<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for kazoolist</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/kazoolist/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/kazoolist/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:16:07 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: A Tale of Two Quakes</title><link>http://cafehayek.com/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-quakes.html#comment-29881270</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@ArrowSmith&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You're dramatically misreading this discussion. No one here is trying to score political points.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kazoolist</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:16:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: THAT Explanation Fails</title><link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/12/that-explanation-fails.html#comment-27205764</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Bret's comment, "Are you really sure you know what's going on everywhere else in the galaxy?"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Makes me think of this:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is the Congress sure it knows what's going on everywhere in the Healthcare sector of the economy? (&lt;a href="http://cafehayek.com/2009/12/an-open-letter-to-cbs-newsman-bob-schieffer.html)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://cafehayek.com/2009/12/an-open-letter-to-cbs-newsman-bob-schieffer.html)"&gt;http://cafehayek.com/2009/1...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kazoolist</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:41:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Puerile Presumptions</title><link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/puerile-presumptions.html#comment-14644584</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for sending that, Mr. Boudreaux. It echos my thoughts after watching that video exactly.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kazoolist</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:43:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Really? REALLY? wtf.</title><link>http://blog.learnr.org/post/149021162#comment-13330728</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If you took the time to learn the language, you'd realize Objects and Array's aren't Maps! They are objects which contain properties. And this works exactly how it should given that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;When you say "obj[x]", x is an expression that is evaluated to determine what property of obj you want.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Read the spec (&lt;a href="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm):" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm):"&gt;http://www.ecma-internation...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;CallExpression [ &amp;lt;identifier-string&amp;gt; ]&lt;br&gt;      where &amp;lt;identifier-string&amp;gt; is a string literal containing the same sequence of characters as the Identifier.&lt;br&gt;      The production MemberExpression : MemberExpression [ Expression ] is evaluated as follows:&lt;br&gt;      1.  Evaluate MemberExpression.&lt;br&gt;      2.  Call GetValue(Result(1)).&lt;br&gt;      3.  Evaluate Expression.&lt;br&gt;      4.  Call GetValue(Result(3)).&lt;br&gt;      5.  Call ToObject(Result(2)).&lt;br&gt;      6.  Call ToString(Result(4)).&lt;br&gt;      7. Return a value of type Reference whose base object is Result(5) and whose property name is&lt;br&gt;         Result(6).&lt;br&gt;      The production CallExpression : CallExpression [ Expression ] is evaluated in exactly the same&lt;br&gt;      manner, except that the contained CallExpression is evaluated in step 1.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kazoolist</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:29:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why I’m Not Patriotic</title><link>http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx070208#comment-815831</link><description>&lt;p&gt;a.) Your quote is off (it's "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety")&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;b.) Your attribution is correct (Ben Franklin, not Jefferson)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;c.) We give up liberty for safety all the time. For instance, to have police around means giving up liberty (to gain safety), but I've never heard anyone spout off this quote who was serious about abolishing the police to gain back every ounce of their natural rights. The importance is getting the balance right, not abolishing the social contract.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kazoolist</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:20:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why I’m Not Patriotic</title><link>http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx070208#comment-815752</link><description>&lt;p&gt;How utterly unfortunate that someone with your spiteful view of America is teaching its history.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kazoolist</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:00:27 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>