gdfasfklshg4

> This is also the primary reason why I highly dislike merge commits: They make git logs extremely unreadable.

I really really disagree. If the branch has one logical commit then no merge commit is needed. Otherwise the merge commit shows what happened and more importantly that these N commits came into the mainline as a single change.

But in this case shouldn't the regulator assume some liability?

If anyone can be shown in court to have know it was a scam then they should certainly have any money clawed back off them.

I don't think of a third party selling on Amazon as a big box retailer.

I guess what I am really asking is did the SEC not spot this because it was not their job or because it was their job and they didn't do their job properly?

If I buy the goods in a big box retailer and the goods turn out to be stolen I assume that the retailer will make the original owner good.

True if you buy a car in a private sale. But if you buy a car from a regulated professional dealer and it turns out to be stolen then things get a little bit more complicated than just you have to give it back. I would expect in that situation that the dealer makes everyone good (and possibly goes to prison).

If you buy the stolen goods from a big box retailer that is routinely regulated then this analogy might be useful. As it is it does not apply very well to this situation.

> Remarkably the SEC did inspect Madoff Investments and did not conclude it was a fraud even though it obviously was.

> Ultimately as a potential investor this would have been easy to spot as at least suspect.

You think that even after the SEC failed to spot the fraud investors with far less power should be able to? I don't quite follow your argument here. A little more clarification would be nice.

> Finally it did result in people losing their retirement funds, for some people absolutely everything.

Taking money that people have received 20 years ago off people will also result in some people losing everything. (I know that they say that the people they are extracting the money from are keeping the original investments but what if some of the money has been spent?)

Deeply unfair.

The lawyers don't seem to have had to prove that the investors knew that the fund was illegitimate at. My understanding is that the fund was regulated so the assumption should have been that it was legitimate.

I would not be surprised if results in people losing their retirement funds.

This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue...

This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.

How did they violate it?

I've used this account for several months now. It's not exactly single use.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to ask you for the arguments behind your opinion. You are of course entitled to respond angrily. However, it doesn't make for great discussion and you won't persuade many people with this approach.

The Iran sanctions are yet another sad example of the US losing the moral high ground and soft power (followed by hard power). Americans might not like hearing this but increasingly the US is seen a dangerous, untrustworthy and negative value ally. As this continues the EU block will steadily move away from the US eventually NATO will fragment and this will have serious implications for global stability.

Prior to the current return to Iran sanctions the USA had a monopoly on international payments clearance. The EU has responded by setting up an alternative system.

Why do you think this?

From context it is a Product Manager.

Project Manager: manages day-to-day running for project e.g. fighting for the right number of devs, designers etc

Product Manager: (also product owner) determines what the product should look like.

And I pointed out that prior to v57 FF was a clearly superior product to the competition for me. For me FF v52 was also superior to v57. Sadly v52 is now out of support and the result is that I had to get a new computer.

For me the order of utility is FF pre v57 > FF post v57 > Chromium based browsers.

> Mozilla has the hardcore geeks on their side. Even during the V30 to v50 transition period where Firefox was, at the time, clearly an inferior product, we kept using it to support it for the sheer ideal of it. We hoped it would come back from it, and it happened: Firefox is now a fast, lean and fantastic browser again.

I use Firefox. I always have. My experience is totally different to yours. Before FF57 it was a single process and it ran nicely on a 4GB machine with a 2009 Intel Atom processor. Afterwards it became much hungrier for memory and processor. I had to buy a new computer. (I tried Chrome of course but it is hungrier.)

I would like to see who wrote the text AND who submitted it. As in the lobbyist who wrote the text AND the politician who submitted it...

It depends upon plugins. My Vim is quite prone to crashing but I'm fairly sure it is one of my plugins.

I have never heard anyone ask "Is they a boy or a girl?".

This is actually a problem for me. I can't see the difference between pink and blue baby clothes.

I already struggle to keep up with the politically correct term of the day. I don't want to offend anyone so I do do my best but our language is changing too fast to keep up.

I agree with you 100%.

I also think that we should just ban palm oil in general. I'm not sure that it has any applications worth the damage to rainforests.

This advert was banned for the same reason as ALL political lobbying adverts are banned from UK TV. Political lobbying is not allow on UK TV.

If people used them then the characters would almost certainly be represented in terminals as table spacing characters...

Do you count the American Civil War as a colonial war?

I suspect it will start with persistent login based on a file and grow from there.

Why do I need to allow your cookie just to view your landing page?

We are talking about someone defecating on a train station platform.

Hold it.