That doesn't answer the question. Do corporations have the right to bear arms separate to the rights of the members of the corp - can Google keep an arsenal even if none of the people in it had a gun license?
Knowledge of where Microsoft forgot to enable a security check is not “bearing arms”.
Imagine that world. I point out a mistake to you, and by reading or hearing it, you are suddenly holding a gun! We would have to criminalize coredumps :)
No corporations aren't people. That headline is pure clickbait. Some rights are extended to corporations due to corporations being a group of people who come together for a purpose.
My issue with 3D Touch is that there doesn't appear to be any language for when you can use it or what it will do if you can.
90% of the time, I forget it's there.
A specific case of where it was a problem for me is that tapping the lockscreen icon for the flashlight does nothing. I thought it was broken for a week till I accidentally discovered that you had to force push it.
I have shared the Monty Hall problem with people many times, and have always made explicit that the host knows which door the prize is behind and thus always intentionally choses a 'losing' door.
It has not yet stopped anyone I have tried it with from making the error that it doesn't matter whether they stick or twist.
> Wouldn't be nice to have requests in the main library? Yes, but changes are still made to it, it might not be updated for a long time then. As they say modules go to the standard library to die.
Others started to claim weird illegal content in US law, until me and 'ptaipale' dug up the relevant Geneva conventions and decisions by the US Supreme Court based on them.
(But sure, a relevant answer to me might have been "I don't care about the law or if my way gets more people killed or not -- this is my personal moral and I'm ready to let lots of others suffer and die for it.")
> 1. That Guantanamo discussion was a continuation of the content came right before.
Yes, and what came before was a discussion of the morality of drone strikes. There was never a discussion of the legality of anything except maybe Trump's claimed sexual conquests.
> 2. I started to argue that everything was legal re Guantanamo, as a reply to the moral claim.
So paddyoloughlin is 100% right and "You were the one, in that very post, who started confusing morality with law, leading to the jumble of responses since."
Discussing a person is what follows after you're shown to be wrong. :-)
Never mind. I have stopped discussing with people that dismiss Wikipedia pages with good sources -- when they have neither references nor understanding of a subject.
Just because there is some controversy over it doesn't mean it's meaningless. In this case it just means that it's not as descriptive as we would hope, and it's better used to describe as aspect of a language, as they are often strongly typed in some aspects and weakly typed in others.
First, my post said 'essentially meaningless', which is to say 'possibly not completely, but for the most part, meaningless'.
Second, the context here is whether or not the type system of a language is strong or it is weak.
I stand by my assertion that describing type systems as strong or weak typing is essentially meaningless. It's so far from descriptive that all 'strongly typed' ever really means is 'I like this feature' and 'weakly typed' means 'I do not like this feature'.
There are alternative, accurate ways of talking about what people think they are trying to get at when they use the terms strong and weak in relation to languages. They should be used instead.
Bravo! So much hair-splitting and (deliberate?) misinterpretation of context on the internet. We need more counters done your way to keep discussions focused: Factual and to the point.
