point; the system requirements say that the site must exclude illegal immigrants, so the system has to request and obtain proof of your status from Homeland Security's servers before it can proceed. Also, instead of issuing the same subsidy to everyone, the law specifies and income dependent, means-tested subsidy, which means the system ALSO has to check your claims against the IRS's computers before continuing. That's before it actually gets to obtaining the marketplace data.

So the most complex aspect of this system is essentially untestable short of a near-full scale roll-out. Hey, IRS, can I try hosing down your servers with JMeter? Even if you could orchestrate the non-functional testing you'd want to do, you won't know how the system works until it's handling real data. It's not like you can shove a test load equivalent to a thousand applications per hour, then another equivalent to ten-thousand, then draw a straight line that will tell you how the system will perform with twenty-thousand. There are some serious discontinuities in performance lurking, and the actual data submitted is likely to change things.

I think if I were in charge of this, the extreme difficulty of realistic non-functional testing might have led me to isolate some of the data interchange into a post-processing step. That is, I'd let people apply and take them at their word about their immigration status and income, then tell them to check back in a day while we confirm the data they submitted. It's more bureaucratic, but a big part of user experience is predictability. If someone knows they can complete their application in half an hour and come back 24 hours later for confirmation, it's not so bad. But if the system is designed to give them the expectation that they can finish in a half hour, but sometimes takes so long their sessions expire, that's a disaster.

Yes it's an android fuckup, for letting OEM's being able to do it in the first place.

"Letting"?

From Wikipedia:

The source code for Android is available under free and open-source software licenses.

Am I misunderstanding what that means? How could Android stop OEM's from forking Android? (I'm not an OSS maven, so the question is an honest one).

Subjective. Titles can be anything.

No, they can't. The problem is you're an idiot.

Wrong, it does matter. As you pointed out

Why should they have expected another attack to take place at a different location some three hours later?

Why would they expect the attack to continue? Terrorism is supposed to be about being unpredictable. If people know where you are going to show up next you are not a very good terrorist.

First of all, Al Qaeda is not the only organization that flies black flags. Second, when they do fly them it does not mean every time they are about to launch an attack (see above regarding terrorism). Third, if they were flying them

then that makes it really hard to predict where defense against them is needed.

You said yourself the distance between the attacks was only about a mile, and that some three hours passed between the attacks. Why would they expect another attack to happen after that much time had passed? You could march a collection of people that distance in a lot less than three hours, although what you cannot do in three hours is reasonably load up a C130 in Italy with troops and get it to Benghazi unless they were already prepared for a moment's notice departure well before (and even then your chances are not good).

And now were back to insults. Goodbye pudge. If you actually want to have a civil conversation about this you are welcomed to try again later. Once again though you have proven you don't want to do that - at least, not with me.

You keep expecting a math test to have answers that are "right" and "wrong". That's just a liberal plot.

Here in Missouri, we require our math tests to present a more balanced view of math and science questions that includes a traditional, faith-centric approach.

"If Jesus is speaking to thirty-thousand people, and he wants to feed them all but he only has two loaves and three fishes, how many pieces will he have to divide them into?

A) 30,000
B) N/A. He just kept producing magical loaves and fishes because he's divine.
C) None. Jesus told them to get a damn job so they can feed themselves and stop being takers."

Sharing your views is one thing. You have done that, indeed. What you have repeatedly failed to share is why you hold those beliefs. You believe that the Lawnchair administration is lying about Benghazi but you refuse to state why. That is like saying that you believe in the flying spaghetti monster because you like marinara.

No, I do take your beliefs at face value. I accept that you hate the president and every politician with a (D) after their name. I accept that you want President Lawnchair thrown out of office at any cost. I accept that you see the country as spiraling towards a totalitarian socialist nightmare.

You are entitled to have whatever beliefs you want. Just because I don't share the same beliefs does not mean I do not accept them as being yours. I have been for some time now seeking to understand WHY you hold those beliefs. You used to be willing to share occasional bits of insight into that, before you became radicalized. Now you seem to have a mission to destroy the democratic party at all costs, constitutionality be damned.

"Begging the question" refers to a logical fallacy in which you pose a question that can't be answered without assuming something that really ought to be proved first. The common example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It seems to call for a yes or no answer, but such an answer is only possible until we all agree that you've been beating your wife.

"Begging the question" is sometimes a result of sloppy thinking, but it can sometimes be an "intentional fallacy" -- a dirty trick, as when a prosecutor asks you, "How long have you been stealing from your employer?"

The term "begging the question" has never been clear in English; it's a literal translation of the Latin term "petitio principii"; it might better be called "assuming the conclusion". "Begging the question" in the logical-fallacy sense was always jargon, and thus not a first class member of the English lexicon in my opinion.

Anyhow, your reaction proves my point. The majority of even reasonably educated people now think "begging the question" mens "raising the question"; and so we have to accept that's one of it's meanings. It's more practical to reform the dictionary than it is to reform the language. If it helps, this is a case of what linguists call metonymy. The fallacy of petitio principii does indeed involve raising a question -- the question of the implicit premise's truth. Over time that meaning has been broadened to include *all* instances of raising questions.

Initially those who used "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" were just ignorant people trying to ape the writing of their more educated betters. But that's gone on so long there's no practical alternative but to grant that sense of phrase naturalized citizenship. But there are some who will never accept it, so it's best to accept the use of that sense by others but not to use it oneself.

In what way? Are you suggesting that someone in the house is covering their own hindquarters over this?

You are very certain of that, yet you have given no reason to support your belief. Does that mean you would discard as "improper" any investigation that does not lead to throwing out the president and everyone else with a (D) after their names?

Yeah, we know you believe President Lawnchair is evil. We get that, loud and clear. You can't stand the idea of someone with a (D) in the whitehouse, even if they are more conservative in action than any man who has ever lived in 1600 Pennsylvania.

If there was even the slightest shred of evidence to support your allegation of the Lawnchair Administration intentionally lying about Benghazi, I would whole-heartedly support your call for an investigation. However I have yet to see any such evidence, and if you know of any you have refused to share it in spite of my repeated request.

I am not running interference. You only make that claim because of your hyperpartisan belief system that tells you everyone with a (D) is evil. Hell I am likely less pleased with Obama's performance as POTUS than you are. However I will not support impeachment for reasons of "because 5,000 tea partiers say he's the devil". If you want an investigation, give a reason for it. If the democrats had the spine (best joke of the week) to have launched an investigation into the previous POTUS during his administration you would have asked for the same.

That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

That only makes sense if they had a reason to go there and had such a reason in time to act upon it. What characteristics of the first attack gave indication that a second attack would be launched soon on a separate building?

That is a lot of speculation. If we had sent troops from Italy as soon as we had information on the first attack, and no second attack was launched, you would be criticizing the president for being heavy handed. After all, President Lawnchair had told us we would not have "boots on the ground" in Libya, right? You would just be criticizing him for breaking another promise, regardless of what the outcome would have been. There is no response that he could have possibly authorized in response that would have satisfied you.

Why? Because in the real world, SHIT HAPPENS. Maybe he's wedged between the truck and a slow RV. Maybe there's a piece of loose tire tread in the lane. Maybe a deer is starting to cross the road. Maybe there's a pothole. Maybe the driver just dozed off. Behind the semi, you CAN'T see any of that, especially not at a "fair distance".

Driving that fast depends on shit NOT happening, which is pure luck.

I know one thing: Safe driving on public highways in the USA means not driving at 150mph. If you somehow feel that isn't the case, then you are deluded.

Neither of these are bad questions. In fact they're pretty damn good.

Question 1- a title is supposed to inform you on what the story is about. That makes option (a) a bad choice. The sun is in the story, but is not a central actor. Option (d) is also a bad choice, it would make a relatively unimportant part the theme.

Options b and c are harder to pick between, and I think that someone who chooses b isn't completely wrong. So I think having that option was a mistake. But (c) requires you to correctly identify the theme of the story, that the weather forces change in Timmy's actions.

Question 2- requires the child to think about why he needed to change socks. This requires him to go beyond the word and analyze the story, interpreting facts not explicitly mentioned and using common sense. This is an INCREDIBLY important skill that needs to be taught early.

This is EXACTLY what they should be teaching. Critical thinking and the ability to reason about the text.

That's been the continual story of personal computing since the 1970s. *Somebody* has to go through the pain of integrating new capabilities into common use.

It didn't affect me directly because I was working on System V Unix and we weren't directly connected to ARPANet.

I remember thinking, "Gee, someone actually *made* one of those?"

The idea had already popped up in some 70s sci-fi stories, and I remember in the late 70s pranking was already fairly common on timesharing systems. As soon as people began to share systems pranksters began to fool around with them, creating "fork bombs" and "chain jobs". It was annoying for sysadmins, but I think it wasn't malicious. The people who did this stuff were fascinated with the edge cases, the things a system could be made to do that it wasn't designed to do; and, let's just say they weren't necessarily the most attuned to the needs and desires of others.

Since the idea of network-vectored malware had cropped up shortly after the idea of a networked world became commonplace (this was still sci-fi stuff in the 70s), people had been talking about the real possibility of such a thing in the 80s; there were even some academic papers on the notion. But our forward thinking was more focused on the positive things that networked computers would do. In the end I think most of us fell short on both ends. Most of us underestimated just how useful and ubiquitous networking would become, at least in our lifetimes. And although we knew network-vectored malware was a theoretical possibility, we had no idea what a major feature of the networked world it would become -- at least in our lifetimes.

in retrospect, the Morris Worm wasn't so remarkable. We'd already seen pranksters on timesharing systems. I called them "doorknob twisters"; people whose curiosity and distractability meant they couldn't walk down a corridor without taking a peek behind the closed doors. Often these were the best people; Ken Thompson even described putting hidden hacks the C compiler in his Turing Award speech. And people had been talking about the possibility for network worms, albeit in sci-fi terms. Again in retrospect, something like the Morris Worm was bound to happen, probably within the next two or three years.

The Morris Worm is remarkable because it was our introduction to the unpredictability inherent in the scale of the network world. Just a tiny miscalculation was enough to turn an intellectual curiosity into a widespread disaster.