shibboleth

With these multi-agent workflows, I often wonder when coordinating the agents and reviewing their findings starts taking more time and effort than working with a single agent. Do you have a good feel for when (if ever) that happens?

Relatedly, I'm seeing more and more people who are opening and closing a hundred pull requests a day, and outside of areas like performance profiling, I have a hard time understanding how that is being achieved. Are you finding yourself naturally gravitating toward that type of velocity and having to push back on it? Or do you see these types of workflows eventually allowing you to achieve a similar pace of change while still maintaining an emphasis on human reviews?

I don't know about that. I get the same issues even with Aurora (as do many of my colleagues).

Autotrading will still get you banned. But yeah what you describe sounds like it's from back in the day. Nowadays there are three modes with the standard pftp: autotrade, autotrade only while at computer (redundant, I know), and manual trade.

But chaining with FXP is just fine now (virtually all courier groups do it with the exception of 0day). When I was a courier our pftp coordinated with the other ones in the group and chained them via country, ranking, and by 3-4 other factors I can get into if you'd like.

Let's not forget about hardware donors. Donate a hard drive? Get an account and some credits! Sites such as LSD and LOOP did this.. and many more still do.

No one uses drftpd except for rented sites. They all use glftpd, still.. sigh.

Yes. pftp is the tool of choice for couriers still.. albeit they hardly resemble the original source.

ex-pHASE courier here. You must be referring to 0day couriering. We use a custom pftp w/ rel server to chain our FXP routes.

I think you misunderstood why it is frightening to be associated with that channel.

Also, the bulk of legitimate releases comes from the "leaders" of the ISO scene.. As of right now there are ~38 users in the IRC channel representing the the majority of the top level groups. To me this is absolutely frightening that a channel like this even exists.

I created a fork of less-rails-bootstrap a few weeks ago and put 2.0-wip on it pretty easily in an hour or so. A week or two after that 2.0-wip was pushed to the master branch on that project. What issues were you having exactly?

Ethics aside, I've had no issue when creating an alternate account with the same CC info.

I'm on my tablet right now so it's a little difficult to type lengthy responses, but hopefully these are sufficient.

First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction.

Actually, it isn't a contradiction. The wording for part B (which you are referring to) states "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." If you are confused as to what that means you can refer to 18 USC 7 which lays out a specific definition.

18 USC 1092 is only applicable to Chapter 50a, not 18 USC 1111. However, 18 USC 1111 is applicable to states (but not part B). There are several complex nuances to this. I won't claim to know all of them, but 18 USC 454 adds better clarification than I could explain.

Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.

Yes, I was exaggerating. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Replace slavery with abortion, child labor, or anything... the point is still the same.

The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course.

######################

We can keep discussing this as this is the single most important argument overclouding this entire conversation.

######################

To start the discussion, do you believe that the collective taxes of one state should go to benefit another?

It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship.

First off, it's not as small of a portion as you may think. NCLB is a good example of a federal program gone awry, but fortunately this administration is putting into place several policies to fix the fundamental issues of why NCLB didn't succeed. There is no reason why federal legislation can not give leniency to the states. If you are interested in learning about these policies let me know and I can generate a few sources for you to check out.

In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs?

I understand your argument and why you feel that Article V is a good process, but it isn't. I'll give you reasons why but first I'd like to read your response to the question posed a couple sections above.

A few points to mention.. there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111.

I'm also concerned with your statements regarding abortion et al. These are serious issues that significantly impact people's lives. We shouldn't have a "playground" or a labyrinth of "mini laboratories" for such issues. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? It's economically beneficial, isn't it?

Also this statement seems contradictory: "with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states." Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible.

You say that we then pick the best result from the states, but that seems contradictory to Ron Paul's message.

Finally, the Constitution was written by rich white individuals who were basically looking after their own well-being (I may be overcritical, but you can decide whether I am or not by reanalyzing it). This requires critical analysis and a historical background: but how many clauses benefit the rich? how many the poor? how many benefit slave owners? The constitution is a relatively vague document, and although I agree that some branches are overextending their powers (i.e. executive) I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today.

Sorry if my wording seems harsh, I don't mean for it to be. I had to hastily write this in a couple minutes before I head out the door.

Winning Iowa, or at least winning expectations, correlates with additional fundraising and additional support leading into the following states: NH, SC, FL, NV. A winner is able to build up momentum into those states and have the chance to continue a successful campaign (Obama for America 2006-2008). And to be honest, Iowa and New Hampshire both are special. I've been to both states countless times and the people are fervent in understanding today's issues and the candidates' stances on those issues, more so than any other state in the country. But you are partially correct with your final assessment, winning Iowa does not guarantee a successful campaign run.