- Agile/scrum, anything related to it, inspired by it, or even remotely like it, and the mindset of managers who advocate it.
buzzwords, but there is some value in it
- "continuous integration"
probably a good idea if you don't hook it up to production
buzzword, but quite a bit of value in it. Why not have a repeatable build process across landscapes?
square peg but hey, why not. I don't see this ruining a business, the language has come a long way.
- giving every single person in the IT department the root server access
holy hell no.
- using microsoft "solutions"
some are good, some are not, but if you don't like anything they do you probably do it based on ideology.
You make a fair point, but I'd say 'simpler' is far more subjective than 'less', and less seems to be the right answer 95% of the time.
Not to mention this 'database abstraction' lacks most of what makes a database:useful: enforced:types, uniqueness, referential integrity, joins.
Until you get sick or hit by a bus or, god forbid, take a vacation. My commute would be more gas efficient if I had precisely the amount of gas I needed to get to work and back, but not allocating for unexpected outages is living dangerously.
I agree with you that Clinton isn't likely looking to abolish 2nd, though no doubt gun control is something she's spoken about frequently and eviscerated Sanders on his gun control record despite his moderate progressive position. She's definitely not a big 2nd amendment supporter though.
I think there's ample evidence Hillary is doing wrong, but she's a seasoned politician that's been through the ringer and so it'd be quite amateur if she said something damning in email correspondence with DNC.
None of this is mean to be an endorsement of Trump, I'm far removed from either camp.
And likely there would be armed revolt if the government were to abolish the 2nd amendment, that's not an incitement so much as stating a fact.
Also, if you think Hillary is going to put dirt in an email you severely underestimate the woman.
Of those 30k deaths, how many do you think were caused by 'high-powered firearms'? What does that even mean? The vast majority of shootings are by handguns, which is probably isn't what you're thinking of when you think of high-powered firearms.
You actually are reading the constitution backwards. The constitution not only grants explicit rights to 'the people' to keep and bear arms, but it further does not grant the federal government the right to regulate it, thus it's retained by the people per the 9th Amendment.
It's worth noting the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment: 'the security of a free state'. Everything I've read on the subject points to the idea that 'the people' need the ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government, ie 'a free state'. You can do that with pitchforks if you like (and you trust your fellow citizens enough to carry them around you), but I'd prefer to have high powered firearms.
Yet there were privately own cannons and even cannon ships, which I would classify as 'military grade' hardware.
There's much debate about that it is to be an atheist, but the definition of a theist that to me seems most honest is someone that believes in an intervening god (as opposed to a deist, who is more what you describe above.) Thus, a a-theist would hold a-symmetric views to the theist. There are zero successful scientific predictions by theist on how this intervening god will manifest itself, and I'd say the evidence weight heavily against this line of reasoning. I think this distinction is important if we're ever going to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
Good lord, partisan much? There were two lines in that comment, both of which were jokes, one making fun of a Democrat and one a Republican.
Also, your 100% on no invasion of Iraq under Gore is questionable at best.
Is there evidence that the US government has used TLD control to shut people up at will? That would be a compelling argument.
We've seen the problems introduced by trying to outlaw alcohol, and so I think most folks would say it's a benchmark for something that is tolerably bad because the alternative is worse. (I say tolerably bad but I actually consume a good bit of the stuff).
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan