Why wouldn't any self-respecting criminal (or regular citizen, for that matter) not disable Google Location History? Or do you not believe that that really keeps your location history out of this Sensorvault DB?
Right. There are areas where standardization is necessary for adoption and others where it's only a 'nicety' in terms of users knowing how to do things on any Linux system. Launchers - and even entire desktops - can be changed without making it impossible for developers to target 'the Linux desktop'. It'd be nice to have a single default one for users that don't want to customize things, but beyond that, end-user customization is fine.
But, assuming you need to get developers on board, a standardized software platform is a must. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is one and only one toolkit to develop applications - but it means that any distro has to support all the standard toolkits (however that standard ends up being defined) and maintain binary compatibility over time so that developers can release one package for all Linux systems. That means a standard packaging system at least, with all the toolkit libraries available as automatically satisfied dependencies.
It's not going to happen, of course. Which doesn't mean Linux desktops are dead - but it does mean that Android and ChromeOS, will be the only mainstream ones (which I guess was Linus' point). Beyond that, a Linux desktop is essentially a Chromebook with some local applications maintained from source by the distro. Anything else, while possible, remains a major pain in the ass. But thanks to Chrome, Android, and iOS having broken the Windows monopoly (for new applications, at least - Win32 is gonna be around for the foreseeable future), we're a lot closer to the day when the set of stuff that comes pre-loaded with your average Linux distro is all anybody really needs.
The difference between Wikileaks prior document dumps and what they did with Hillary is that in the case of Trump/Clinton, they held documents that they had and trickled them out over time for maximum political effect - either to keep the drip, drip of 'revelations' going (they didn't really reveal much that wasn't obvious - but they sure commandeered a news cycle or 20), or to distract from embarrassing Trump news (mainly the 'grab them by the pussy' tape).
If Wikileaks were merely in the business of exposing corruption - or disseminating news, they wouldn't have engaged in such partisan behavior. In fact, I think that prior to 2016, they generally dumped what they had pretty much all at once.
The right has a reflexive reaction to anything coming from the government, and the left has a reflexive reaction to anything coming from business. So both sides of the partisan divide have their own irrational reasons for this stupidity.
Government isn't always evil, and corporations aren't either. But both sometimes are. What's a citizen to do?
Trust the scientists, maybe. But of course, conspiracy theorists on the right don't trust scientists because their findings (on climate change, at least) are counter to the interests of the funders of all things right - so distrust of science must be sown on the right. And conspiracy theorists on the left don't trust medical science because its corporate funders are all too willing to hawk incomplete research to sell product. Of course, there's government-funded science, but wait - government!.
Personally, I cross my fingers an hope the statistics will favor me. I'd rather have herd immunity and avoid an epidemic than avoid the one in a hundred million risk that a vaccination will harm me. But I have no illusions that if thimerosol actually did cause autism, it's makers would be working to suppress that finding. But guess what. I'd trust government scientists to get the word out before I'd trust the makers of thimerosol to do it. And, of course, if we actually made bribery of government illegal in any practical way (with, y'know, actual punishments), I'd trust them even more...
Bingo. This can't be real. The fact that Facebook is bad enough for people to believe it (even momentarily) says plenty - about Facebook and about our own susceptibility to paranoid fantasies - even if this was just meant as a joke.
The point is that the report doesn't say what Trump supporters (including you, apparently) says it says. It explicitly says it does not exonerate Trump - just that Barr thinks there's no basis to prosecute. Big surprise, since he made his position clear before being nominated as A.G.
By the way, Comey did exonerate Hillary on the email thing. Something like "no prosecutor in his right mind would bring charges". He also breached protocol in a major way by condemning her - and releasing a ton of documentation - while declining to bring those charges. That's kind of what needs to happen here - if only because the Republican House report was made based on so much false testimony that the public needs to know what's true and what isn't. Certainly "total exoneration" is not true. It's not hypocritical to be worried that that impression could take root.
Or, I suppose, we could rest easy knowing that the public already knows the truth - and the extent of the lying to cover it up. To the point that it's unnecessary to worry about that any more. But hey, that's a dicey call - and worrying about it is not exactly hypocrisy. It may be counterproductive, but that's a different story. Sure let's get back to talking about policy. Just not sweeping all they lying and corruption under the rug - just because it doesn't rise to Barr's definition of criminality.
Does it require a prosecutable crime for the public to have a right to know how the electoral process was compromised? What was the crime behind the Benghazi hearings again?
Interestingly, it's your "why spend the money to investigate when we don't think we can convict" approach that let most of Wall Street off the hook for bringing down the economy in 2008 and then using Government bailouts to award themselves bonuses. Maybe you were happy about that too? I wasn't - and it was Obama's Justice department making that calculation. But at least that calculation was made in the interest of restoring confidence in the economic system - not in the interest of protecting a President who stood to have his slimy behavior exposed by the investigation.
It seems that a big segment of our society has the attitude that "sure, Trump is a slimeball, but he's our slimeball". The irony is that those folks support Trump because they think the rest of the Government is corrupt - Democrats and Republicans alike. But, other than the sliminess, what has Trump delivered? More (way more) of the same corruption that his supporters claim to have wanted to burn down the house to stop. Oh sure, there are some polluters and racists, and yes, the anti-abortion and gun crowds that are happy with the results. But certainly the rust belt working class has to be just a tad disappointed...
Ummm...? Obama had affairs with multiple pornstars? Paid them off to keep it secret within weeks of his election? Got others - his own company and a friendly 'news' outlet to make the payments for him and disguise them as legitimate expenses?
Wow, how did I never hear of any of that? I guess I don't watch Fox enough. Or would I have to have delved even deeper into the alternative universe to get that info?
Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), what's your point? There was cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russians connected to Putin, but we only know about it because the Steele document alerted the FBI to it and Trump fired Comey, so a special investigation had to be launched to get the details. Which, by the way, are plenty damning - just not rising to Barr's opinion of what constitutes criminal behavior for a President, which apparently requires a level of evidence that is impossible to gather.
So what's your point. Because you say the Steele document is tainted, there shouldn't have been an investigation, and we should know nothing about what happened, and let it happen again?
Maybe the investigation was all ultimately a waste of time. Not because of the Steele dossier, or because of the facts of the case. But because the fix was in - at least since Sessions was fired and replaced with Barr. And anybody could have told you that was going to happen. Trump advertised it for months. Would you prefer that we not know the facts and were left not knowing whether the level of collusion was much greater than the campaign simply knowing that "The Russians are working to take down Hillary, and we can cheer from the sidelines, while praising Putin - so I get to build that Moscow tower after I lose". That seems to be the real story - and it's pretty damning from a moral standpoint, but I'll accept your point that we probably can't "lock him up" over it. We could certainly impeach him - but since the Senate isn't going to go along with it, morality aside, that's a political calculation at this point, and probably not worth it.
Still, since Trump and his enablers are now spinning this as "total exoneration", it would behoove Congress to get enough of the truth out to shut them the fuck up. I.e., comparing false testimony before the House investigators (not under oath) with the true stories told to Mueller (under oath) would be a nice start. Trump is plenty corrupt - but the bigger corruption is the total capitulation of the Republican Congress.
You didn't read it correctly. What Mueller said was that without collusion there cannot be obstruction of collusion. Case closed.
Ummm, no. Barr said that. In his unsolicited job application to be AG, he more or less echoed Nixon's famous "If the President does it, it's not a crime". I.e., firing Comey, because the President is allowed to fire him, means that can't be Obstruction of Justice - even if the stated purpose for that firing was, y'know, to obstruct justice.. A completely circular argument that means the President is above the law - which is riduculous.
And as for what Mueller said, I translate like this: There's plenty of evidence that Trump obstructed justice, just not the kind of evidence to convict him. I.e., if obstruction requires intent, and I was not allowed to interview him about his intent, then I certainly can't convict him based on intent. I'd have said this outright, except that, knowing that Barr would fight me on it, I thought preserving the integrity of the DOJ was more important than letting the public know what it already knows. Yes, Trump obstructed justice. Yes, he got away with it. Yes, he and others lied to cover up all the ways his campaign knew the Russians were sabotaging Clinton to help him. As to intent, it's anybody's guess whether he thought he had done something illegal and needed to cover it up - or he just wanted to go on bragging about his 'greatest ever victory' without having to acknowledge that it wasn't so great.
For what it's worth, I imagine that the casual iMac user would rather have 4 times the storage than a faster bootup time - which is probably all they'd notice between an SSD and a magnetic disk. Of course, 250GB is probably plenty for them too, but still...
If Microsoft was ever really good at something, it is being a quick follower. They're smart enough to recognize when they've lost - or are about to lose, and turn on a dime - pouring a huge amount of resources into getting on board the next big thing early enough to catch the wave.
Windows Mobile fans thought it was better than Android (and maybe even iOS), and they were plenty disappointed when Microsoft pulled the plug. But Nadella knew he'd lost - even before their best kit came out.
They're not playing nice, they're merely smart enough to understand that they don't have the power to not play nice any more. And hell, that sure beats the old days, but it hardly makes them the ethical choice. Call me when they stop blackmailing Android device makers...
That's probably the main reason Azure supports Linux. They're trying to lure customers from AWS - and those customers aren't going to go from one trap to another.
I always thought Azure was built to offer a cloud for Windows-specific code, that only Microsoft could support. And maybe it actually started out that way. They got enough developers to buy in to the dot-net server stack that by the time the cloud became the new platform those developers had nowhere else to go for a cloud service. They - and outsourced Office/Outlook 365 deployments would make for a decent-sized cloud business by themselves. But I guess not enough to compete with AWS. So, Linux - and dot-net on Linux was the only direction that made any sense for them. And I guess that's a good thing...?
If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no? It's not all bitcoin - the targets wouldn't be savvy enough to pay that way, right?
Anyway, if these things cost fractions of a cent to make, then the answer is to make all phone calls cost 1 or 2 cents - paid by the caller. I'd sure pay that for the calls I care to make in order to stop receiving the ones I don't want. Kind of like the idea of using a transaction fee to shut down robo-trading. If it hasn't happened yet, it's because lobbyists are paying for it not to happen.
"Obstruction of justice isn't nothing." -> yes it is when there is no evidence of it at all, besides the firing of an FBI director who has been revealed to have gone way way outside his role and excepted norms for a law man over and over again.
And perhaps that'd have been excuse enough - except for the fact that he admitted to having done it because of the Russia investigation - on TV and to the Russian ambassador. I.e., Comey isn't the only witness.
Paying to shut up your mistress may not be a campaign contribution, but getting a third party (the National Enquirer) to do it - in order to disguise the source of your payment may well be. That's under investigation. You may think it'd have been okay to just pay them off, but even so, he didn't do that. He conspired to hide it - and got others to help him (and in the case of the Enquirer, that was only the tip of the iceberg of their lying to promote his campaign).
I believe all your FBI 'hit job' conspiracies have been debunked - along with the pizzeria child prostitution ring conspiracy and the rest. But, sure, keep repeating them. Oh, there is still the bit about Popadopolis bragging about stuff he wouldn't have known about according to the conspiracy timeline...
I didn't bring up Clinton to say, "because Clinton was impeached for less, Trump should be impeached". I was bringing him up because, yes, he was impeached for crimes committed in covering up non-crimes. Just like Trump may well be... It's cute that you think it's smart for Trump's lawyers to keep him from testifying to prevent his committing perjury - but what they really said is that he can't help but commit perjury, because he's lied on so many occasions that whichever answer would have to amount to perjury, if only because it conflicted with 5 other different answers he's already given to the same questions. But that doesn't concern you one bit. I wonder why... You seem to like the guy, but why do you not get that much of what you liked about him was a lie too?
Whether it's obstruction of justice or not is what Mueller is tasked to determine. When Nixon did it, it was. Trump could've fired Comey with his phony excuse about the Clinton email investigation, but then he went on TV and basically said he did it to end the Russia investigation. How is that not obstruction of justice. Even if the Russia investigation had turned up nothing (though it has turned up much more than nothing), that doesn't mean that serious allegations of foreign election meddling don't demand investigation. And shutting down that investigation to shield yourself is pretty much the definition of obstruction of justice.
Edwards may or may not have paid off his mistress as a campaign expense, but whether or not he did so (and whether or not he was found to have done so), doesn't mean it can't be a campaign expense. That says nothing about what Trump, Cohen and AMI did. And attempting to prevent us from finding out exactly what they did is also obstruction of justice. And if you think it's not a serious offense, well, you don't get to make that call. There's a law, passed by Congress and as far as I know, still in effect that says you can't do it.
Crimes are crimes. I'm not convinced he should be impeached for them, but I'm certainly not delusional in thinking he may have committed them. There's an investigation to find out. You seem not to want to know - and call me delusional for wanting to know. Neither of us knows for sure. But yes, I do know that the man lies constantly, and yes, I think that makes him a pitiful excuse for a human being. Not necessarily a criminal, but more likely than average, shall we say...
I used to use hot key mappings to switch to specific windows on Win7 - until they broke it in Windows 10.
I set up hotkeys to launch PuTty sessions to multiple unix hosts - or multiple accounts on the same host. And on Windows 95 through Windows 7, hitting the same hotkey would bring the corresponding session to the foreground. On Windows 10, the hotkey now launches a second copy of the corresponding session - rendering the hotkey feature useless.
Fix that, please - and you can take away Alt-Tab if you want...
Nice how you slipped that "impeach Trump for nothing" bit in there. Obstruction of justice isn't nothing. Neither are illegal campaign contributions to shut up former lovers. If it were nothing, why all the lying and obstruction - which, basically, is what led to the Mueller investigation in the first place. The FBI was investigating Russian interference (which happened, and needed to be ferreted out) - having nothing to do with impeachment (unless, of course, they were in cahoots with the campaign). But Trump fired Comey, specifically (if his own statements can be believed - but then, isn't that kind of the point) to shut down that investigation, which rang all the obstruction alarm bells.
Now it's quite possible that all of the obstruction and lying were merely Trump's attempts to preserve his pretenses of having won in a huge landslide, that he's a self-made billionaire, that he knows anything about anything... I'll grant you that. His narcissism and lying are that basic to his personality - and his actions may well have had nothing to do with attempts to cover up a Russia connection. But faced with all kinds of incriminating facts, should the DOJ just do nothing - because you say it's nothing? Clinton was impeached (wrongly, of course) for a consensual blowjob or two, and Trump's blown past that 'standard' a hundred times over...
That 'Ability to run Windows apps via WINE' is a big one for me. I have a win32 app that I use WINE to run on Macs (and Linux boxes). That'd be fine if I could build it for ARM and have a WINE for ARM version that'd still run it. But I don't see that appearing any time soon. It took long enough to get WINE up and running for Intel Mac's.
Maybe my app's done for (or ready for a rewrite - not gonna happen, though). But I've relied on the ubiquity of Win32/Intel to keep that thing viable for 30 years. Even Windows ARM machines are supposed to have IA32 emulation to keep that stuff alive - which only goes to show how even Microsoft is stuck supporting it. Apple has broken backward compatibility many times in the past, though, so maybe WINE on Mac will die off - or embrace emulation too...
It's funny that Linus doesn't mention an OS at all in his article. The same 'deploy on what you develop on' was the main argument in favor of Windows Server - until Linux came along and was a compelling enough economic model to break that mold. And these days, with VM technology readily available, if you're deploying on RedHat, you can just run a RedHat VM on your developement box. In fact, the only part of the development puzzle that's no longer portable (if you exclude desktop-native apps) is iOS. I went to a technology presentation for a phone-based app with a backend on AWS. They develop on Mac's, running the entire backend environment in a VM. And I had to wonder, why (other than the 'hipster' angle) they were using pricey Mac's at all - until I remembered that they had an iOS client. For android, any mainstream commodity laptop will do - because the Android tools will run there, with ARM emulation if needed. But for iOS, only a Mac will work. Amazing that Apple has been able to maintain a monopoly platform in an era where everything else is a commodity.
Perhaps, but they lost me when they provided "hand gestures to control functions" as a possible future rationale. Jesus - what about the obvious seatback video conferencing application? Do they really think people will accept the possibility of being spied on as they jerk off in their seats for the promise of being able to wave their hands to start an in-flight movie?
In a forum where disloyal cunning and stupidity are indistinguishable, it's also possible that a bunch of the truly stupid will attract more votes than the disloyals. I suppose it's up to the smart funders to make sure that their support only goes to the smart 'stupid' candidates - rather than the real thing. To the extent that it matters to them...
This whole "ability to detect and obey a traffic cop's hand signals" is a great example of how the whole concept of self-driving cars is missing the forest for the trees in terms of artificial intelligence. The technology being employed is not intelligence at all. It's an algorithm - one that needs to be taught about such specifics about cops and hand signals - instead of understanding what a cop is and what hand signals are for. You can sweep this under the rug and pretend that the developers will be able to specifically code for enough of the real world to emulate an intelligence navigating it - but I think a quantum leap in AI is going to be required before these things can be set loose in real world situations.
Perhaps for highway driving, where the variables are much more controlled, this can work. Or on the streets of a small town or suburb. But out in the real world of gridlocked traffic and hordes of pedestrians, I'm not holding my breath... I have greater hope for Amazon's quadcopter drones. At least these things will operate in an otherwise empty airspace - dealing only with buildings, trees and other AI drones that behave in predictable ways.
Well, until recently, the New York state government had Republican majorities. Even Republican Governors now and then. So that D majority in New York City must be pretty slim statewide, and not be enough to reliably overcome the gerrymander (either intentional or because of the 'natural' distribution of rural/urban counties) that determines control of the statehouse.
What exactly is the business model in question? It seems to me that it's exploiting the patent system for all it's worth. You develop a drug and then hold it over the heads of disease sufferers - charging extortionate prices until you no longer can. The difference between a cure and a cash cow in this model is the difference in time between when the pool of disease sufferers dries up and when the patent expires.
It would seem to me that reducing the length (and extendability) of drug patents would render this difference moot. Now maybe that would eliminate the incentive to develop drugs at all. But if so, that would illustrate in stark relief why the prescription drug market would be better served by more government involvement in R & D,,,
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't any self-respecting criminal (or regular citizen, for that matter) not disable Google Location History? Or do you not believe that that really keeps your location history out of this Sensorvault DB?
Right. There are areas where standardization is necessary for adoption and others where it's only a 'nicety' in terms of users knowing how to do things on any Linux system. Launchers - and even entire desktops - can be changed without making it impossible for developers to target 'the Linux desktop'. It'd be nice to have a single default one for users that don't want to customize things, but beyond that, end-user customization is fine.
But, assuming you need to get developers on board, a standardized software platform is a must. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is one and only one toolkit to develop applications - but it means that any distro has to support all the standard toolkits (however that standard ends up being defined) and maintain binary compatibility over time so that developers can release one package for all Linux systems. That means a standard packaging system at least, with all the toolkit libraries available as automatically satisfied dependencies.
It's not going to happen, of course. Which doesn't mean Linux desktops are dead - but it does mean that Android and ChromeOS, will be the only mainstream ones (which I guess was Linus' point). Beyond that, a Linux desktop is essentially a Chromebook with some local applications maintained from source by the distro. Anything else, while possible, remains a major pain in the ass. But thanks to Chrome, Android, and iOS having broken the Windows monopoly (for new applications, at least - Win32 is gonna be around for the foreseeable future), we're a lot closer to the day when the set of stuff that comes pre-loaded with your average Linux distro is all anybody really needs.
The difference between Wikileaks prior document dumps and what they did with Hillary is that in the case of Trump/Clinton, they held documents that they had and trickled them out over time for maximum political effect - either to keep the drip, drip of 'revelations' going (they didn't really reveal much that wasn't obvious - but they sure commandeered a news cycle or 20), or to distract from embarrassing Trump news (mainly the 'grab them by the pussy' tape).
If Wikileaks were merely in the business of exposing corruption - or disseminating news, they wouldn't have engaged in such partisan behavior. In fact, I think that prior to 2016, they generally dumped what they had pretty much all at once.
The right has a reflexive reaction to anything coming from the government, and the left has a reflexive reaction to anything coming from business. So both sides of the partisan divide have their own irrational reasons for this stupidity.
Government isn't always evil, and corporations aren't either. But both sometimes are. What's a citizen to do?
Trust the scientists, maybe. But of course, conspiracy theorists on the right don't trust scientists because their findings (on climate change, at least) are counter to the interests of the funders of all things right - so distrust of science must be sown on the right. And conspiracy theorists on the left don't trust medical science because its corporate funders are all too willing to hawk incomplete research to sell product. Of course, there's government-funded science, but wait - government!.
Personally, I cross my fingers an hope the statistics will favor me. I'd rather have herd immunity and avoid an epidemic than avoid the one in a hundred million risk that a vaccination will harm me. But I have no illusions that if thimerosol actually did cause autism, it's makers would be working to suppress that finding. But guess what. I'd trust government scientists to get the word out before I'd trust the makers of thimerosol to do it. And, of course, if we actually made bribery of government illegal in any practical way (with, y'know, actual punishments), I'd trust them even more...
Bingo. This can't be real. The fact that Facebook is bad enough for people to believe it (even momentarily) says plenty - about Facebook and about our own susceptibility to paranoid fantasies - even if this was just meant as a joke.
The point is that the report doesn't say what Trump supporters (including you, apparently) says it says. It explicitly says it does not exonerate Trump - just that Barr thinks there's no basis to prosecute. Big surprise, since he made his position clear before being nominated as A.G.
By the way, Comey did exonerate Hillary on the email thing. Something like "no prosecutor in his right mind would bring charges". He also breached protocol in a major way by condemning her - and releasing a ton of documentation - while declining to bring those charges. That's kind of what needs to happen here - if only because the Republican House report was made based on so much false testimony that the public needs to know what's true and what isn't. Certainly "total exoneration" is not true. It's not hypocritical to be worried that that impression could take root.
Or, I suppose, we could rest easy knowing that the public already knows the truth - and the extent of the lying to cover it up. To the point that it's unnecessary to worry about that any more. But hey, that's a dicey call - and worrying about it is not exactly hypocrisy. It may be counterproductive, but that's a different story. Sure let's get back to talking about policy. Just not sweeping all they lying and corruption under the rug - just because it doesn't rise to Barr's definition of criminality.
Does it require a prosecutable crime for the public to have a right to know how the electoral process was compromised? What was the crime behind the Benghazi hearings again?
Interestingly, it's your "why spend the money to investigate when we don't think we can convict" approach that let most of Wall Street off the hook for bringing down the economy in 2008 and then using Government bailouts to award themselves bonuses. Maybe you were happy about that too? I wasn't - and it was Obama's Justice department making that calculation. But at least that calculation was made in the interest of restoring confidence in the economic system - not in the interest of protecting a President who stood to have his slimy behavior exposed by the investigation.
It seems that a big segment of our society has the attitude that "sure, Trump is a slimeball, but he's our slimeball". The irony is that those folks support Trump because they think the rest of the Government is corrupt - Democrats and Republicans alike. But, other than the sliminess, what has Trump delivered? More (way more) of the same corruption that his supporters claim to have wanted to burn down the house to stop. Oh sure, there are some polluters and racists, and yes, the anti-abortion and gun crowds that are happy with the results. But certainly the rust belt working class has to be just a tad disappointed...
Ummm...? Obama had affairs with multiple pornstars? Paid them off to keep it secret within weeks of his election? Got others - his own company and a friendly 'news' outlet to make the payments for him and disguise them as legitimate expenses?
Wow, how did I never hear of any of that? I guess I don't watch Fox enough. Or would I have to have delved even deeper into the alternative universe to get that info?
Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), what's your point? There was cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russians connected to Putin, but we only know about it because the Steele document alerted the FBI to it and Trump fired Comey, so a special investigation had to be launched to get the details. Which, by the way, are plenty damning - just not rising to Barr's opinion of what constitutes criminal behavior for a President, which apparently requires a level of evidence that is impossible to gather.
So what's your point. Because you say the Steele document is tainted, there shouldn't have been an investigation, and we should know nothing about what happened, and let it happen again?
Maybe the investigation was all ultimately a waste of time. Not because of the Steele dossier, or because of the facts of the case. But because the fix was in - at least since Sessions was fired and replaced with Barr. And anybody could have told you that was going to happen. Trump advertised it for months. Would you prefer that we not know the facts and were left not knowing whether the level of collusion was much greater than the campaign simply knowing that "The Russians are working to take down Hillary, and we can cheer from the sidelines, while praising Putin - so I get to build that Moscow tower after I lose". That seems to be the real story - and it's pretty damning from a moral standpoint, but I'll accept your point that we probably can't "lock him up" over it. We could certainly impeach him - but since the Senate isn't going to go along with it, morality aside, that's a political calculation at this point, and probably not worth it.
Still, since Trump and his enablers are now spinning this as "total exoneration", it would behoove Congress to get enough of the truth out to shut them the fuck up. I.e., comparing false testimony before the House investigators (not under oath) with the true stories told to Mueller (under oath) would be a nice start. Trump is plenty corrupt - but the bigger corruption is the total capitulation of the Republican Congress.
You didn't read it correctly. What Mueller said was that without collusion there cannot be obstruction of collusion. Case closed.
Ummm, no. Barr said that. In his unsolicited job application to be AG, he more or less echoed Nixon's famous "If the President does it, it's not a crime". I.e., firing Comey, because the President is allowed to fire him, means that can't be Obstruction of Justice - even if the stated purpose for that firing was, y'know, to obstruct justice.. A completely circular argument that means the President is above the law - which is riduculous.
And as for what Mueller said, I translate like this: There's plenty of evidence that Trump obstructed justice, just not the kind of evidence to convict him. I.e., if obstruction requires intent, and I was not allowed to interview him about his intent, then I certainly can't convict him based on intent. I'd have said this outright, except that, knowing that Barr would fight me on it, I thought preserving the integrity of the DOJ was more important than letting the public know what it already knows. Yes, Trump obstructed justice. Yes, he got away with it. Yes, he and others lied to cover up all the ways his campaign knew the Russians were sabotaging Clinton to help him. As to intent, it's anybody's guess whether he thought he had done something illegal and needed to cover it up - or he just wanted to go on bragging about his 'greatest ever victory' without having to acknowledge that it wasn't so great.
For what it's worth, I imagine that the casual iMac user would rather have 4 times the storage than a faster bootup time - which is probably all they'd notice between an SSD and a magnetic disk. Of course, 250GB is probably plenty for them too, but still...
If Microsoft was ever really good at something, it is being a quick follower. They're smart enough to recognize when they've lost - or are about to lose, and turn on a dime - pouring a huge amount of resources into getting on board the next big thing early enough to catch the wave.
Windows Mobile fans thought it was better than Android (and maybe even iOS), and they were plenty disappointed when Microsoft pulled the plug. But Nadella knew he'd lost - even before their best kit came out.
They're not playing nice, they're merely smart enough to understand that they don't have the power to not play nice any more. And hell, that sure beats the old days, but it hardly makes them the ethical choice. Call me when they stop blackmailing Android device makers...
That's probably the main reason Azure supports Linux. They're trying to lure customers from AWS - and those customers aren't going to go from one trap to another.
I always thought Azure was built to offer a cloud for Windows-specific code, that only Microsoft could support. And maybe it actually started out that way. They got enough developers to buy in to the dot-net server stack that by the time the cloud became the new platform those developers had nowhere else to go for a cloud service. They - and outsourced Office/Outlook 365 deployments would make for a decent-sized cloud business by themselves. But I guess not enough to compete with AWS. So, Linux - and dot-net on Linux was the only direction that made any sense for them. And I guess that's a good thing...?
If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no? It's not all bitcoin - the targets wouldn't be savvy enough to pay that way, right?
Anyway, if these things cost fractions of a cent to make, then the answer is to make all phone calls cost 1 or 2 cents - paid by the caller. I'd sure pay that for the calls I care to make in order to stop receiving the ones I don't want. Kind of like the idea of using a transaction fee to shut down robo-trading. If it hasn't happened yet, it's because lobbyists are paying for it not to happen.
"Obstruction of justice isn't nothing." -> yes it is when there is no evidence of it at all, besides the firing of an FBI director who has been revealed to have gone way way outside his role and excepted norms for a law man over and over again.
And perhaps that'd have been excuse enough - except for the fact that he admitted to having done it because of the Russia investigation - on TV and to the Russian ambassador. I.e., Comey isn't the only witness.
Paying to shut up your mistress may not be a campaign contribution, but getting a third party (the National Enquirer) to do it - in order to disguise the source of your payment may well be. That's under investigation. You may think it'd have been okay to just pay them off, but even so, he didn't do that. He conspired to hide it - and got others to help him (and in the case of the Enquirer, that was only the tip of the iceberg of their lying to promote his campaign).
I believe all your FBI 'hit job' conspiracies have been debunked - along with the pizzeria child prostitution ring conspiracy and the rest. But, sure, keep repeating them. Oh, there is still the bit about Popadopolis bragging about stuff he wouldn't have known about according to the conspiracy timeline...
I didn't bring up Clinton to say, "because Clinton was impeached for less, Trump should be impeached". I was bringing him up because, yes, he was impeached for crimes committed in covering up non-crimes. Just like Trump may well be... It's cute that you think it's smart for Trump's lawyers to keep him from testifying to prevent his committing perjury - but what they really said is that he can't help but commit perjury, because he's lied on so many occasions that whichever answer would have to amount to perjury, if only because it conflicted with 5 other different answers he's already given to the same questions. But that doesn't concern you one bit. I wonder why... You seem to like the guy, but why do you not get that much of what you liked about him was a lie too?
Whether it's obstruction of justice or not is what Mueller is tasked to determine. When Nixon did it, it was. Trump could've fired Comey with his phony excuse about the Clinton email investigation, but then he went on TV and basically said he did it to end the Russia investigation. How is that not obstruction of justice. Even if the Russia investigation had turned up nothing (though it has turned up much more than nothing), that doesn't mean that serious allegations of foreign election meddling don't demand investigation. And shutting down that investigation to shield yourself is pretty much the definition of obstruction of justice.
Edwards may or may not have paid off his mistress as a campaign expense, but whether or not he did so (and whether or not he was found to have done so), doesn't mean it can't be a campaign expense. That says nothing about what Trump, Cohen and AMI did. And attempting to prevent us from finding out exactly what they did is also obstruction of justice. And if you think it's not a serious offense, well, you don't get to make that call. There's a law, passed by Congress and as far as I know, still in effect that says you can't do it.
Crimes are crimes. I'm not convinced he should be impeached for them, but I'm certainly not delusional in thinking he may have committed them. There's an investigation to find out. You seem not to want to know - and call me delusional for wanting to know. Neither of us knows for sure. But yes, I do know that the man lies constantly, and yes, I think that makes him a pitiful excuse for a human being. Not necessarily a criminal, but more likely than average, shall we say...
I used to use hot key mappings to switch to specific windows on Win7 - until they broke it in Windows 10.
I set up hotkeys to launch PuTty sessions to multiple unix hosts - or multiple accounts on the same host. And on Windows 95 through Windows 7, hitting the same hotkey would bring the corresponding session to the foreground. On Windows 10, the hotkey now launches a second copy of the corresponding session - rendering the hotkey feature useless.
Fix that, please - and you can take away Alt-Tab if you want...
Nice how you slipped that "impeach Trump for nothing" bit in there. Obstruction of justice isn't nothing. Neither are illegal campaign contributions to shut up former lovers. If it were nothing, why all the lying and obstruction - which, basically, is what led to the Mueller investigation in the first place. The FBI was investigating Russian interference (which happened, and needed to be ferreted out) - having nothing to do with impeachment (unless, of course, they were in cahoots with the campaign). But Trump fired Comey, specifically (if his own statements can be believed - but then, isn't that kind of the point) to shut down that investigation, which rang all the obstruction alarm bells.
Now it's quite possible that all of the obstruction and lying were merely Trump's attempts to preserve his pretenses of having won in a huge landslide, that he's a self-made billionaire, that he knows anything about anything... I'll grant you that. His narcissism and lying are that basic to his personality - and his actions may well have had nothing to do with attempts to cover up a Russia connection. But faced with all kinds of incriminating facts, should the DOJ just do nothing - because you say it's nothing? Clinton was impeached (wrongly, of course) for a consensual blowjob or two, and Trump's blown past that 'standard' a hundred times over...
That 'Ability to run Windows apps via WINE' is a big one for me. I have a win32 app that I use WINE to run on Macs (and Linux boxes). That'd be fine if I could build it for ARM and have a WINE for ARM version that'd still run it. But I don't see that appearing any time soon. It took long enough to get WINE up and running for Intel Mac's.
Maybe my app's done for (or ready for a rewrite - not gonna happen, though). But I've relied on the ubiquity of Win32/Intel to keep that thing viable for 30 years. Even Windows ARM machines are supposed to have IA32 emulation to keep that stuff alive - which only goes to show how even Microsoft is stuck supporting it. Apple has broken backward compatibility many times in the past, though, so maybe WINE on Mac will die off - or embrace emulation too...
It's funny that Linus doesn't mention an OS at all in his article. The same 'deploy on what you develop on' was the main argument in favor of Windows Server - until Linux came along and was a compelling enough economic model to break that mold. And these days, with VM technology readily available, if you're deploying on RedHat, you can just run a RedHat VM on your developement box. In fact, the only part of the development puzzle that's no longer portable (if you exclude desktop-native apps) is iOS. I went to a technology presentation for a phone-based app with a backend on AWS. They develop on Mac's, running the entire backend environment in a VM. And I had to wonder, why (other than the 'hipster' angle) they were using pricey Mac's at all - until I remembered that they had an iOS client. For android, any mainstream commodity laptop will do - because the Android tools will run there, with ARM emulation if needed. But for iOS, only a Mac will work. Amazing that Apple has been able to maintain a monopoly platform in an era where everything else is a commodity.
Perhaps, but they lost me when they provided "hand gestures to control functions" as a possible future rationale. Jesus - what about the obvious seatback video conferencing application? Do they really think people will accept the possibility of being spied on as they jerk off in their seats for the promise of being able to wave their hands to start an in-flight movie?
In a forum where disloyal cunning and stupidity are indistinguishable, it's also possible that a bunch of the truly stupid will attract more votes than the disloyals. I suppose it's up to the smart funders to make sure that their support only goes to the smart 'stupid' candidates - rather than the real thing. To the extent that it matters to them...
This whole "ability to detect and obey a traffic cop's hand signals" is a great example of how the whole concept of self-driving cars is missing the forest for the trees in terms of artificial intelligence. The technology being employed is not intelligence at all. It's an algorithm - one that needs to be taught about such specifics about cops and hand signals - instead of understanding what a cop is and what hand signals are for. You can sweep this under the rug and pretend that the developers will be able to specifically code for enough of the real world to emulate an intelligence navigating it - but I think a quantum leap in AI is going to be required before these things can be set loose in real world situations.
Perhaps for highway driving, where the variables are much more controlled, this can work. Or on the streets of a small town or suburb. But out in the real world of gridlocked traffic and hordes of pedestrians, I'm not holding my breath... I have greater hope for Amazon's quadcopter drones. At least these things will operate in an otherwise empty airspace - dealing only with buildings, trees and other AI drones that behave in predictable ways.
Well, until recently, the New York state government had Republican majorities. Even Republican Governors now and then. So that D majority in New York City must be pretty slim statewide, and not be enough to reliably overcome the gerrymander (either intentional or because of the 'natural' distribution of rural/urban counties) that determines control of the statehouse.
What exactly is the business model in question? It seems to me that it's exploiting the patent system for all it's worth. You develop a drug and then hold it over the heads of disease sufferers - charging extortionate prices until you no longer can. The difference between a cure and a cash cow in this model is the difference in time between when the pool of disease sufferers dries up and when the patent expires.
It would seem to me that reducing the length (and extendability) of drug patents would render this difference moot. Now maybe that would eliminate the incentive to develop drugs at all. But if so, that would illustrate in stark relief why the prescription drug market would be better served by more government involvement in R & D,,,