bascule

Apple's control of their platform is draconian. I don't see how anyone could own an iPhone and not hack it. The 3rd party apps contain so much more functionality than Apple is willing to let people have through official App Store applications, things like video recorders, tethering, etc.

I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power. That said I'd be extremely suspicious of any attempts to place a nuclear pile aboard an airplane.

Yes, except the ones about framing the language of the debate, which has not only been your primary concern in this thread, but your primary concern in general. Was that too "partisan" or too "politically correct" for you?

I love how you conveniently didn't respond to my points about framing the debate in the language of your choice. So I'm not going to respond to you, except to say you're taking a page right out of Karl Rove's playbook. Nice.

They didn't misquote him. You've stated you feel their phrasing is naive as they're essentially equating a once-in-a-century crisis in the financial sector as being a systematic problem with the economy as a whole. Perhaps you'd care to defend that assertion. How exactly are the editors of CNN Money "naive"? I don't see them ruling it out. You've made a noncommittal assertion that a depression lies outside the sphere of possibility. I've seen no economists joining you in that position. Perhaps you'd care to defend that assertion as well. No, the Dow only suffered its biggest drop since terrorists blew up the World Trade Center after the government assumed the debts of two of the nation's biggest mortgage lenders, one of the country's biggest investment banks declared the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history, and one of the country's biggest financial services firms sold for half its value in early 2007 after running multibillion dollar losses. And did I mention that a few months ago Bear Stearns practically evaporated overnight? But no, the economy is just "struggling", it isn't "unraveling"... And I'd like to note... mincing words and framing the debate by insisting that people speak in your language is one of the most insidious tactics the Republican party has used to date... and you seem to be doing just that Pangloss. The phraseology I've used is too non-specific to be incorrect, and yet you object to it for rather nebulous reasons. I think you just want to frame the debate. I'm not going to play your game, sorry.

C++? Icky! Here's the Ruby solutions: #1) total = 0; 3.times { total += gets.to_i } #2) total = 0; 3.times { val = gets.to_i; total += val if val >= 0 } #3) n.times { print "*" } #4) total = 0; n.times { |k| total += k ** 3 } Hope that helps!

All right, let's try for some context here, shall we... Greenspan said nothing of the kind. You should be asking yourself why he didn't predict depression More than likely because he wasn't asked for a worst case scenario. However, it seems you've already ruled out a depression as an impossibility. Because the financial sector isn't the single most important part of the entire economy? Quote me, then... http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/markets/markets_newyork2/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories Yeah, the economy certainly doesn't seem to be unraveling... nope

The unraveling continues: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/companies/lehman_brothers/index.htm?postversion=2008091513

So let me get this straight, if CNN says the economy is in a once-in-a-century crisis that's fine, but if I say something nonspecific like "unraveling" it's wrong? That's some awfully strange mincing of words you're doing there How can you even say that? You're saying it's impossible that this will lead to a depression? So the CNN Money editors, the ones who actually interviewed Greenspan and have the full context of what he's saying, made a mistake, and your interpretation of what Greenspan said, distilled through their article, is correct? Excuse me while I guffaw... Broop broop, strawman alert

*facepalm* are you serious? Because the headline of the article was "Greenspan: Economy in 'once-in-a-century' crisis" Are you saying the CNN reporter is misrepresenting Greenspan's words?

According to Alan Greenspan it's in a "once-in-a-century" crisis http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/14/news/economy/greenspan/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories

Fine Pangloss, comment retracted, now calm down.

It ought to be. Why?

Are you seriously equivocating a ban on pornography from libraries with a ban of a book like Catcher in the Rye? You should really take a journalism class sometime... Yep, and there's ample Supreme Court case precedent on the matter of pornography and the first amendment. You can defend a work as not being pornographic if it has "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Okay... in this statement: ...you equivocate any sort of selection as to what works are permitted to be carried in a library as being the same as removing works which contain words that Palin considers inappropriate without any supporting logic as to why the two are the same. You're essentially saying that any sort of selection process starts us down the slippery slope to Palin's position. However, Palin's position would ban books with "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which meet the criteria of protected free speech as defined by the Supreme Court. Pornography is not protected free speech.

The problem is the Republicans picked a candidate purely for strategic reasons without seeming to care that she's pathetically underqualified

Non-recursive solutions in procedural languages and recursive solutions are practically identical as they are effectively two approaches to implementing the same algorithm and both are provably correct as the minimal solution (although the procedural solution is inelegant and harder to implement, even though it will lead to the same number of steps). This is covered extensively on the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Hanoi#Solution

Statistically, he is. Yep Mine are statistically likely. What the Republicans are spreading are deliberate and blatant distortions of truth. Indeed.

I don't consider anything obscene. I've seen Roy's Nuthang and the BME Pain Olympics and they don't offend me. If you haven't seen both of those you really have no opinion on the matter. Because they don't fall under the typical criteria of free speech. Again, I'm not against banning anything. But I can respect the opinions of people who feel they don't want their children exposed to obscene materials in public libraries, even if you can't. And I don't think that's hypocritical, despite your fallacious slippery slope argument. I guess I'm one of those people who despises logical fallacies like the one you've posed. There is middle ground, even if you want to fallaciously argue there isn't.

First, view the ad here: Except Obama's legislation sought to give "schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators." http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/789668.html Is there anything else to say except McCain is blatantly lying to get elected? (ed: oof, supposed to be "kindergartners" there in the title, whoops)

FactCheck.org declares Palin "Energetically Wrong": http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html "Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy"... yeah, wrong. This after McCain says she "probably" knows more about energy than anyone else in the US... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nu7Kjk_0Q Rather egregious lies being bandied about here.

So do many Americans, and because of that, I weep for our country. That said, now let me take the opportunity to say: she's a thoroughly corrupt administrator who has viciously pursued undeserved government earmarks (and thus sullies McCain's rejection of earmarks). She's pro-censorship and wants to ban books which disagree with her political agenda. She fired her ex-brother-in-law over a custody battle, mixing politics with family affairs. She ran Wasilla into deep, deep debt. She allegedly called Obama a "Sambo". -- This guy echoes my sentiments completely: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

She's pathetically underqualified. If McCain were to die I have no doubt she'd go on to make Gerald Ford look like an excellent statesman. I won't argue against the strategic reasons for the pick. I'll certainly argue against the practical reasons for the pick. The woman is nowhere near qualified to become President of the United States, and she's sharing a ticket with a guy who's on death's doorstep.

Considering I have an ssh pubkey on my phone, there's far worse things that someone could swipe from it

That's like saying that if it's okay for the FCC to ban obscene material from television / radio then it should be okay for them to ban Democratic political ads from the television / radio. Obscenity is a separate issue entirely. I personally don't think the FCC should have the power to ban obscenity from broadcast media, but I understand the reasoning for them doing so. The same goes for a public library. There are children present and I can understand why parents don't want them exposed to obscene material.

Well, the full quote in context is: I think the best that can be said is that the answer is a non-sequitur which is completely irrelevant to the question asked.