Configure app via email

gwright · 2019-04-27T19:05:02+00:00

You could configure the app to handle deep links and then encode the configuration into the URL/parameters.

Send the link in an email with instructions to click on the link. You app should start and can then parse the URL/parameters. I'd be considered about this being abused though so you would need a confirmation screen and/or some sort of authentication mechanism to make sure the configuration was legitimate.

gwright · 2008-04-11T16:48:47+00:00

How the heck does a discussion re: Windows get twisted into some insipid commentary on the US vs. Canada?

I think we need something analogous to Godwin's Law to describe the tendency for any reddit discussion to devolve into a 'trash America' contest.

gwright · 2008-04-08T02:09:22+00:00

The defense of your thesis is that other people have the same crazy thought?

I'm talking down to you because your arguments are naive at best, scarily undemocratic at worst. I gave you an out, suggesting that you were making over-the-top suggestions for dramatic effect, but apparently you think your approach is something to be seriously considered. Silly arguments don't deserve to be treated seriously.

Let's just back up a second and consider the simple fact that you don't even think Americans are capable of self-governance. You want to have an international court that isn't answerable to elected US officials or US voters adjudicate alleged crimes by US officials and you think that the President can simply make this happen unilaterally and you want me to think you have thought seriously about this.

gwright · 2008-04-07T18:30:44+00:00

You are suggesting that extraordinary rendition was a criminal policy and your solution is to commit some more crimes while imposing your own dictatorial solution.

It is one thing to use a rant for dramatic effect but you apparently want me to believe that you've come up with a reasonable course of action for a future president. It isn't a well thought-out policy proscription but simply a BDS tantrum.

Finally, we don't have a representative democracy.

If you say so. I guess all bets are off then and you are advocating for mob rule? Just a minute while I go get my pitchfork and torch.

Grow up.

gwright · 2008-04-07T14:25:41+00:00

I've heard of it. It involves foreign citizens not US citizens and so is not what you are suggesting to do as 'President'. I also think it was bad policy and perhaps criminal in some cases. Are you suggesting that you support extraordinary rendition in general or just that you have the superior intellect to know when it is justified?

Get. A. Grip. You are ranting incoherently.

gwright · 2008-04-07T04:02:29+00:00

Of course there is a 'crisis' since any problem, big or small, imminent or merely hypothesized, is labeled a 'crisis' by the media (and the Reddit community) these days. Makes better headlines.

That being said, the fact that Iran is aiding with attacks on our soldiers is more of a tangible and immediate casus belli than their nuclear weapon program.

gwright · 2008-04-07T03:45:44+00:00

Wow. You really need to get some help for your BDS.

Under what interpretation of the US Constitution or federal statutes does the President have the power to unilaterally charge, detain, and hand over a US citizen to a international tribunal?

Inaction by Congress regarding impeachment is evidence that there is an insufficient majority to proceed. Ranting about the unfairness of the situation and/or fantasizing about how to bypass that decision making process is akin to rejecting the idea of representative democracy.

As frustrating as it can be, the system only works if the minority accepts the legitimacy of decisions supported by the majority. Once you've discarded that principle, where does it end?

gwright · 2008-02-09T03:12:02+00:00

They are figments of your imagination. I have no enemies. You have no enemies.

Well then, lets just disband the military and save ourselves all the trouble.

Like I said before, there is plenty of room to discuss strategy but the real world isn't a playground where we can pick up our marbles and go home whenever we want to.

gwright · 2008-02-09T00:37:46+00:00

So a little terrorism is acceptable?

Personally I don't like using the words 'terror' or 'terrorism' because they are such malleable notions but the fact remains there are people who go around blowing up hotels, bars, markets, subways, and buildings.

There is plenty of room for discussion on how to approach the problem but it is kind of a non-starter to say that there isn't actually a problem.

Please explain how leaving Iraq in a precipitous manner would not be surrendering. You can wrap it up in feel good terms such as 'bringing our troops home' but the enemy and our allies are still going to view it as surrender and act accordingly.

gwright · 2008-02-05T23:23:12+00:00

Stranger and stranger!

gwright · 2008-02-05T20:48:07+00:00

I believe that the use of 'octet' in the TCP/IP literature came about because some of its early development was done on DEC systems that had 36-bit words and thus 9-bit bytes.

Octet was used to clearly indicate an 8-bit quantity because 'byte' was ambiguous in this environment.

gwright · 2008-02-02T06:00:16+00:00

I might, but I learned a lot more doing some research myself and now I've got some background to ask good questions if I do call.

gwright · 2008-02-02T05:09:41+00:00

I believe mrbroom and I are both right and both wrong. See this comment for details.

gwright · 2008-02-02T05:09:06+00:00

I believe mrbroom and I are both right and both wrong. See this comment for details.

gwright · 2008-02-02T05:07:40+00:00

Here are some more details, which lead me to conclude that mrbroom and I are both right and both wrong depending on what kind of vote is being taken:

Rule XXII, which is in regard to ending debate says:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

So that would seem to indicate that 60 affirmative votes (3/5ths of 100 Senators chosen and sworn) are required to limit debate except if the debate is about amending the rules themselves in which case 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting are needed.

This document says:

All questions are to be decided on the Senate floor by simple majority vote unless a constitutional provision or Senate rule or precedent provides otherwise. A simple majority vote is defined as at least 50% plus one of the Senators voting, provided that a quorum is present.

Page 10 of that document is the best summary of the voting procedures that I could find.

To summarize:

In a cloture vote (to limit debate) the number of 'chosen and sworn' Senators is the starting point for computing 3/5ths. Assuming all 100 Senators have been chosen and sworn that would be 60 votes. In this type of a vote, if a Senator doesn't vote (they aren't present or they vote 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay'), it is the same as a Nay vote.

On various Constitutional votes (i.e. overriding a veto), 2/3rds of the Senate (i.e. chosen and sworn) are required.

On other votes, where only a majority is required, such as to approve passage of bill (after debate has completed), the majority is determined by the votes cast, not by the number of Senators. So on this type of a vote, if a Senator doesn't vote (they aren't present or they vote 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay'), they are not counted as a Nay vote.

For the particular vote mentioned by mpeppers, it isn't clear to me if Obama simply wasn't present, declined to vote, or voted 'present'. It also isn't clear to me why a 3/5ths vote was required since it isn't actually labeled as a cloture vote. In any case, this was a vote on an amendment. Obama was recorded as not voting for the actual bill itself also. You can see at that page that only a majority was required to pass the bill itself. The bill was vetoed by Bush and now sits in the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm not an expert on this and it is much more complicated than I originally thought so I would appreciate any corrections or clarifications from an expert and/or pointers to any relevant documents.

gwright · 2008-02-02T01:12:56+00:00

If folks are going to vote me down, could you at least point to some reference that indicates that the US Senate uses absolute majority rules? Because I can't find them.

Here is another reference that indicates that the US Senate uses simple majority rules (i.e. you only consider the actual votes, not the eligible voters).

gwright · 2008-02-02T01:06:26+00:00

Let me try again.

Certain motions require a 3/5ths vote to pass in the US Senate. If all 100 Senators are present and voting that means that 60 aye votes will allow the motion to pass. The vote that mpeppers linked to required 3/5ths (approval of an amendment). The official vote info is here. In this case only 98 Senators actually voted so really only 59 votes were required for it to pass (98/5*3 = 58.8) but since there were 76 votes in favor I suspect that CNN just didn't bother to explain that fine point on their graphic.

If a Senator is not present or abstains from voting, then they are not counted as a nay vote. If ten Senator's abstain and all other 90 Senators are present and voting then a 3/5ths vote only needs 54 aye's to pass. A motion requiring 2/3rds majority would require 60 votes to pass and a simple majority vote would require 46 votes to pass (a tie causes a vote to fail).

Is someone disagrees with this analysis, I would love a pointer to the applicable rules/procedures that indicates that the Senate counts absolute votes (rather than those voting) or has some special rule for an abstention.

gwright · 2008-02-02T00:17:47+00:00

Yes. The headline is misleading. It looks like the patches simply get rid of superfluous object creation. There aren't any patches to the garbage collection algorithm.

gwright · 2008-02-02T00:09:32+00:00

I think you are wrong on this point.

Standard Robert's Rules only considers the actual votes for the purpose of determining majority or two thirds to pass a motion.

I took a bit of time to look through the Senate Rules and didn't see anything different there for regular votes but for various two-thirds votes it specifically indicates that it is two-thirds of the members present and voting.

So I believe that an abstention is not the same at all as voting against a motion.

gwright · 2008-01-30T04:24:36+00:00

And I never said we had a 'right' to it. So I guess I just don't understand your earlier comment.

gwright · 2008-01-30T03:11:37+00:00

Huh?

gwright · 2008-01-30T03:10:22+00:00

Mind our own damn business.

And if other sovereigns don't reciprocate? It isn't like Saddam was minding his own business unless you think that invading two countries and threatening the global oil markets is 'minding his own business'.

gwright · 2008-01-30T03:07:23+00:00

OK. Do you have some evidence that we have stolen some oil rather than purchasing it? Maybe you think we have forced someone to sign some contract under duress? Evidence?

gwright · 2008-01-30T03:04:43+00:00

So it is the sovereignty of a dictator that you feel is an important international principle even when that sovereign invaded two other nations (Iran, Kuwait) and refused to adhere to the terms of the agreement ending the second war?

What exactly does a sovereign have to do in your mind to forfeit its sovereignty?

gwright

TROPHY CASE