[Pete Svarrior]

Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.

I feel like you haven't read what I said. Yes, he could do it, if he wanted to spell the end of his career. It's a safe assumption that he wouldn't do it.

Point is, it was a foolish thing to do.  Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong.

If anything, a big business or political candidate is probably in a better position, since they could easily get the guy sued.

But even then, you've got nothing. It's common practice. Heck, some libraries encourage linking directly to their upstream as an easy way to get yourself set up. Is it super-duper secure? No. Is it secure enough? Yes, in most cases. Your reputation as a professional is probably worth more than the 30 minutes of lol-funnies you might get before the site gets fixed and your ass gets in trouble.

Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.

I don't know what gives you that impression. There is nothing in GitHub's terms and conditions that would suggest they're even mildly opposed to people hotlinking their resources. And if they were, I'm sure they would take action to address it long before "tech bloggers" of this guy's calibre would get involved.

So far, you're confirming my suspicion:

This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

It really seems like you have no reason to find it relevant, other than someone telling you that someone related to Trump supposedly did something incompetent. It doesn't matter if it's true so long as it attacks the politician you don't like, right?

[juner]

I love SexWarrior

[George]

In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times.  Sad!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

[juner]

In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times.  Sad!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

Trump is good at debt, but he doesn't have shit on Obama. The trillions he's added to the national debt would make the Donald blush...

[Lord Dave]

Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.

I feel like you haven't read what I said. Yes, he could do it, if he wanted to spell the end of his career. It's a safe assumption that he wouldn't do it.

Point is, it was a foolish thing to do.  Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong.

If anything, a big business or political candidate is probably in a better position, since they could easily get the guy sued.

But even then, you've got nothing. It's common practice. Heck, some libraries encourage linking directly to their upstream as an easy way to get yourself set up. Is it super-duper secure? No. Is it secure enough? Yes, in most cases. Your reputation as a professional is probably worth more than the 30 minutes of lol-funnies you might get before the site gets fixed and your ass gets in trouble.

I'd be more concerned with injecting some malicious code for the people who visit more so than lol-funnies. 

It's common?  I didn't know that.  I figured it was more common to have your own local copy.  I mean, I know a shit ton of sites use "off site" CSS files and what-not but I assumed they were bad choices on design or just where they kept their CSS files.

Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.

I don't know what gives you that impression. There is nothing in GitHub's terms and conditions that would suggest they're even mildly opposed to people hotlinking their resources. And if they were, I'm sure they would take action to address it long before "tech bloggers" of this guy's calibre would get involved.

So far, you're confirming my suspicion:

This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

It really seems like you have no reason to find it relevant, other than someone telling you that someone related to Trump supposedly did something incompetent. It doesn't matter if it's true so long as it attacks the politician you don't like, right?

Eh, I'd think the same if it was on anyone's site.  Which, if it's common, probably is.

But considering it's common practice, then I have no argument and retract my statement, mostly.  I still think one should always have a local copy of files you use but maybe that's just old thinking.

[Rama Set]

In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times.  Sad!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

Trump is good at debt, but he doesn't have shit on Obama. The trillions he's added to the national debt would make the Donald blush...

Obama has cut the deficit every year. It's not his fault he followed Bush.

[beardo]

It's not his fault he followed Bush.

Ummm.. Actually it is. He chose to run while George was president.

[juner]

It's not his fault he followed Bush.

Or every other president before Bush, apparently, since he's practically accumulated more debt than all of his predecessors combined...

He gets a pass for FY '09, but saying he cut the deficit every year as a blanket statement is a bit disingenuous as it ignores how much debt was accumulated during his terms.

[Rama Set]

It's not his fault he followed Bush.

Or every other president before Bush, apparently, since he's practically accumulated more debt than all of his predecessors combined...

He gets a pass for FY '09, but saying he cut the deficit every year as a blanket statement is a bit disingenuous as it ignores how much debt was accumulated during his terms.

It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president. How much should he have cut the deficit, and how? 

Why does he only get a pass for 2009?  Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future?  Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?

EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

[garygreen]

dunno why it matters since trump has explicitly stated that the us should take on more debt

[juner]

It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president.

Agree. It's also a matter of fact that he's added more debt than nearly all of his predecessors combined.

How much should he have cut the deficit, and how? 

No idea, I'm not an economic advisor. Something less than a near 100% increase in debt seems better.

Why does he only get a pass for 2009?  Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future?  Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?

Because he had no control whatsoever coming into FY '09. He did after that. We both know it isn't like the president controls the purse anyway, but people associate spending with the president in $CURRENT_YEAR so that's what my earlier quip was about. Just because I throw silly one liners at Obama doesn't mean I don't like him. I voted for him twice.

EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.

It was 438B, right near what Bush finished his last year on with 459B, although Bush's deficit before that was 161B. The deficit this year is estimated at over 600B though, so it looks like the little factoid won't hold up for his entire term. Bush added about half of the debt Obama has and he's seen as a war mongering pillar of the military industrial complex.

[Rama Set]

It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president.

Agree. It's also a matter of fact that he's added more debt than nearly all of his predecessors combined.

How much should he have cut the deficit, and how? 

No idea, I'm not an economic advisor. Something less than a near 100% increase in debt seems better.

Do you even know if he could have done better?  Thinking someone should do better because opinions is not very productive.

Why does he only get a pass for 2009?  Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future?  Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?

Because he had no control whatsoever coming into FY '09. He did after that. We both know it isn't like the president controls the purse anyway, but people associate spending with the president in $CURRENT_YEAR so that's what my earlier quip was about. Just because I throw silly one liners at Obama doesn't mean I don't like him. I voted for him twice.

So after he had control, he brought the deficit down every year.

EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.

It was 438B, right near what Bush finished his last year on with 459B, although Bush's deficit before that was 161B. The deficit this year is estimated at over 600B though, so it looks like the little factoid won't hold up for his entire term. Bush added about half of the debt Obama has and he's seen as a war mongering pillar of the military industrial complex.

Bush also inherited record surpluses and didn't deal with globally reaching, catastrophic events in the financial markets. Anyway, since you admittedly don't know what he could have done better this doesn't particularly matter. Suffice it to say that "he doubled the debt" is a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.

[juner]

... a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.

About as reductionist as saying he decreased the deficit every year.

[Rama Set]

... a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.

About as reductionist as saying he decreased the deficit every year.

You go girl. By the way, every president since Clinton has doubled the national debt and Reagan almost tripled it. It's what America does. Now tell me more about Obama...

[juner]

You go girl.

Aww, that's sweet. Thank you.

By the way, every president since Clinton has doubled the national debt and Reagan almost tripled it. It's what America does.

Cool story, bro.

Now tell me more about Obama...

Seems like a decent guy. What else do you want to be told more about?...

[George]

Hey, guys, can we talk about the presidential election?

[Lord Dave]

Hey, guys, can we talk about the presidential election?

What's to talk about?

Trump yells angry words but now has a great PR guy.
Clinton dodges contraversies like Neo dodges bullets.
They both suck but the media is pro-clinton (cause Trump wants to restrict the media).

Clinton will win.
The status quo will be maintained.
A woman will be president following a black man.

Two social leaps will occur in one decade. 

Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever. 

[beardo]

Clinton will win.

lol

[Lord Dave]

Clinton will win.

lol

I'll be sure to quote this again in November.

[Pete Svarrior]

Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.

Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)