amendable

Not all type of software is amendable to consulting/trainings as means of getting money out of it.

The latter is (of course!) less amendable to hard and fast truths.

The few that are not amendable (for instance, because you don't know who the stalker is!) are far more serious and will need a lot more work to resolve.

Culture is the least identifiable, least amendable, and yet most influential component of any organization...

Human nature is even more irrational, even less amendable to be put into its proper Classes and Object Instantiations and whatever.

Pretty much everything in the design seems fairly arbitrary and amendable to variation.

Of course, Go is a language that is more amendable for quick compilations.

I don't know, and certainly the brain seems to be very amendable (ie taxi drivers have enlarged regions for dealing with maps).

For my part, I find that WDL is more amendable to interpretation.

I am aware that is theoretically the only thing that is not amendable, but it's a flaw that we have it in any case.

That's why the legislative process is amendable.

It's more amendable to touch-based interfaces.

The point is, if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests?

The TPP would not "ship" until Congress passes it; the text would be public, and most likely amendable, at that point.

> if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests?

This is not a subtle point, it's merely common sense, and because of git's "commits are lightweight, local, and amendable" model, there's little excuse not to commit.