mejari

>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?

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.

The request for the user's details from the government doesn't allege illegal leaking of information, so why is that relevant?

>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 it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant.

>I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change

I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.

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.

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 lessen his sentence.

Spring?

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 tests too, instead of @Mock/@InjectMocks magic.

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 GitHub based off of probably invalid assumptions.

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.

An alcoholic that becomes sober is still an alcoholic, they are just in control over their alcoholism.

>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 was to teach the commenter a lesson by responding unhelpfully?

>In my view, you may be defending the wrong person here.

So, because I was pointing out someone not responding constructively I am by necessity "defending" all points the other person makes? I think that is faulty reasoning.

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.

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 the intent behind the comment is not helpful.

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 claims are not accepted on face value

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 Lawrence O’Donnell, as well as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Fox News’ Juan Williams, had been invited for a private off-the-record chat with President Obama.

So not exactly the "lefty" conspiracy painted in the root article.

>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.

>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 want to throw arguments into algorithms I can just as easily point to:

1. Throw out dubious claims and/or unrelated/incorrect facts 2. Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value 3. Resist any attempts at clarification of argument 4. Claim opponent is disingenuous and declare victory.

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 to show by it or even if it is accurate.

>this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation".

Good, because that is what I meant. Until they can show the source of that information and can explain why they posted it I have no way of knowing if it has anything to do with the conversation.

>With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.

I do not consider just copying blocks of text at someone without any attempt at elaboration a constructive conversation. I asked a valid clarifying question and I feel no need to beat around the bush. Nothing in my comment was unnecessary or aggressive. Read it literally, as that is the way it was written.

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 asking for clarification on his comment.

I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why asking for clarification is such a bad thing.

Why bother posting the comment at all if you don't actually want to discuss it?

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't like what they're reporting. If they're not reporting the truth that's one thing, but this isn't that.

Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?

Granting long interviews is fundamentally different from access to briefings.

You can paint yourself as the victim, but that doesn't make partisan attacks against actual news more accurate.

Not even Air Force One, because this was during Obama's 2008 campaign before he was President. Just some personally chartered flight.

Yes, he did call on conservative leaning publications. Your vague memories are incorrect.

>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 shows to discuss healthcare reform, but he did not sit down with Fox

That's the worst he did.

>And there is no evidence of any joint strategy by Democrats at either side of Pennsylvania Avenue to coordinate their efforts against Fox.

No additional steps or coordinated effort was made to exclude Fox.

To call this the same thing is disingenuous and incorrect.

While this is true, ML isn't a panacea that will solve all problems given time and training data.

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.