Oh, it's on! If you don't indent your code, you are like Hitler multiplied by Trump.

Anyway, to clear up any remaining confusion:

1. In theory, use whatever the code base is already using. Having a tabs vs spaces fight is a pointless waste of time. In practice, anyone who uses tabs should be fired immediately.

2. No-one actually types out 4 spaces. You press the tab key and it inserts spaces for you. Either that or you are so incompetent at using your tools that you should be fired immediately.

There you go. The complete and definitive guide to tabs (you're fired) vs spaces (correct).

Not that I'm biased.

Funny, Christians all dismiss thousands of years of multiple human cultures...(like any that deny or dispute the Christ story), but complain to no end if theirs is disputed or discarded in any way.

You've got to be kidding. The times when the most disgusting experiments were done is the exact same time when religious zealots inserted their "christian" religion into our government. (But certainly not it's teachings)

EDIT: Those cards only look like bricks from one narrow viewpoint. From any other view point it's undeniable that they are just paper thin and can't stand on their own. It's not about not giving them a second thought...it's that no matter how much you examine them they only appear solid from one specific position.

That was a lot of backhanded compliments and snark for someone pretending a nerve wasn't struck.

The hilarious part is that c-note is probably right about the cops. But he was being a total ass about it.

Alan Alda is great and I'm definitely going to watch this show.

But if you think that racism is only what you do, not what you say, I have a simple experiment for you.

Find a black/asian/jewish/hispanic person and do something nice for them. Help them change a tyre or carry their groceries. When they say thanks, reply "no problem, <insert ethnic slur of choice>", and watch them realise how not-racist you're being!

I don't see a motor... there is no derailleur because he is riding a fixed-gear bike. you can also tell from the way the back wheel meets the frame (axle hole has wheel insert from back and is tightened to desired chain tension).

He probably avoids pedaling down fast decents for this very reason. rpm gets so high it no longer helps to pedal. I see people on fixies riding up and down mountains in my area, the real impressive part is how they climb UP the mountain in such a big gear.

This is how the white man goes to war --

Excuse me, do you by chance happen to um you know have any large sources and/or surpluses of precious resources?

1. No, ok bye. You need religion and economic aid for your local warlords to exploit and starve you.

2. Yes, ok you're bad and you believe in bad things. Anglo Saxons to the rescue -- if you don't like progress and [INSERT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY HERE], prepare to die -- or maybe be tortured and interned while we figure out what the hell our long term plan is.

Hey Jimbo, what's our short term plan?

Hell if i know. Here's a term stolen from the Chinese and reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell we want it to mean --- GUNG HO!!!!!! And here's a new one: SHOCK & AWEEEE-yeeaah! Oooooooooohhhhhh... *Hillary Clinton looking at balloons in wonderment -- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra*

What transcript of what conversation?! Trump claimed to have been tapped, based on a Fox report, based on an Alex Jones theory. No evidence, like a transcript of any conversations Trump has had, has ever been produced....none. I have o idea what you're talking about.
And Faux news itself had to do a special report clearly stating that they never received the tips Napolitano claimed they had received in his commentary implicating the British, and they have NO evidence he was ever under surveillance....full stop.
Napolitano's commentary was pure bullshit, and they've apparently (astonishingly) taken him off the air for spreading it.
"The Russians did it" is from the FBI....Comey's the name, inserting himself into politics is his game....but he's backed up by the heads of no less than 17 intelligence agencies on the Russian involvement claim.

*promote

Entertaining... and as far as i can tell... as spot on as it would be completely disregarded as (insert whatever deflection trumpers are currently a parroting here... here) fake news.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

I haven't heard of any of the 17 organizations claiming they didn't sign off, have you? The fact that the FBI was on board, even though they are led by a Republican clearly willing to insert himself into politics to harm Democrats with nothing but innuendo and conjecture is pretty convincing.

If they had a fact, they'd give it to you...unless those facts are classified information, as they claim. Time could tell, but those reports won't be declassified while Trump is in office.

It should work on most normal padlocks, but I have seen more expensive ones that would be more resistant to this attack (the one I'm thinking of didn't leave room to insert the spanner).

{insert brilliant segue back to video topic here}

Right now, I have two fondest Obama Administration memories that I think will stick with me in the future:

1) His original 2008 campaign and election. "Hope" and "Change" really resonated with me, and made him the first national political candidate that I got sort of actually enthusiastic about.

I am less enthusiastic about what he actually got *done*, but to be fair a lot of the blame for that goes to worthless obstructionist Congress. But not all. Still, Obama was (and remains) a smooth talkin' statesman that knew how to pitch "hope" and "change" in a way that made me believe he could deliver. Maybe I was just young and naive, but that had power.


2) "A few weeks ago, Dick Cheney says he thinks I’m the worst president of his lifetime. Which is interesting because I think Dick Cheney is the worst president of my lifetime."

C'mon, that right there is hi-larious!

Trump's lies were much more exciting and beneficial to the people who were voting for him. Clinton had all these lies about "responsibility" and "middle-class" and "love" and "immigrants". GROSS. Trump lied about jobs and scapegoats and CHINA and death and we need to win!!!! We'll be great again and kick out all those [insert your racist or misogynist words here]! Imaginary jobs that don't exist will be ours if you vote for Trump!

His lies were just much more persuasive. Liberals need to start lying more about things the majority of people care about.

Blame presumes guilt. There's no guilt in voting for your interests, even if others don't understand them.

Reasons for those voting decisions are interesting, but also very hard to get since the media ignores everything between the coasts, and even the diverse internet is so full of filter bubbles that you're basically funneled straight into echo chambers. At least on my end, the Silicon Valley/Hollywood culture is drowning out everything else -- and I'm a commie outsider who doesn't give a shit about celebrities or "save zones".

That said, the election is just the most recent culmination of an ongoing, decades-long development. But that's beyond the point, so...

Populism trumps business as usual if business as usual leads to Detroit, Cleveland and Camden. Or the rural areas on the coast of Louisiana, which were hit much harder than New Orleans and still look worse than Chernobyl, 11 years after the fact.

So the question is: did you a) fail to provide an alternative, b) fail to make a convincing case for that alternative, c) decide against trying to convince those that think differently, or d) not even realize that not everybody shares your perception of reality.

Given the tone of the reactions, the collective damnation of Trump voters as (insert any insult in the book), I'm thinking that d) is a much bigger issue than anyone is willing to admit.

In short, I blame George R. R. Martin. If he had published The Winds of Winter by now, all would be well.

But that's just it - Trump talks about these real problems, he absolutely doesn't address them. When he's asked about what his policies might be, he begins talking and ends up on a completely different subject, usually concluding that he would be the best person to fix [insert problem here] but not saying how.

Does Clinton not talk about the same problems? Of course she does.