Thursday morning links

The Supreme Court allowed it in Aronow v. United States because the phrase is "patriotic or ceremonial" and having "no theological or ritualistic impact". In other words, because it is drained by ritual of religious meaning, it is allowable.

Bird Dog: Why is it on money?

Religious tribalism. They stamp their gang insignia wherever they can.

#2 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 09:43 (Reply)

"Why is it on money?"

Because we are a Christian Nation. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 157 (1892). Also to remind users that it is In God We Trust, not the power of money. "In God We Trust" is also the motto of this Christian Nation.

That's the history of it. History has now been rewritten by folks like Zach.

#2.1 Jim on 2018-08-30 13:49 (Reply)

Jim: Because we are a Christian Nation. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 157 (1892).

From the decision: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 15:31 (Reply)

"In God we trust. All others pay cash."

#2.1.2 JJM on 2018-08-30 21:21 (Reply)

I don't know that the youth reading issue is all that alarming. There is a lot that is assumed but not evidenced in the article. First, the number of children who are bookworms has always been fairly small, and likely overrepresented on a site like Maggie's. Our childhoods, our children, and our friends are not a good sample. The article says nothing about whether the number of children who read dozens of books a year has changed. Secondly, they are also shocked by how few children read a daily newspaper now. Really? These researchers are serious people who think deeply about the world? Thirdly, they make the assumption that because children read in shorter bursts now, they must be having more difficulty with longer texts. Maybe so, but there's no evidence for it here. Things that feel like they should be true are not reliable. Fourthly, there is no evidence here about total amount of reading from all sources. In terms of acquiring information, I think that would matter. Fifth, the internet has also liberated writing in children, at least in terms of quantity. People just did not write very much outside of a school (note-taking, homework, reports) setting, but everyone is writing more now, including children and teenagers. That also matters. Sixth, kids are watching less TV also. That's what we used to insist was destroying our youth.

Damn kids don't know how to shoe a horse these days.

#3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-08-30 09:52 (Reply)

Re: writing

I think our ancestors will view the era of remote synchronous verbal communication that lasted from about 1940 through 1990 or so (when phones became ubiquitous until answering machines became the same) as being the anomaly, not the norm we seem to think it is.

#3.1 Christopher B on 2018-08-30 10:14 (Reply)

Whatever's going on at the time is the 'norm'.

Humans are rather adaptable critters. What's already the 'norm' will be something different in another 20 years.

Because that's just how things go.

#3.1.1 JLawson on 2018-08-30 12:11 (Reply)

The local papers (One big-city and one small townish) have been having real problems with subscribers dropping.

Too many other places to get the info, and a customer base that's literally (in a lot of cases) dying off. We kept the paper going while my mother in law was with us, so she could do her crossword puzzles, but that ended when she went to live with her daughter in PA. She passed away a couple of years ago...

Son was always a reader, but we were always reading... and reading to him from a very early age. I'm thinking the kids that don't read don't have parents that read.

#3.2 JLawson on 2018-08-30 12:10 (Reply)

"I'm thinking the kids that don't read don't have parents that read." True. I now believe that is mostly genetic. We did fanatic amounts of reading and reading aloud (my wife is a librarian, I read LOTR aloud in1984, 1988, and 1992), think that example and introduction was necessary. It wasn't a waste of time - it was fun and it's something now shared in the family culture - but they would have been readers anyway, one more than the other. Our adopted children are not readers.

#3.2.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-08-30 15:09 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Gavin Newsom, leading candidate for governor of California, and a Democrat, has a new goodie on offer: free health care for the state's three million illegals.

The former mayor of San Francisco said so in this podcast, explaining that there is no reason not to "wait around" to extend Medi-Cal coverage to anyone who asks, regardless of immigration status.

California has handed out over a million driver's licenses to illegal aliens that bear no distinguishing features to separate them from those of legitimate US citizens. California encourages voter registration at the time the licenses are handed out, and may, or may not, ask whether the client is a citizen when they do so. It's a moot point though: California does not require proof of citizenship at the voting gate. In plain words, there is a tacit institutionalized pathway that has been constructed to facilitate illegal voting, and any potential obstacles have been carefully stripped.

If there is one thing true about all politicians, it's this: when the campaign comes into the final stretch, every public comment is carefully crafted to secure votes. The Candidate is not bucking that tradition, he's honoring it. California's US citizen voters may be resolutely blue, but they are also in competition with their replacements, and their tax dollars will soon be paying more for them. That's OK though - it's just society's way of extracting your 'Fair Share'.

#4 Aggie on 2018-08-30 10:02 (Reply)

Aggie: California has handed out over a million driver's licenses to illegal aliens that bear no distinguishing features to separate them from those of legitimate US citizens.

That is incorrect. Non-citizen driver's licenses are AB-60, and marked "Federal Limits Apply".

Aggie: California encourages voter registration at the time the licenses are handed out, and may, or may not, ask whether the client is a citizen when they do so.

Those applying for AB-60 licenses are not given the opportunity to register to vote.

Aggie: California does not require proof of citizenship at the voting gate.

Verification is at time of registration, or the first time voting.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 10:11 (Reply)

QUOTE:

In most cases, a California voter is not required to show identification to a polling place worker before casting a ballot.

Wink, wink...

😂😂😂

#4.1.1 kiddiezatemypuppy on 2018-08-30 10:23 (Reply)

An acceptable form of identification is a recent utility bill.

#4.1.1.1 B. Hammer on 2018-08-30 10:53 (Reply)

B. Hammer: An acceptable form of identification is a recent utility bill.

Who can vote in California

Yes, it is possible to vote illegally, but the individual benefit is slight, and the penalties are high. Consequently, the number of ineligible people voting is very small. There are substantially more people who are disenfranchised by difficulties of voting, such as long poll lines in working class precincts, or long distances required to travel to the polls.

#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 11:10 (Reply)

That gibberish is nothing but pure Marxist narrative.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 12:19 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: That gibberish is nothing but pure Marxist narrative.

Our comment was clear and comprehensible, so wasn't gibberish, even if you disagree with it. Are you saying that long lines at polling stations doesn't make it difficult to exercise the franchise, especially for people who have to work? Are you saying that long distances to polling stations doesn't make it difficult to exercise the franchise, especially for the poor?

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 12:35 (Reply)

You are back to deflecting. There were no long lines or any longer lines than I have waited in to vote in other states. Have YOU actually voted in California or are you just commenting on something you are clueless about. I voted there and I paid taxes there. I even drove there...on my Minnesota license and in the Minnesota licensed car for about 2 years. Where did you vote in California? Where did you work in California? When did you pay taxes in California?

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 12:45 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You are back to deflecting.

Not at all. We pointed out that the problem of non-eligible people voting is minuscule compared to the problem eligible voters, especially the poor, often face in voting. We provided examples nationwide, not just in California.

We'd be happy to look at actual data, though, if you have any. How many eligible voters are disenfranchised due to the logistics of registration and voting, and how many ineligible people vote.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 12:52 (Reply)

None are disenfranchised...Hell, you can get an absentee ballot and vote by mail. Are you a Canadian or European? You seem quite unencumbered by the knowledge of how to vote in America.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 12:59 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: None are disenfranchised

Of course they are. They drive to the polls, wait in line two hours, then have to abandon the effort because they have to go to work, or because they have to pick up the kids.

indyjonesouthere: you can get an absentee ballot and vote by mail.

That depends on the state. And not everyone decides to vote until election day. But as part of the effort to make voting easier, mail-in and early voting have been implemented in many states — efforts often stymied or opposed by Republicans who feel that when more people vote, the lower their electoral chances. North Carolina's voter law was struck down by the federal courts because it would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."

But we are glad you support such efforts, and that means we have an area of common ground.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 13:05 (Reply)

Don't pretend we have common ground. Voting is a duty even when it is not as convenient as you would wish. Military service is also a duty even when it is not as convenient as you would wish. I served in the military and it was neither convenient or comfortable. I vote whether it is convenient or not. If neither of these are convenient for you or others the best I can do is feel you pain...which is what slick Willie would tell you.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 13:17 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Don't pretend we have common ground.

You pointed to mail-in voting as a social benefit. We agree. That means we have common ground.

indyjonesouthere: Voting is a duty even when it is not as convenient as you would wish.

And there is an effort to make it more difficult for the poor and minorities to vote. Working class people don't usually get to choose to get off on election day, and may have children and other responsibilities which make voting impractical.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 15:14 (Reply)

Listen dumbass...I'm working class (that's blue collar for academics) If citizens are so feeble they are unable to arrange time and effort to vote or even file an absentee ballot they are just going to be losers. Losers just lose. The poor have no more excuse to fail to vote or serve in the military than anyone else. You are simply enabling and excusing laziness and lack of effort as a means of making voting so easy that even an illegal can do it. You have no shame and you are definitely not an American. Corrupt the voting in your own country but stay the hell out of this country.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 16:48 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Losers just lose.

Losers have just as much a right to vote as "winners".

indyjonesouthere: You are simply enabling and excusing laziness and lack of effort as a means of making voting so easy that even an illegal can do it.

No. The trick with any lock is to make it reasonably easy for authorized entry, while denying entry to those who are unauthorized.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-31 09:53 (Reply)

Notice how they never answer direct questions? Alway more deflection and dnc talking points.

In the US Navy, I once had to wait two hours in the chow line - fire at sea caused the foreward mess deck to be closed. Guess I should have sued.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 B. Hammer on 2018-08-30 15:17 (Reply)

B. Hammer: Notice how they never answer direct questions? Alway more deflection and dnc talking points.

We always try to respond to relevant questions. Which question was left unanswered?

B. Hammer: In the US Navy, I once had to wait two hours in the chow line - fire at sea caused the foreward mess deck to be closed. Guess I should have sued.

Guess what. That was the job. Hurry up and wait.

But other people have other jobs that require them to be somewhere else, or have children who need supervision. Some people, especially those with a high income, can often take the day off, but someone who works a job till six, has to cross town to get in the poll queue by seven, but has to still cook dinner for the kids, may have a great deal of difficulty voting.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 15:24 (Reply)

That was my point, I did my duty and didn’t wine about it.

I think it is highly relevant to these discussions as to your Zach group citizens status. Are you Americans? Pretty straightforward question.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 B. Hammer on 2018-08-30 15:46 (Reply)

B. Hammer: That was my point, I did my duty and didn’t wine about it.

Sure. And many people don't complain, even when they can't vote because of the difficulties they face. But they should complain when others try to make it more difficult to vote than it need be. For instance, North Carolina's voter law was struck down by the federal courts because it would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."

B. Hammer: Are you Americans?

We have no particular allegiance except to the truth. You may have personal experiences to share. That's fine, but the plural of anecdote is not data. Our position concerns what can be shown objectively.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 16:23 (Reply)

Marxists have allegiance to Marxists

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 16:50 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Marxists have allegiance to Marxists

While we're not Marxist by any means, Marxists are ideologues, meaning their allegiance is to their ideology.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-31 09:55 (Reply)

Cowards

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 B. Hammer on 2018-08-30 19:11 (Reply)

The benefit may be slight for the individual, but great for the overall party that can get the individuals to vote for them.

Especially if the promised benefits never have to actually appear, yet the voters keep the elected in office.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.2 JLawson on 2018-08-30 16:21 (Reply)

You are full of it Zach...the first time I voted in California (I was working in L.A.) I showed them my Minnesota drivers license. I had not acquired a California license but they had no problem accepting that as proof of citizenship to vote and asked for no other I.D. If anyone thinks voting in California is secure they are completely over the top delusional.

#4.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 12:17 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: the first time I voted in California (I was working in L.A.) I showed them my Minnesota drivers license.

You were registered to vote. Lots of people don't change their driver's licenses immediately upon moving to a new location. That doesn't disenfranchise them.

#4.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 12:26 (Reply)

I and the wife registered and voted at the same time...a Minnesota drivers license was the ID. NOTHING else. What you always fail to understand about government is that its what they do and not what they say they do. They gin up the idea that it is secure voting but the actual practice is anything but. I never got a license in California either as registering a car there required a $400.00 fee for non compliance with California regs. The fee had been found to be unconstitutional in court but to get the fee back you had to sue them. That cost more than the fee. As I said, you actually are naïve enough to believe what they say when, indeed, it is what they actually do. I have always viewed them as an outlaw state.

#4.1.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 12:37 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: a Minnesota drivers license was the ID.

Are you saying the Minnesota drivers license and your signed attestation wasn't sufficient evidence of citizenship?

California Requirements To Register to Vote

#4.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 12:45 (Reply)

Illegals are already breaking the law...do you actually think they would have a problem signing a statement that they are legal citizens. Are you RETARDED?

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 12:49 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: do you actually think they would have a problem signing a statement that they are legal citizens.

You admitted to breaking the law concerning your driver's license, but that doesn't mean you'd rob a bank or lie in order to vote. By the way, it is not generally illegal to be in the U.S. undocumented. It's a civil matter. Really wish that would sink in one day.

The evidence is that the undocumented have a lower crime rate than documented or citizens. In any case, almost no one would invite trouble when the individual benefit is slight, and the penalties are high. When it occurs, which is does very rarely, it is nearly always because of confusion over eligibility.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 13:00 (Reply)

California admitted to breaking the law with their 400 dollar illegal fee...they will get exactly what they promote. Its what you might call "identity politics". It is ALWAYS illegal to be in the US without going thru immigration to obtain a visa. Just try it sometime...I would suggest Venezuela, China, or Cuba perhaps. You have your crime rates reversed...Illegals are lawbreakers at higher rates than citizens...its their nature. Place illegals and their employers in work camps for a year. I'm sure the illegal rate would decrease after that kind of discouragement.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 13:09 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: California admitted to breaking the law with their 400 dollar illegal fee

VC14600(A)? Think that fine is $239, and is typically reduced if the correction is made. It's still the law. Do you have a citation to the court case?

indyjonesouthere: It is ALWAYS illegal to be in the US without going thru immigration to obtain a visa.

Improper entry is a crime. Unlawful presence is not a criminal offense, but a civil violation.

indyjonesouthere: Illegals are lawbreakers at higher rates than citizens.

Undocumented immigrants commit less crime than native-born citizens

More undocumented immigrants, less violent crime

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 15:12 (Reply)

Both graphs are flawed and wrong.
But that's what you kiddiez use and claim it as "evidence".
Cato had to go back and revise their numbers.

QUOTE:

Using newly released detailed data on all prisoners who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Unlike other studies, these data do not rely on self-reporting of criminal backgrounds. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992

I know the kiddiez will not address this comment directly because: 1.) They are wrong again and 2.) they're little pussys, so maybe another commentor can point out their error see what happens.
😂😂😂.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 kiddiezatemypuppy on 2018-08-30 16:19 (Reply)

In the early 90's at the time of the Northridge earthquake and the Rodney king fiasco the fine was 400 dollars...a friend of mine who started work there at the same time got caught up in their BS when he got a license and car registered. The fee was more than his car was worth. If immigrants are illegals how can you even determine the percent of law breakers when you don't even know how many illegals you have. That's the kind of math that "studies" majors tuck under their academic belt.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 17:01 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: If immigrants are illegals how can you even determine the percent of law breakers when you don't even know how many illegals you have.

Through sampling, census, and statistics.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-31 09:57 (Reply)

Z--By the way, it is not generally illegal to be in the U.S. undocumented. It's a civil matter. Really wish that would sink in one day.

What's to sink in? As usual you're only giving a partial response.

It is a crime to improperly enter or attempt to enter the U.S., punishable by criminal penalties.

It's also a violation of Federal law (that defines illegal) to remain in the U.S. without proper authorization, whether one enters the country legally or illegally. For this and other reasons these violations are dealt with using civil penalties like deportation.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 SK on 2018-08-30 15:10 (Reply)

SK: It is a crime to improperly enter or attempt to enter the U.S., punishable by criminal penalties.

That is correct. But many people who are undocumented entered the U.S. legally.

Improper entry is a crime. Unlawful presence is not a criminal offense, but a civil violation. The claim was that breaking the law through unlawful presence would mean the person was more likely to commit other crimes. In fact, crime rates are lower for undocumented people, presumably because they are trying to keep a low profile. And other people who commit civil violations, say, not updating their address on their driver's license, are not necessarily more likely to commit criminal offenses.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-08-30 15:19 (Reply)

That is correct. But many people who are undocumented entered the U.S. legally.

Improper entry is a crime. Unlawful presence is not a criminal offense, but a civil violation. The claim was that breaking the law through unlawful presence would mean the person was more likely to commit other crimes. In fact, crime rates are lower for undocumented people, presumably because they are trying to keep a low profile. And other people who commit civil violations, say, not updating their address on their driver's license, are not necessarily more likely to commit criminal offenses.

You're simply restating what I wrote. You claimed that unlawful presence was not illegal. It is treated with civil penalties for various reasons, but it is most decidedly illegal. Your first post was deliberately misleading.

As you say, "many" here illegally entered legally--most did not.

And then you start deflecting again...no such claim re crime rates was made in the post you were replying to--he simply stated what many reasonable people would say is a reasonable assumption--that people already here illegally would be more likely to lie about being here illegally. Even if this reasonable assumption is wrong it was not a general statement about criminal behavior among those here illegally:

indyjonesouthere: do you actually think they would have a problem signing a statement that they are legal citizens.

He later made that claim, but not in the post you replied to.

And thanks for the laugh comparing not updating an address on a DL to violation of federal immigration law.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 SK on 2018-08-30 17:06 (Reply)

QUOTE:

In fact, crime rates are lower for undocumented people, ...

Wrong again, kiddiez

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Zzzzatemypuppy on 2018-08-30 17:08 (Reply)

QUOTE:

You Won't Find the Words "Fired" or "Terminated" In This Article

“I now understand why work wasn’t getting done.” said Throggs Neck Houses Tenant Association President Monique Johnson.

😂😂😂

#5 kiddiezatemypuppy on 2018-08-30 10:09 (Reply)

Anyone can become transgender tomorrow and immediately become part of a minority.

I'd need to know how many adults read a book last year before I judge kids. i'll bet it's not many.

My neighbor, a land line phone company employee, toid me years ago that they no longer had an installation department. He said what they did was un-install home phones. It won't be long before home phones, cable Tv and newspapers will go the way of VCR's and Blockbuster.

#6 FRP on 2018-08-30 15:10 (Reply)

We've kept a 'landline' of sorts, a Vonage VOIP setup, handling all the phones in the house. I'm thinking it's about time to drop it - we don't get any calls except telespam. It was useful when we had Mum down here (she was 85 at the time) but cell phones have pretty much taken away all the utility.

#6.1 JLawson on 2018-08-30 16:29 (Reply)

School "Shootings": We're being LIED to? Why am I not surprised?

Gavin Newsome: Wants NEW and MOAR taxes and munney.

"Climate Change" and the poor: Gonna cost them MOAR.

#7 Sam L. on 2018-08-30 15:11 (Reply)

Privilege? Lets count the ways.

Tall privilege
Thin privilege
large brest privilege
blond hair privilege
blue eys privilege
handsome privilege
beautiful privilege,
intelligent privilege
hard worker privilege
vocal ability privilege
athelitic ability privilege
born in the right county privilege
born in the right city privilege
born to a good family privilege
raised in a 2 parent family privilegecollege education privilege
musical ability privilege
artistic privilege

I could do this all day.
I think "Harrison Bergeron" pretty much covered this big lie

#8 FRP on 2018-08-30 16:49 (Reply)

Fearing "Google's Power" - when I first entered business, a friend of mine said we'd all eventually work for IBM. Then it was AT&T. Then it was GE and then Microsoft.

Power is fleeting, and there's nothing in Google's power that is any different than any previous large firm.

HOWEVER, when government regulates to "manage" these large firms, usually what happens is these larger firms actually benefit more than they should.

Standard Oil didn't break up because of Sherman. It was in decline by the time it was applied. Other firms were already eroding its core businesses by being more efficient.

Large firms are incredibly unwieldy and eventually start working at cross-purposes. I could, in a number of ways, show you how Google is actually working against itself. One of the easiest is that they are not in the content business nor do they want to be - but they NEED content to survive, and in taking it over (the few cases where they have) they haven't done particularly well with it.
Microsoft had the same problem with the internet. It couldn't avoid being part of it, but in joining the internet, it began to fundamentally erode its core businesses.

Google is big right now. In 10 years someone else (Amazon?) will challenge them. 10 years after that, someone else will come along.

I don't fear the temporary. If you're old enough, then you probably remember when GM was going to eat the world.

#9 Bulldog on 2018-08-30 17:05 (Reply)

Just noticed the insane one has been extraordinarily active today and yesterday.

Gotta stop feeding him. He dies by being ignored.

#10 Bulldog on 2018-08-30 17:07 (Reply)

I think "Zach" is a Canadian bot program group trying to develop an automated response program but are having trouble keeping the responses current.

#10.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 17:24 (Reply)

Maybe the now missing jaybird was right.

#10.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-08-30 19:01 (Reply)

The borg never mentions even one single life event. No life event equals no life. Zach is a programming task...the problem is applying the right answer to the question...some of the programming really sucks.

#10.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-08-30 20:19 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, August 30. 2018

Thursday morning links