mejari

14 ms·

121.
by mejari 10y ago
>they've created, by law, many barriers to entry for any competing parties, let alone casting aside either party. Do you have some examples of these types of laws?
122.
by mejari 10y ago
That still doesn't explain how whether or not the user was illegally leaking documents is relevant. The request has nothing to do with that. You can read it yourself.
123.
by mejari 10y ago
The request for the user's details from the government doesn't allege illegal leaking of information, so why is that relevant?
124.
by mejari 10y ago
>Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand
125.
by mejari 10y ago
Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The Democrats certainly have their own problems, but this "both sides are the same" shtick is really getting old when they very clearly aren't.
126.
by mejari 10y ago
It could be that they want the drives unencrypted in order to help other investigations into the sources of the material, and think it will be better to compel him to release it before sentencing so he can't use it as leverage to lesse
127.
by mejari 10y ago
Spring?
128.
by mejari 10y ago
Exactly. I spent some time testing out converting a small part of our large codebase that uses Spring to Kotlin and was able to easily switch over to constructor injection. I think it actually made the injection cleaner. It was nicer for my
129.
by mejari 10y ago
As discussed elsewhere in these comments, "the internet" has most likely misinformed you of the actualities of this license change. It seems premature and unnecessarily aggressive and demeaning to "demand" things from Gi
130.
by mejari 10y ago
Then you don't get the benefit you were looking for from this event and then either try again or do something different? I don't get the point of your question.
131.
by mejari 10y ago
An alcoholic that becomes sober is still an alcoholic, they are just in control over their alcoholism.
132.
by mejari 10y ago
>Another part of having a productive conversation is learning not to make blanket statements, and knowing that most of what you say will be taken literally, and being generous and charitable in your interpretation of others. So the point
133.
by mejari 10y ago
I would disagree, because they're still visible and still structurally part of the same conversation, meaning people reading the conversation will read those tangents, or at the very least be distracted by them.
134.
by mejari 10y ago
Part of having a productive conversation is using context clues and social norms to help your understanding of what someone means when they say something. Derailing the conversation by taking a comment literally when everyone understands th
135.
by mejari 10y ago
What? No, I don't understand what he said. It was a list of dates and events that I don't know are true or accurate, without any context of why he commented them. I was referring to you when I said >Claim dishonesty when clai
136.
by mejari 10y ago
Awesome! Thank you, I appreciate it. Looks like that's just a rehost of a Brietbart article. Seems like some of the events disagree with the collation article: >On Thursday, Fox News’ Ed Henry tweeted that MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz and
137.
by mejari 10y ago
>it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism. I do not believe I did so. Again: I asked an honest question to which I honestly want to know the answer.
138.
by mejari 10y ago
>Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. A block of text of potentially real, potentially fabricated dates and events without any clarifying text doesn't really fit this description. I mean, if we
139.
by mejari 10y ago
It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant
140.
by mejari 10y ago
Which initial response? My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources. My first reply to billfor was a question
141.
by mejari 10y ago
Why bother posting the comment at all if you don't actually want to discuss it?
142.
by mejari 10y ago
I don't think it's the end of freedom of the press, but it's a dangerous step towards it. The fact that other groups have more reach doesn't lessen the damage excluding a major news organization just because you don&#x27
143.
by mejari 10y ago
Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?
144.
by mejari 10y ago
Granting long interviews is fundamentally different from access to briefings.
145.
by mejari 10y ago
You can paint yourself as the victim, but that doesn't make partisan attacks against actual news more accurate.
146.
by mejari 10y ago
Not even Air Force One, because this was during Obama's 2008 campaign before he was President. Just some personally chartered flight.
147.
by mejari 10y ago
Yes, he did call on conservative leaning publications. Your vague memories are incorrect.
148.
by mejari 10y ago
>White House press secretary Robert Gibbs still calls on Fox News reporter Major Garrett at press briefings So they were still invited to the briefings and still called on. >Obama last month granted five interviews to Sunday political
149.
by mejari 10y ago
While this is true, ML isn't a panacea that will solve all problems given time and training data.
150.
by mejari 10y ago
I mean, right off the bat it fundamentally misunderstands an investor's ability to just "pull" an investment, so I wouldn't consider the comment logical or reasonable.

More ›