Jeanine’s Memes
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
72 responses to “Jeanine’s Memes”
-
-
To Protect Themselves From Whom?
-
The people who should scare all dictators….
-
Criminals?
Check yourself Steve. We’re a democratic form. They are more than welcome to emigrate to Russia and China to ply their trade.
-
We are a Representative Republic, if we were a Democracy you would’ve been placed into a re-education camp in the 80’s. As Democracy is Majority rule
-
Form. Is a representative republic not a democratic form (of government)?
-
Umm you edited it from Democracy to democratic form (how very surreptitious, I think it was better on word press when your errors couldn’t be masked).
Democracy is mob rule the founders were against that premise, hence why we are representative republic.
-
I did not. You saw what you wanted to see so you could Gish Gallop. Btw, if the majority were in power, you’re right, I would be in re-education and you would be stripped of your play toys and executed.
Any edit occurred prior to your response. Most of my posts are edited because this stupid Disqus locks up my keypad on this stupid iPad after 20+ strokes in the initial post.
-
“Nancy Naive Stephen Haner • a day ago • edited
Criminals?Check yourself Steve. We’re a democratic form. They are more than welcome to emigrate to Russia and China to ply their trade.”
But ya did, you can tell that because it says edited.
“Btw, if the majority were in power, you’re right, I would be in re-education and you would be stripped of your play toys and executed”
My play toys? What plays toys would I be stripped of?
-
Yes, it says “edited”. That does make your claim of what was edited correct. It said “(small d) democratic form” for at least 14 hours before your post.
But if it makes you feel better, “Okay Matt.”
-
Sure it did NN, sure it did.
I’m still waiting to hear what my “toys” are.
-
Learned a long time ago not to call us a democracy because of arsepellets that nitpick it.
-
Learned a long time ago not to call us a democracy because of arsepellets that nitpick it.
-
Facts aren’t “nitpicking” they are facts, there are vast differences between a representative republic and a democracy. Most notably being one is rule of the majority.
-
-
-
-
-
that boy seems to have some honesty issues.
On the slow keypad – go to a word processor to do your response, then copy/paste t disgus.
-
Yeah, I’ve done that using a draft email, but I always tell myself, “This time, this time, this stupid website won’t lock up.”
Sometimes it do. Sometimes it don’t. I think it’s the ads. -
It’s not the ads it’s the users. It’s called get a new browser.
-
Too cheap. Using the wife’s old iPad OS10.3.3
-
It being an old ipad has nothing to do with your browser.
-
Safari. Try finding a browser for OS10.3.3. Even Firefox has dropped that support. Also, Apple is not my choice for computers or fruit. You can buy a better computer but you can’t pay more for it.
My fun machine is a 11-yo 32 bit Winders XP, which still supports my copy of MatLab. Everything else is on a newer laptop with (yech) Windows 10.
-
Have Larry the programmer tell you how to jailbreak your Ipad, I’m sure he could whip up that code easy. Your Ipad is an Apple break so the fact that you’ll modify the OS means nothing.
Furthermore, even if you had Firefox it still wouldn’t matter much. Safari runs all operations behind the scenes on an Ipad.
Oh the joys of Matlab.
-
jailbreak = brick device.
-
“jailbreak = brick device.”
That’s a false statement.
Clearly you took liberties with your “programming knowledge”.
-
what? more foolish goofball statements from you nimrod? “liberties”? 😉
don’t mess with code that you don’t know enough about in terms of it’s design or how it was developed or what kind of devices it was intended for. You also essentially “fork” it which means you may well have made changes that could get affected by a software update.
-
Jailbreaking doesn’t brick a device.
Yes, liberties like the fact I think it’s fairly evident you lied about teaching anyone to program anything.
“You also essentially “fork” it which means you may well have made changes that could get affected by a software update.”
Umm if you’ve jailbroken a device it will not receive updates, you’ve interrupted it’s boot by means of code removing the restrictions set in place. Another perfect example of how you’re lying about your abilities.
Also, forking doesn’t mean that at all.
-
So what exactly makes one the arbiter of facts and truth beyond one’s own
arrogant idiocy? -
Arbiter of facts, negative. Able to point out glaring inaccuracies by someone who claims knowledge in a subject, yes.
If only you would’ve used wiki for this discussion like 99% of everything else you wouldn’t have shown your hand.
-
only in your own addled mind, perhaps.
-
Larry,
You made the following claims:
1) Jailbreaking and Idevice would brick it, it does not.
2) It would cause a “fork”, the issue there is you didn’t describe forking. Nor were you aware that you disable updates from the manufacture when you Jailbreak and or root a device.So excuse me for finding your claim of teaching people “Fortran” highly suspect.
What is required at the beginning and the end of a Fortran program?
-
You know, you’re not only obnoxious, you’re ignorant and condescending to boot,
I bet folks who know you are also not impressed. :why don’t you provide some of your own “cites” rather than sharing your personal views?
jailbreaking CAN “brick” a device especially in you don’t
truly understand it’s design and other related code in the software.“forking” is creating a variant from an original version which is what you
are doing when you make changes.Here’s your FORTRAN – suck on that a bit.
https://miro.medium.com/max/3374/1*XUB8BR4mGQKtmiFsZt4_1w.jpeg -
“jailbreaking CAN “brick” a device especially in you don’t
truly understand it’s design and other related code in the software.”That was not your statement, your statement was jailbreaking= brick
False, “forking” is as follows:
“Forking is to take the source code from an open source software program and develop an entirely new program. … To be considered a fork, the newer version of the software must have its own name and its own developer community.”
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/fork
https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/is-jailbreaking-my-iphone-or-ipad-safe-3491721/
You mean the imagine you sourced from online? Which is a punchcard, to be fed into a machine.
https://medium.com/science-uncovered/modern-fortran-e6c3d2290d03
The correct answer would’ve been:
1) Starts with PROGRAM “Generic Name”
2) End with END PROGRAMThe fact that you insist others are condescending is irony.
-
We consider the problem of supporting effective code reuse as partof Software Product Line Engineering. Our approach is based oncode forking– a practice commonly used in industry where newproducts are created by cloning the existing ones.
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~chechik/pubs/splc12.pdf
whether you alter the code itself or create a copy, it’s the same process.
When you alter in place, you are in charge of it from then on including bug fixes and
interactions with the network- which can change interactions.but some dumbasses still can’t understand it – even if it’s FORTRAN
some folks think way more of their own abilities than they really should, given
their other disabilities. -
What you just linked about forking supports my statement and not your own. Hence I find it dubious that you claim to have any programming knowledge what so ever.
“but some dumbasses still can’t understand it – even if it’s FORTRAN
some folks think way more of their own abilities than they really should, given
their other disabilities.”Think more of my abilities? No, you’re just an easy mark in regarding to the fact that you attempt to discuss things you cannot and will never understand. Upon that becoming apparent you attack the poster and act like a 2 year old.
-
Forking is any number of type of changes to software but they are all some type
of change to software or to settings in software.How you make a change can and does vary also. Sometimes, you’re just changing a set value and other times, you might be changing code – depending on a number of different factors.
and yes, there are some dumbasses in this world that are both obnoxious and ignorant, no question.
-
No, it is not. You were provided the definition that didn’t come from Larry land, I’m sorry that it deviates from what you believe is true (hence why it’s fairly evident you’ve never programmed in your life).
Forking refers to a “fork” in the road. Where someone takes open source code and adds onto it creating it’s own unique path.
If you’re changing a fixed variable you’re not creating a fork. What you’re describing is not forking, for the last time.
“and yes, there are some dumbasses in this world that are both obnoxious and ignorant, no question.”
Well I’m glad you finally realized all those aspects of yourself, what’s your plan to fix them?
-
As usual, you don’t know what the ef you are blathering about.
Obnoxious and idiotic and just flat wrong … I bet those around you love you for who you are eh?
-
Oh how nice, when someone provides facts and data that is contrary to your “wiki” knowledge they are “blathering”.
Somehow I think you’d get lost trying to generate “hello world”.
What does anyone around me have to do with the fact that you were and are wrong?
Also, are you Canadian “eh”? I mean I’m part Canadian but if you aren’t that’s culture appropriation at it’s finest isn’t Larbear.
So lets say it for effect, you’re Lying when you say you taught anyone anything.
-
Actually blathering was polite for what really comes out of your piehole.
-
“LarrytheG 6 minutes ago
Actually blathering was polite for what really comes out of your piehole.”I’m sorry that facts and reality offend you Larbear.
Would you care to discuss the fact you somehow taught programming to individuals without knowing how to begin and end a program?
Maybe next we could talk about octets or DNS?
-
What vesion MatLab are you using? I have 5.0. I think it’s the last one with the hidden jokes. If you typed “lala” on the cmd line, it would respond “quit singing and get back to work.”
Clearly a happy workplace at one time. Apparently, there are 1000s of “Hidden Mickies” in V1-5.
-
I have no need for Matlab in my line of work.
-
Too bad. Fun little language.
-
It was useful when I was doing bode plots of transfer functions, but I had far to many professors who wanted us to use to make battleship games.
Because 2nd Amendment is why.
-
Heller v whomever. In the opinion, Scalia wrote that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the legal use of firearms, or words to that effect.
I’m absolutely certain that when he penned his opinion, he was fully aware that sedition, insurrection, and other words for violent overtrown of the US government was illegal.
-
Heck, it wasn’t even a fair fight – the Govt wouldn’t let the protesters bring their own guns… geeze
They don’t have to “take” their guns, just outlaw them wherever the govt doesn’t want you carrying them.
And heck if they HAD brought guns anyhow and got arrested… the govt would then take their guns all legal like…
-
Scalia was a very nice man I am sure but the gov’t as a body has been watering down and stripping the Bill of Rights and The Constitution of their meaning and teeth since they were written. But when you want to hold onto power that is what you do
The Founders thought that ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ was fairly clear and the citizens would have the means to resist the power of a monarchical gov’t.
The seat of Federal Gov’t, currently Washington DC, was never supposed to be the Leviathan it has become and should not be the dictatorial monstrosity that we have to strive night and day to be secure from these days.
And as far as 1/6/2021 goes, the hyperbole coming from the lefties is embarrassing and I am glad they feel they need troops and razor wire to protect themselves. But worst of all. the ass kissing by politicians and pundits alike to remain politically correct enough to not be swarmed by the PRAVDA – esque media is truly scary.
Whether legal or not the threat of a disgruntled populace was supposed to keep those sent to government to represent us was, should be, a prod to keep our government employees working in our interests.
-
If you’re disgruntled, vote.
-
“The seat of Federal Gov’t, currently Washington DC, was never supposed to be the Leviathan it has become…”
There were never supposed to be fighter jets, aircraft carriers, or nuclear weapons either.
-
“There were never supposed to be fighter jets, aircraft carriers, or nuclear weapons either.”
There weren’t? The Founder Fathers were aware of technological advances?
-
Really…? You think the FF envisioned having the world’s most advanced air force, navy and and now space force patrolling the world 24/7…? You think they envisioned airliners being flown into high rises and killing 3000 civilian Americans on a single day? You also think they envisioned us entering an arms race with another world superpower each with the ability to destroy the world many times over…?? You think they envisioned technology that could wipe out the monetary system they built in the blink of an eye from the other side of the globe?
They were smart enough to envision that things would change, smart enough to realize that they had no idea what changes were coming, and smart enough to give us the tools to adapt our government to those changes while still preserving the country and our system of government. They certainly deserve a great deal of credit for that vision but they had no idea what was coming or how we would need to adjust to overcome the challenges we faced (and are currently facing). Thank God they did not have the hubris to think they did!
-
There is zero correlation between your statements. It the 1700 & 1800 they called terrorism “piracy”. da Vinci and others were playing with flight long before the founding of this nation.
PS: You destroyed your own argument in the following:
“They certainly deserve a great deal of credit for that vision but they had no idea what was coming or how we would need to adjust to overcome the challenges we faced (and are currently facing). Thank God they did not have the hubris to think they did!”
The only hubris on display is your own, you should ask your boss what the Founders envisioned. After all, they are your barometer or knowledge.
-
If you would like to revert the size of the “leviathan” government back to the point that we no longer can defend our nation, by all means you have your right to your opinion. Thank God your opinion does not carry the day, however. Another gift of our FF, you can have your opinion and be anti-government and I can have mine. The world still turns.
-
“Another gift of our FF, you can have your opinion and be anti-government and I can have mine. The world still turns.”
I’m antigovernmental? Really, I was unaware of that fact. Would you care to generate any additional strawmen arguments?
The exponential rate at which our Federal Government has grown has nothing to do with National Security or self-defense.
Clearly without your “bosses” input, your opinion isn’t valid nor is it rooted in fact.
-
I apologize. It is David who expressed anti-government ideals with his “Washington DC, was never supposed to be the Leviathan it has become and should not be the dictatorial monstrosity that we have to strive night and day to be secure from these days” argument. Not you. I figured since you stuck yourself into the discussion as you did, you agreed with him. My bad, eh?
-
Stuck myself into your discussion? I commented on your ******* remark about the FF not envisioning modern technology and weapons.
Did he receive and up-vote from me? Which would clearly indicate that I agreed with his statement? Did I mention him in my comment and make a statement of agreement? The answer to all of that is “no”.
So do you have any additional deflections or strawmen to generate, or are you done making a fool of yourself?
-
My comments were accurate. Yours were not. As usual.
No deflection, no strawmen. You either agree that the federal government is a leviathan that must be battled or you don’t. I don’t. You… well, I guess it is nuanced, eh…?
-
That is not true. You even admitted as such in your own comment. I growing rather tired of you calling me a “liar & dishonest” without a shred of evidence to do so.
“No deflection, no strawmen. You either agree that the federal government is a leviathan that must be battled or you don’t. I don’t. You… well, I guess it is nuanced, eh…?
Well that’s a lovely “false dilemma fallacy” you’ve constructed, isn’t it.
Believing that the Federal Government has grown beyond it’s intention can be simultaneously true as believing it should exist. The size of the Federal Government has little to do with national protection. The prime example of this is the “Patriot Act”, which has eroded civil rights and allowed the NSA to surveil United States Citizens without a valid warrant.
Now, I hear your boss asking you to get his coffee and copy the notes from the meeting, so run along secretary.
-
There is one sure way to not be considered dishonest, you know…
I recall vehemently arguing against conservatives who attempted to defend Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping policy in the name of national security. I have always been on the correct side of that issue. Happy to finally have some company from the Right.
-
Well usually the case is to be truthful, however if it in converse with you that’s not likely the case. You seem to have issues with what is true and reality vs your opinion.
“I recall vehemently arguing against conservatives who attempted to defend Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping policy in the name of national security. I have always been on the correct side of that issue”
I think it’s rather ironic you can claim that while just two comments ago holding the opposite opinion.
Also, the crux of your problem is your a partisan sycophant. If you have to use “right/left”, “liberal/conservative” in your comments you’re not going to win debates, ever.
Did your boss get his coffee?
-
I’ve no problem at all with what is true and reality. For instance, I have never said that I supported warrantless wiretapping. That is you being dishonest yet again.
“Also, the crux of your problem is your (sic) a partisan sycophant.”
Your political ideology is not a part of my argument. It is an ancillary curiosity. Nothing more.
-
“I’ve no problem at all with what is true and reality. For instance, I have never said that I supported warrantless wiretapping. That is you being dishonest yet again.”
Umm no, nor have I indicated that you were for warrantless wiretaps. Another strawman.
“Your political ideology is not a part of my argument. It is an ancillary curiosity. Nothing more.”
Thanks for spotting the typo, it’s irrelevant as you knew what I was saying. Just an FYI [sic] is placed in brackets or “sic” quotes following the erroneous or odd word.
You should also refrain from using words it’s clear you don’t understanding the meaning of or the proper use of.
-
“Umm no, nor have I indicated that you were for warrantless wiretaps. Another strawman.”
Another lie…
“”I recall vehemently arguing against conservatives who attempted to defend Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping policy in the name of national security. I have always been on the correct side of that issue”
I think it’s rather ironic you can claim that while just two comments ago holding the opposite opinion.”
-
Yeah, that’s not a lie. Please feel free to quote me where I stated you’re for warrantless wiretaps.
It would behoove you to stop accusing others of lying when they have not.
I gave the Patriot Act as an example of Government overreach via expansion. The expansion which you’re stumping (National Defense or some such BS) for but claiming to be against warrantless wiretaps doesn’t mesh. You can’t be for expanded Federal Government programs to “keep us safe” and say you’re against the very heart of them.
Oh and just an FYI FPOTUS Obama and current POTUS Biden continued those warrantless wiretaps (via renewal of the Patriot Act), but admitting that would require you not being a partisan hack.
So drop the moral authority bit and stop accursing others of lying when you’re the one who’s being disingenuous.
Oh and go get your boss his GD coffee, because you’re not good at anything.
-
I forgot that in your world black is white and truth is fiction. So sorry.
BTW (from Wiki),
Warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) was revealed publicly in late 2005 by The New York Times and then reportedly discontinued in January 2007.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act. In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using, or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.
-
I’d get better sources:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/
https://time.com/3909293/edward-snowden-obama-nsa-spying/
As a matter of fact Edward Snowden kind laughs at your stating the FPOTUS Obama didn’t use warrantless wiretaps.
“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act. In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using, or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.”
Again, that’s hilarious for your to bring up FISA. They really did a lot of cracking own after Snowden exposed the NSA didn’t they.
So not only are you an overly arrogant partisan, you can’t even research. So that means you really are a very bad secretary.
-
“As a matter of fact Edward Snowden kind laughs at your stating the FPOTUS Obama didn’t use warrantless wiretaps.”
Never made that statement. That damn truth thing again. You are really challenged in that area, eh…
-
“Eric the half a troll Matt Adams • 6 hours ago
I forgot that in your world black is white and truth is fiction. So sorry.BTW (from Wiki),
Warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) was revealed publicly in late 2005 by The New York Times and then reportedly discontinued in January 2007.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act. In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using, or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.”
The comment you posted seems to disagree with your new position.
“Never made that statement. That damn truth thing again. You are really challenged in that area, eh…”
What’s clear about you is that you’re disingenuous, given that you’re not just half a troll, but a full troll who seems to have a problem being held to their own words. I’m not surprised.
-
Again, nowhere did I say that “Obama didn’t use warrantless wiretaps.”
Maybe you just have an overactive imagination rather than just blatant dishonesty. Could explain a lot…
-
“Eric the half a troll 8 minutes ago
Again, nowhere did I say that “Obama didn’t use warrantless wiretaps.”Maybe you just have an overactive imagination rather than just blatant dishonesty. Could explain a lot…”
It was your implications when you stated (via wiki) they stopped in 2007. They did not and they expanded under POTUS Obama. So your blatant partisanship is for all to view, however that’s not new.
I find anyone that somehow think Reality Winner was a whistleblower has neither held a security clearance nor do they know what a whistleblower is, so therefore their opinion is worthless.
Again, you seem to have any issue calling others “dishonest” when that’s what you’ve been doing this entire time.
-
-
-
Interesting Constitutional issue: https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/supreme-court-made-sweeping-decision-about-privacy-rights/
Wohoo! Start pumping oil, boys. Climate change is moot!
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/27/981917655/asteroid-apophis-not-a-risk-to-earth-for-at-least-100-years-nasa-says
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.