When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying that they specifically said something they knew to not be true. It's no more complicated than that. In order to prove that someone was lying you need to show that they knew that thing to not be true.

If you say that person B is a mouthpiece for person A, and A sent out B to say something untrue knowing it to be untrue, you still need to show that A knew the statement to be untrue if you are aiming to show that A was lying by proxy through B. I was simply checking to see if you were trying to change your statement from your earlier allegation of President Lawnchair himself lying (which was your accusation many time in the past) to someone else lying on his behalf (which I had not seen you say this way before).

Even as far off the deep end as you have been willingly diving that is a strange jump for you. If I may clarify I was specifically mentioning domestic policies of the federal government under the duration of the term of President Lawnchair; I stand by my earlier statement that in that lens there is not a single thing he has done that would have not been done by a republican president before him. We could go further from there to also state that he hasn't done anything novel in foreign policy either; his foreign policy being so uninspired that no republican would have wavered from it, either.

If you believe that President Lawnchair could have somehow prevented those four deaths on Sept 11 of last year, please explain how. I have been asking you to describe that for ... this entire thread.

That barely even scratches the surface. You are treating President Lawnchair as if he is doing something radically different from his conservative predecessors when the opposite is the truth.

This suggests that indeed you are not reading my posts in their entirety. You should know at least a couple things about me by now:

• I don't like conservative presidents or conservative politics in this country and see them as sending our country in the wrong direction
• I have consistently argued that President Lawnchair will have a historical record as the most conservative president we've ever had prior to 2008

Knowing those two things about me, you should not be able to even conclude that I would consider him to be as good as mediocre from a policy standpoint.

If his actions reflect his ideas, then he went into the presidency with a head full of very conservative ideas. I would prefer to think that his actions oppose his ideas and reflect instead his desire to stay in office and not be sent home with a record of having not signed any legislation into law at all.

That statement is counter to what you wrote earlier. You earlier tried to place a claim that he is doing terrible and dangerous things to our country, and now you are trying to claim that he is doing nothing at all. The two claims are, at the very least, completely incompatible.

This statement supports my hypothesis that you do not read much of my comments any more. I am not defending anything. I am merely asking how you come up with your allegations. I ask you, and you do not reply. If I said that I felt the Koch Brothers should be drawn and quartered tomorrow at sun-up you would certainly want to know why. If my response was on the order of your response when I ask you for the rationale for your requests for President Lawnchair to be removed from office and executed sans trial you would be similarly dissatisfied.

Pudge I would be interested in living in a world like yours, where utter bullshit becomes fact as a result of repetition and adherence to philosophy alone. Unfortunately I live in reality, which is not compatible with your philosophy. Your repetition of bullshit does not a meaningful argument make, nor does your insistence on your apparent god-given ability to create facts out of sheer will.

But of course I haven't expected a reasonable argument from you for years. You make a habit out of being a total asshole in discussion with me pretty much every single time you insert yourself into a discussion. I don't see a reason to be kind to you any further in this discussion or on anything that relates to these matters, as you can't be bothered to be reasonable towards me either. Go ahead, take the last word again, I don't care. You will likely declare yourself the winner because your fabrication of reality equates in your special world to be exactly equivalent to actually presenting a reasonable argument and behaving like a rational adult.

The rest of the world knows better.

An OS update that breaks something that was working before?

Only Microsoft....

This friendly computer support tip brought to you by your local NSA extension service.

My, my, my... What do we have here? I've never seen such a rancid asshole before! My cock will now become One With Bayerhole right this minuteness! I can't wait to shoot my ass-seeking cock right into your rancidhole and get this fucking party started! What say you?

You would think that General Keith Alexander, head of the National Security Agency, would have something better to do than troll a Slashdot comments section. Aren't there illegal wiretaps to order or surveillance records to be shredded?

There are a few problems going on together here. First, the safer nuclear reactors are prohibited by the government. Branson has been trying to bankroll integral fast reactors for several years and the Obama administration has continually stonewalled him. It was the Clinton administration that killed the commercialization of that technology in the first place. Not surprisingly, Gore took a personal interest in that (no conflict of interest there, right?) Third, the Feds nationalized nuclear insurance in the 60's. What private insurer would put their money behind a light water reactor with sketchy maintenance? Why would they charge the same premiums to a meltdown-able (I know, not a word) reactor as a meltdown-proof design like integral fast reactors or thorium reactors? Why would the power companies be able to afford the insurance on rusting barrels of nuclear waste next to the river that they just store there? That's both an insurance problem and one of the feds promising they'll take care of the waste (but never doing it). Because they can consume that waste, integral fast reactors would be a business opportunity all their own if the economics of the nuclear industry wasn't wildly distorted by the government(s). Even in England where they're building a new reactor (well, the Chinese and French are) the cost of power is double that of a coal plant. But, then again, the coal plants don't have to pay a dime towards the externalities they introduce by spewing both radioactivity (so much more than any nuclear incident ever did) and mercury and other heavy metals.

We don't have a technology problem here and we don't have an economics problem either. It's know-nothing wonder-mutts screwing with those that have us in this position.

I have a PhD in chemistry, so I've been through all the classes mentioned.

Organic is, in fact, the only one you absolutely CAN memorize. Unlike the math-based chemistry classes where you have to learn principles, which the pre-meds struggle mightily with, the memorization-heavy organic chemistry is the one that is considered to be similar enough to medical school that it is used as a weed-out.

This is particularly true of organic *synthesis*, vs. organic *mechanisms*. Mechanistic organic is often presented as a first semester organic class, and that does actually require knowledge and understanding. Synthesis, however, is nearly straight memorization, even if you don't want to.

I was happy when the pre-meds stopped taking the major-level chemistry classes (mostly after organic). It made my physical chemistry classes much more interesting. It didn't keep the one pre-med in the class from whining the entire time that he wasn't getting the answers spoon-fed to him from the book, though.

So I don't know where the author is coming from, because they completely got it wrong.

So after I showed that your claims don't actually reflect reality, you then dedicate a post to lying about me rather than actually approaching facts. I'm sorry that reality has such a negative effect on you and your ego.

Students learn organic by memorization. It is unfortunate but it's the truth. That said, we expect med students to excel at memorization and regurgitation so OChem is a good tool for learning that. The problem though is that we de-incentivize actual comprehension as the students learn that they won't need >90% of what they memorized in OChem later on (if we exclude that which is acceptable to look up in a reference later).

First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

However that isn't your biggest problem here by a long shot. As I have stated before, in order for you to demonstrate that they lied you need to provide credible evidence that they knew what they were saying to be untrue. I have asked you many times for that evidence and not once have you provided any.

As I pointed out earlier, the administration officially corrected the statement more than a month before the 2012 election. More time elapsed between the correction and the election than between the event and the correction.

Well, you haven't made a legitimate policy claim against the president so far that is in any way different from a policy perspective than what any republican president has ever done. This is not about my worldview, this is about the driving motivation behind your aims. You have given plenty of reason to see your aims as the removal of all things (D), without regard for whether or not they actually differ from standard policies from (R).

Sorry, forgot to add: I also checked similar services some time ago and after much playing around decided on SpiderOak. I pay for 200 GB with them and am quite happy.

SpiderOak is quite decent. It's not the fastest at syncing, but their compression and deduplication works very well.

They claim zero-knowledge, have clients for Mac OSX, Linux, Windows, iOS and Android. You get 2 GB for free, give it a shot!

It's not an assumption. It's a statistical certainty. Do the math.

Interstate highways in this country connect major cities. There is no way to avoid urban areas. The whole country isn't Montana. Even if it were, there are trucks *everywhere*.

The total range of braking distances for 60-0 from the best cars to the crappiest varies by well under 2X. The laws of physics say that going twice the speed limit makes your braking distance increase by 4X. And that's *after* reaction time, which is impacted by little things like having almost no sleep in 24 fucking hours.

Just give it up already. Stop defending this narcissistic asshole.

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.