You make it sound like the solution is to go along with the fiction that these are Irish companies. Perhaps the US should lower its rates some - and if double-taxation is really an issue, sure (though i think they can deduct foreign tax paid). But the ultimate solution is to disallow legal fictions like 'our Irish subsidiary owns all our intellectual property and the profits generated from it'. If that IP was developed in the US, and is ultimately owned by a company that is run out of the US (i.e. CEO and other top officials are US citizens), it's a US company, and the profits are US profits. End of story. Once you get your realities straight, then you can fight for an effective and fair tax structure - and you might find support in unlikely places.
There was such a middle ground - it was the America of the 50's and 60's. Ever since high-priced think tanks started giving Reagan (and other lesser actors in the Republican party) homey-sounding reasons to cut taxes on passive income to the bone, the trend has been straight to the 'new aristocracy' scenario. So unless you want to deny the trend line, you might want to try proposing a solution that reverses it. And 'cut taxes to grow the economy' doesn't count. That's been a bald-faced lie wrapped around a tiny kernel of truth from the beginning. We've long since exhausted that kernel of truth and have been living squarely in the lie for decades now.
Is it really 'the cloud' that's the problem - or is it just that funding it all through advertising is the problem. If Google had all the data it currently has, but used it strictly for providing its services - and you paid for those services rather than letting Google place ads based on what it knows about you, would that be less of an issue?
Because the type of services we're talking about are certainly enhanced by the ability to search the internet - and do that as effectively as possible from any location. Not needed to turn your lights on and off, but... Of course, there's the issue of the info being in someone else's hands - and possibly subject to theft. Always a challenge.
But at least once Android apps are available, it's not all about Google's services. I imagine you can run MSOffice for Android on these as well as any other 3rd party apps. They don't all have to use Google ad delivery services. Maybe you could even use a 3rd party Android web browser.
In any case, the best thing about this is that it's Nexus-like. No OEM skins, and immediate updates direct from Google. That's certainly an improvement over the morass of different versions on Android cellphones. I wonder how much this is baked into the Chrome browser itself - i.e., will you eventually be able to run Android apps anywhere you can run Chrome. I think that was true of the 'android runtime' for chrome that they toyed with last year, but this sounds different. If nothing else, it'd be nice to be able to debug Android apps in Chrome instead of having to fire up a device emulator.
Microsoft didn't 'tie Windows Phone to the mast of Nokia's ship'. They tried to get the main Android OEM's to build Windows phones - even by giving it away for free while charging patent royalties for Android. Nobody was able to sell them - including Nokia. Nokia was just the only OEM that was willing to tie their business to Microsoft's mast.
Early versions of Windows Phones had some severe limitations, as I recall, so nobody built Windows flagships. Even the early Nokia models were low end - capitalizing on WinPhone's ability to run okay on cheaper hardware than Android at the time. If you start counting Windows Phone from the release of version 8, they were even farther behind iOS and Android than it otherwise would seem. And the first truly compelling feature, Continuum, isn't out yet. It might actually beat Android to it, but I assume something like Continuum is being announced this week at Google I/O. So don't expect developers to start writing en mass for Windows 10 on that gamble...
Except that they weren't adopting a platform they could control at all. Unless the plan from the start was eventual sale to Microsoft, Nokia would have, even if Windows Mobile had been a huge success, been just another manufacturer of Windows phones - no different than if they were just another manufacturer of Android phones - but with a 2 year lag to market. If Windows phones sold, then Samsung and the rest would've started making them too. They were never going to have Apple-level profit margins. Hell, Apple's not going to have them forever either. The bulk of the mobile market worldwide is not for $800 devices that get replaced every 2 years.
Because Microsoft, true to form, wanted to copy and co-opt Apple's and Google's business models. So they needed to have an app store that they could collect a percentage of all app sales from, and they needed an advertising-funded search engine - presented front and center in their OS. I guess they decided that WIN32 was not appropriate for this, so they threw their biggest asset to the street (i.e., the sheer number of existing Windows apps that could've been relatively easily ported to a mobile platform that supported them).
In any case, while Microsoft employs lots of smart people, and there are probably a lot of good things about their mobile OS, Microsoft (at least during the period where they were seriously trying to compete in the mobile OS market) remained a lazy monopolist who figured they could be late to market with yet another product that cloned somebody else's success and take it away anyway because of their desktop OS dominance. Didn't work this time, and the current management finally understands that. They're scrambling to adjust, and they might just manage it. But it's a long shot - and it seems to involve a plan to co-opt Android itself, rather than simply clone its business model.
I thought I'd read that the real (non-Microsoft) Nokia was about to start having Foxconn manufacture Android phones under the Nokia name - which the terms of the original sale of the phone division to Microsoft allowed to start happening around now.
So are we going to get Nokia Android phones manufactured by Foxconn for the Finnish Nokia as well as 'Nokia' Android phones manufactured by Foxconn for Foxconn? Or has the real Nokia telecom company dropped its Android consumer plans once again?
Hillary Clinton is not a 'dynasty' in the sense that the Bushes (W's grandfather was a Senator, father was President, brother tried to run, nephew is are being bandied around as 'attractive' potential pols), or Kennedy's (Joe's contacts boosted John, and everybody else came along for the ride - including some of the next gen).
Yep, Hillary's married to an ex-president, and she owes a lot of her political success to that. But she started out pretty humbly, and was Bill's equal pretty much until he became governor of Arkansas. i.e., she didn't get boosted into politics by accident of birth - she worked her way into it. Who knows whether she would've gotten far if she hadn't taken a back seat to Bill. But hers is a different class of 'nepotism' (if you must call it that) than all the generations of Bushes employed. Her qualifications are her own - and the product of hard work. You may not like the person - or the results, but it's disingenuous to equate her with Jeb Bush as a dynasty candidate. You may officially start ranting about dynasty if and when Chelsea runs for office on her daddy's name.
Oh. So what it really means is that ES presents ads on its homescreen for another app that will replace your lockscreen if you go to Google Play and actually install it. Nice headline, Slashdot.
Am I missing something? I'm on the latest version 4.05, and my lockscreen doesn't seem any different. I agree that the app has become bloated, and it annoyingly won't let you configure it to start out looking at the filesystem instead of their homepage, which has ads and nothing much of use. But it still works, and hasn't messed with my lockscreen in any way I can detect.
That said, I'm on Cyanogenmod 13, which installed its own File Manager that doesn't look half bad for basic functionality...
But they can't just move the jobs to those offshore locations. In order to do that, they need to get their current workers to train their replacements - whether they're H1-B workers in the US or outsourced workers in Chennai. Often, H1-B workers are used temporarily to facilitate 'knowledge transfer' before the offshore workers kick in. Certainly, the US government has a compelling interest in preventing that.
If nothing else, the US needs to take over basic responsibilities - like health insurance - so that US workers are not competing with foreign workers whose governments cover such expenses.
Oh, and by the way, offshoring rarely works in cases where there is significant knowledge to transfer. Suffice it to say that the transfer process is a joke - and the offshore workers stay on the project for a year or two, after which the next bunch ends up watching videos of the original US workers doing their jobs - and hoping to glean something useful from that.
Are there any devices now that don't let you disable secure boot? I would imagine the Surface Pro's might not. Can the various Linux distros that handle Secure Boot be installed on those? I guess Microsoft could stop signing Linux bootloaders at some point.
I would imagine, though, that Microsoft doesn't feel much of a threat from traditional Linux distros. Now if and when ChromeOS and Android merge into something that's real competition to them...
Come on, this is basic stuff. Clinton is a high value target for several world-class intelligence agencies. I'm sure your close buddy, Putin would never dream of throwing a few hackers at this server, but maybe your close buddy, Xi Jinping would.
And one doesn't need intent to screw up security on an email server any more than one needs intent to drive into a ditch.
I wasn't saying her server didn't have holes - I was pointing out that your language seemed to imply that she 'created' those holes for some purpose - presumably to welcome in enemies of the US. Now maybe you didn't intend to say that, but you sure seemed to be implying it.
Throw Clinton in jail for a few years and future Secretaries of State won't use that as an excuse to blatantly break the law
Except there's no evidence that she broke the law at all. The current rule that would render her server illegal was enacted after she left office. Now, it's possible that the classified info that made it to her server (inadvertently, and retroactively classified, I might add) adds up to having broken the law - that's what the FBI is trying to figure out. You seem to have figured it out for them - based on either your brilliance, or your political preferences. Not, however, based on the law.
I neither said or implied that Clinton was trying to destroy the US
No, you just said she 'created security holes'. I read into that some implication of intent to create security holes - but maybe not. In any case, I was just posting my thoughts on why - like her or hate her - it's much more likely that Clinton's purposes are benign - and yes, self serving (it's possible to be both), but not evil. Perhaps that's so self-evident as to be 'stupid', but in the light of much that is said about HRC, it's more sad than stupid to have to point out that every politician you don't like isn't necessarily out to destroy the country. And that's all I was doing. It's not smart or dumb - or even an argument per se. Just a call to consider that your vitriol might be misplaced. And your concern for national security may be more of an excuse to bash a politician you don't like than any genuine concern.
It's not so much that Trump is somehow like Hitler - it's more that the crowds that gather to hear him sound a lot like the soundtracks to films of Hitler rallies. What's scariest about Trump is that he somehow makes scary elements of American society feel free to express their worst sides in public.
What's most interesting about Trump is that he renders it undeniable that mainstream Republicans have been soliciting the votes of those elements for decades without bringing them out in their fullest, ugliest form for all to see. The fact that he's closer to them as a person than, say, Mitt Romney or George Bush is doesn't change what he reveals about party strategy.
How the hell you get from presumed incompetence to run a secure email server to "there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited". If you think HRC had any inkling of an intention to purposely 'create' holes to leak stuff she was obviously trying to keep private, you're insanely paranoid. If you think she had the technical sophistication to do it - even if she had wanted to - you're just dumb.
The simplest explanation is always the best. Hillary knew that if her email were subject to subpoena, members of the opposition party would spend her full tenure ginning up reasons to do it. Why? On the off chance that they'd find something they could use against her. And y'know what? She was right about that. So your FOIA avoidance explanation is kind of right - give the man a prize! - but you're kind of wrong on the reasoning behind it. Now, when she made up that excuse about not wanting to carry two devices - yep, she was lying. I for one, understand the lie and why she told it. Only someone paranoid enough to think she was intentionally trying to compromise US security could ignore this obvious explanation and go down that route.
Clinton has one overarching goal. To make history as the first woman president, and presumably, to do a good enough job at it to be treated well in those history books. And that's not the worst thing in the world, either. If she merely wanted to get rich, a Yale-educated lawyer could find much easier ways to do that. But if you're willing to entertain the fantasy that she (or anyone for that matter) would spend an entire lifetime accruing credentials (whatever you may think of her particular ones) to run for president - just to destroy the country...
Of course there's a wee bit of a problem with your premise that Obama actually tried to destroy the US - or even supported any policy that would or could ultimately destroy the US. Just saying it (over and over and over) doesn't make it true. No - the Citizens United clowns on the SCOTUS came the closest to to destroying the US that anyone has come so far. Well, maybe McCarthy. Or the fools that seceeded in the mid 19th century...
Antivirus software itself can be the weak link in Windows. I had Avast AV seemingly freeze Windows 7 when I tried to launch my own app on it - even after just building the app with Visual Studio on that box. By 'freeze', I mean not only refuse to run the app, but do it without popping up any notification, and without failing in a way that Windows Explorer can recover from. I would end up with multiple processes in Task Manager that could not be killed from there, and the entire Windows launcher frozen.
The solution was simple enough - whitelist the directory tree containing my own stuff. It'd have been a lot simpler had Avast notified me what it was doing... But the fact that Avast would - or could - do this silently, and seem to crash the system is beyond bizarre. Whether that's partially Windows' fault - or whether Avast is just that shitty, it sure doesn't end up making Windows look good. Not to mention the fact that AV software is 'necessary' in the first place on a dedicated medical instrument.
Hey, I'm fine with abortion as birth control, fetish, or whatever in the early stages. But doing this with human embryos seems weirdly irrelevant and provocative - or 'human exceptionalist' at best, which is pretty non-scientific.
Certainly from an embryological point of view, the significant differences between a fully-formed human and chimp (or pig, for that matter) are minuscule - at least as relates to the kinds of discovery that could be made from observing an embryo in its first few weeks. I assume what they're hoping to learn about is how cell differentiation works - which is presumably identical in all mammals. Perhaps some day they'll learn something that could steer them in a direction where additional knowledge can only be obtained by observing actual human embryos, presumably at a later stage of development - but at that point, we're clearly in murky ethical waters. So why experiment on human embryos now?
They may have dropped subsidies, but I think they still hide the cost in a monthly fee that's not optional. Maybe that's changed too. Certainly T-Mobile has changed that, but I still see Verizon users with their shiny new phones every two years. I'm guessing they still think that comes 'for free' with their subscription, and if it's anything like it used to be, it is still 'free' in the sense that they pay for the new phone whether they upgrade or not.
It's interesting how folks on here are all too willing to put their engineering hats on for, say, nuclear, and come up with solutions to the problems with the technology. But when it comes to solar, suddenly there's nighttime! cloudy days!
Why are those not just engineering problems to solve. Certainly nuclear waste storage and potential theft / dirty bomb issues are bigger challenges than a source that's not 100% available all the time, but is essentially free during the times that it is available. Seems like there's a strictly political aspect to the resistance - and while there may be a political'ish aspect to resistance to nuclear, there still is that issue of highly poisonous waste and overall high cost of the plants, fuel, and safety measures. Easily as big a technical challenge - arguably less solvable as regards the waste issue.
Something similar could be said about fracking. Fracking is at best an interim solution - but it's potentially a good interim solution. Still, there have been some horrendous pollution side-issues. But instead of treating those as solvable engineering challenges, the right (and those on Slashdot that mouth the right's arguments) chooses to portray those that complain about pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground as unrealistic hippies - rather than to question whether fracking could be done with less poisonous materials. Perhaps a bit less efficiently, but balanced by fewer long term costs in terms of environmental degradation.
... or they need to address the midrange market better. That's the only place they're gonna find significant growth. So far, they're still pitching a 'luxury' brand, and the status-seekers already upgrade reliably to each new model. But that's not a growth market. Their latest attempt at midrange isn't so bad - it's just not cheap enough to get much of the midrange market, and it's just cheap enough to turn off the 'apple makes me cool' set.
And the reason for that is that Apple's profits are entirely based on hardware sales. Sure, there's iTunes, but really... If US carriers ever change the model that allows you to think you're getting a new iPhone every 2 years for just $200, Apple will take a huge hit. And it's not because their products aren't good. it's just that they've been good enough for 5 years now, and only through the operators' model of fake-subsidies on new hardware that anybody upgrades any more. I'm using a 3 year old Nexus 4 on T-Mobile, and it's basically fine for my needs. I may upgrade if a reasonable midrange device comes along that meets my needs better, but that's not going to be a $700 iPhone. But if I were stuck on Verizon, I might go for that $200 'subsidized' Galaxy 7...
He's factoring them in at the appropriate level. I.e., negligible in the course of any sane discussion of public policy.
Now maybe you were jockeying for a 'funny' mod, and it's whoever modded you 'insightful' that's the idiot here, but I've grown to appreciate the full range of pseudo-libertarian pseudo-thought on here, and can imagine that you really think pointing to sadists will somehow justify prisons as a solution to poverty. "All lives matter" bro. Right on!.
Why on earth is "They more or less defined the new HTTP/2 protocol" a bad thing? Now, if it's a bad protocol, sure. But Google doing the work to improve web standards, and (presumably) making it available in an open source and unencumbered implementation is a good thing, no? Even if you hate (or fear) Google.
Slashdot Mirror
You make it sound like the solution is to go along with the fiction that these are Irish companies. Perhaps the US should lower its rates some - and if double-taxation is really an issue, sure (though i think they can deduct foreign tax paid). But the ultimate solution is to disallow legal fictions like 'our Irish subsidiary owns all our intellectual property and the profits generated from it'. If that IP was developed in the US, and is ultimately owned by a company that is run out of the US (i.e. CEO and other top officials are US citizens), it's a US company, and the profits are US profits. End of story. Once you get your realities straight, then you can fight for an effective and fair tax structure - and you might find support in unlikely places.
There was such a middle ground - it was the America of the 50's and 60's. Ever since high-priced think tanks started giving Reagan (and other lesser actors in the Republican party) homey-sounding reasons to cut taxes on passive income to the bone, the trend has been straight to the 'new aristocracy' scenario. So unless you want to deny the trend line, you might want to try proposing a solution that reverses it. And 'cut taxes to grow the economy' doesn't count. That's been a bald-faced lie wrapped around a tiny kernel of truth from the beginning. We've long since exhausted that kernel of truth and have been living squarely in the lie for decades now.
Is it really 'the cloud' that's the problem - or is it just that funding it all through advertising is the problem. If Google had all the data it currently has, but used it strictly for providing its services - and you paid for those services rather than letting Google place ads based on what it knows about you, would that be less of an issue?
Because the type of services we're talking about are certainly enhanced by the ability to search the internet - and do that as effectively as possible from any location. Not needed to turn your lights on and off, but... Of course, there's the issue of the info being in someone else's hands - and possibly subject to theft. Always a challenge.
But at least once Android apps are available, it's not all about Google's services. I imagine you can run MSOffice for Android on these as well as any other 3rd party apps. They don't all have to use Google ad delivery services. Maybe you could even use a 3rd party Android web browser.
In any case, the best thing about this is that it's Nexus-like. No OEM skins, and immediate updates direct from Google. That's certainly an improvement over the morass of different versions on Android cellphones. I wonder how much this is baked into the Chrome browser itself - i.e., will you eventually be able to run Android apps anywhere you can run Chrome. I think that was true of the 'android runtime' for chrome that they toyed with last year, but this sounds different. If nothing else, it'd be nice to be able to debug Android apps in Chrome instead of having to fire up a device emulator.
Microsoft didn't 'tie Windows Phone to the mast of Nokia's ship'. They tried to get the main Android OEM's to build Windows phones - even by giving it away for free while charging patent royalties for Android. Nobody was able to sell them - including Nokia. Nokia was just the only OEM that was willing to tie their business to Microsoft's mast.
Early versions of Windows Phones had some severe limitations, as I recall, so nobody built Windows flagships. Even the early Nokia models were low end - capitalizing on WinPhone's ability to run okay on cheaper hardware than Android at the time. If you start counting Windows Phone from the release of version 8, they were even farther behind iOS and Android than it otherwise would seem. And the first truly compelling feature, Continuum, isn't out yet. It might actually beat Android to it, but I assume something like Continuum is being announced this week at Google I/O. So don't expect developers to start writing en mass for Windows 10 on that gamble...
Except that they weren't adopting a platform they could control at all. Unless the plan from the start was eventual sale to Microsoft, Nokia would have, even if Windows Mobile had been a huge success, been just another manufacturer of Windows phones - no different than if they were just another manufacturer of Android phones - but with a 2 year lag to market. If Windows phones sold, then Samsung and the rest would've started making them too. They were never going to have Apple-level profit margins. Hell, Apple's not going to have them forever either. The bulk of the mobile market worldwide is not for $800 devices that get replaced every 2 years.
Because Microsoft, true to form, wanted to copy and co-opt Apple's and Google's business models. So they needed to have an app store that they could collect a percentage of all app sales from, and they needed an advertising-funded search engine - presented front and center in their OS. I guess they decided that WIN32 was not appropriate for this, so they threw their biggest asset to the street (i.e., the sheer number of existing Windows apps that could've been relatively easily ported to a mobile platform that supported them).
In any case, while Microsoft employs lots of smart people, and there are probably a lot of good things about their mobile OS, Microsoft (at least during the period where they were seriously trying to compete in the mobile OS market) remained a lazy monopolist who figured they could be late to market with yet another product that cloned somebody else's success and take it away anyway because of their desktop OS dominance. Didn't work this time, and the current management finally understands that. They're scrambling to adjust, and they might just manage it. But it's a long shot - and it seems to involve a plan to co-opt Android itself, rather than simply clone its business model.
I thought I'd read that the real (non-Microsoft) Nokia was about to start having Foxconn manufacture Android phones under the Nokia name - which the terms of the original sale of the phone division to Microsoft allowed to start happening around now.
So are we going to get Nokia Android phones manufactured by Foxconn for the Finnish Nokia as well as 'Nokia' Android phones manufactured by Foxconn for Foxconn? Or has the real Nokia telecom company dropped its Android consumer plans once again?
Hillary Clinton is not a 'dynasty' in the sense that the Bushes (W's grandfather was a Senator, father was President, brother tried to run, nephew is are being bandied around as 'attractive' potential pols), or Kennedy's (Joe's contacts boosted John, and everybody else came along for the ride - including some of the next gen).
Yep, Hillary's married to an ex-president, and she owes a lot of her political success to that. But she started out pretty humbly, and was Bill's equal pretty much until he became governor of Arkansas. i.e., she didn't get boosted into politics by accident of birth - she worked her way into it. Who knows whether she would've gotten far if she hadn't taken a back seat to Bill. But hers is a different class of 'nepotism' (if you must call it that) than all the generations of Bushes employed. Her qualifications are her own - and the product of hard work. You may not like the person - or the results, but it's disingenuous to equate her with Jeb Bush as a dynasty candidate. You may officially start ranting about dynasty if and when Chelsea runs for office on her daddy's name.
Oh. So what it really means is that ES presents ads on its homescreen for another app that will replace your lockscreen if you go to Google Play and actually install it. Nice headline, Slashdot.
Am I missing something? I'm on the latest version 4.05, and my lockscreen doesn't seem any different. I agree that the app has become bloated, and it annoyingly won't let you configure it to start out looking at the filesystem instead of their homepage, which has ads and nothing much of use. But it still works, and hasn't messed with my lockscreen in any way I can detect.
That said, I'm on Cyanogenmod 13, which installed its own File Manager that doesn't look half bad for basic functionality...
But they can't just move the jobs to those offshore locations. In order to do that, they need to get their current workers to train their replacements - whether they're H1-B workers in the US or outsourced workers in Chennai. Often, H1-B workers are used temporarily to facilitate 'knowledge transfer' before the offshore workers kick in. Certainly, the US government has a compelling interest in preventing that.
If nothing else, the US needs to take over basic responsibilities - like health insurance - so that US workers are not competing with foreign workers whose governments cover such expenses.
Oh, and by the way, offshoring rarely works in cases where there is significant knowledge to transfer. Suffice it to say that the transfer process is a joke - and the offshore workers stay on the project for a year or two, after which the next bunch ends up watching videos of the original US workers doing their jobs - and hoping to glean something useful from that.
Are there any devices now that don't let you disable secure boot? I would imagine the Surface Pro's might not. Can the various Linux distros that handle Secure Boot be installed on those? I guess Microsoft could stop signing Linux bootloaders at some point.
I would imagine, though, that Microsoft doesn't feel much of a threat from traditional Linux distros. Now if and when ChromeOS and Android merge into something that's real competition to them...
Come on, this is basic stuff. Clinton is a high value target for several world-class intelligence agencies. I'm sure your close buddy, Putin would never dream of throwing a few hackers at this server, but maybe your close buddy, Xi Jinping would.
And one doesn't need intent to screw up security on an email server any more than one needs intent to drive into a ditch.
I wasn't saying her server didn't have holes - I was pointing out that your language seemed to imply that she 'created' those holes for some purpose - presumably to welcome in enemies of the US. Now maybe you didn't intend to say that, but you sure seemed to be implying it.
Throw Clinton in jail for a few years and future Secretaries of State won't use that as an excuse to blatantly break the law
Except there's no evidence that she broke the law at all. The current rule that would render her server illegal was enacted after she left office. Now, it's possible that the classified info that made it to her server (inadvertently, and retroactively classified, I might add) adds up to having broken the law - that's what the FBI is trying to figure out. You seem to have figured it out for them - based on either your brilliance, or your political preferences. Not, however, based on the law.
I neither said or implied that Clinton was trying to destroy the US
No, you just said she 'created security holes'. I read into that some implication of intent to create security holes - but maybe not. In any case, I was just posting my thoughts on why - like her or hate her - it's much more likely that Clinton's purposes are benign - and yes, self serving (it's possible to be both), but not evil. Perhaps that's so self-evident as to be 'stupid', but in the light of much that is said about HRC, it's more sad than stupid to have to point out that every politician you don't like isn't necessarily out to destroy the country. And that's all I was doing. It's not smart or dumb - or even an argument per se. Just a call to consider that your vitriol might be misplaced. And your concern for national security may be more of an excuse to bash a politician you don't like than any genuine concern.
It's not so much that Trump is somehow like Hitler - it's more that the crowds that gather to hear him sound a lot like the soundtracks to films of Hitler rallies. What's scariest about Trump is that he somehow makes scary elements of American society feel free to express their worst sides in public.
What's most interesting about Trump is that he renders it undeniable that mainstream Republicans have been soliciting the votes of those elements for decades without bringing them out in their fullest, ugliest form for all to see. The fact that he's closer to them as a person than, say, Mitt Romney or George Bush is doesn't change what he reveals about party strategy.
How the hell you get from presumed incompetence to run a secure email server to "there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited". If you think HRC had any inkling of an intention to purposely 'create' holes to leak stuff she was obviously trying to keep private, you're insanely paranoid. If you think she had the technical sophistication to do it - even if she had wanted to - you're just dumb.
The simplest explanation is always the best. Hillary knew that if her email were subject to subpoena, members of the opposition party would spend her full tenure ginning up reasons to do it. Why? On the off chance that they'd find something they could use against her. And y'know what? She was right about that. So your FOIA avoidance explanation is kind of right - give the man a prize! - but you're kind of wrong on the reasoning behind it. Now, when she made up that excuse about not wanting to carry two devices - yep, she was lying. I for one, understand the lie and why she told it. Only someone paranoid enough to think she was intentionally trying to compromise US security could ignore this obvious explanation and go down that route.
Clinton has one overarching goal. To make history as the first woman president, and presumably, to do a good enough job at it to be treated well in those history books. And that's not the worst thing in the world, either. If she merely wanted to get rich, a Yale-educated lawyer could find much easier ways to do that. But if you're willing to entertain the fantasy that she (or anyone for that matter) would spend an entire lifetime accruing credentials (whatever you may think of her particular ones) to run for president - just to destroy the country...
Of course there's a wee bit of a problem with your premise that Obama actually tried to destroy the US - or even supported any policy that would or could ultimately destroy the US. Just saying it (over and over and over) doesn't make it true. No - the Citizens United clowns on the SCOTUS came the closest to to destroying the US that anyone has come so far. Well, maybe McCarthy. Or the fools that seceeded in the mid 19th century...
Antivirus software itself can be the weak link in Windows. I had Avast AV seemingly freeze Windows 7 when I tried to launch my own app on it - even after just building the app with Visual Studio on that box. By 'freeze', I mean not only refuse to run the app, but do it without popping up any notification, and without failing in a way that Windows Explorer can recover from. I would end up with multiple processes in Task Manager that could not be killed from there, and the entire Windows launcher frozen.
The solution was simple enough - whitelist the directory tree containing my own stuff. It'd have been a lot simpler had Avast notified me what it was doing... But the fact that Avast would - or could - do this silently, and seem to crash the system is beyond bizarre. Whether that's partially Windows' fault - or whether Avast is just that shitty, it sure doesn't end up making Windows look good. Not to mention the fact that AV software is 'necessary' in the first place on a dedicated medical instrument.
Hey, I'm fine with abortion as birth control, fetish, or whatever in the early stages. But doing this with human embryos seems weirdly irrelevant and provocative - or 'human exceptionalist' at best, which is pretty non-scientific.
Certainly from an embryological point of view, the significant differences between a fully-formed human and chimp (or pig, for that matter) are minuscule - at least as relates to the kinds of discovery that could be made from observing an embryo in its first few weeks. I assume what they're hoping to learn about is how cell differentiation works - which is presumably identical in all mammals. Perhaps some day they'll learn something that could steer them in a direction where additional knowledge can only be obtained by observing actual human embryos, presumably at a later stage of development - but at that point, we're clearly in murky ethical waters. So why experiment on human embryos now?
They may have dropped subsidies, but I think they still hide the cost in a monthly fee that's not optional. Maybe that's changed too. Certainly T-Mobile has changed that, but I still see Verizon users with their shiny new phones every two years. I'm guessing they still think that comes 'for free' with their subscription, and if it's anything like it used to be, it is still 'free' in the sense that they pay for the new phone whether they upgrade or not.
It's interesting how folks on here are all too willing to put their engineering hats on for, say, nuclear, and come up with solutions to the problems with the technology. But when it comes to solar, suddenly there's nighttime! cloudy days!
Why are those not just engineering problems to solve. Certainly nuclear waste storage and potential theft / dirty bomb issues are bigger challenges than a source that's not 100% available all the time, but is essentially free during the times that it is available. Seems like there's a strictly political aspect to the resistance - and while there may be a political'ish aspect to resistance to nuclear, there still is that issue of highly poisonous waste and overall high cost of the plants, fuel, and safety measures. Easily as big a technical challenge - arguably less solvable as regards the waste issue.
Something similar could be said about fracking. Fracking is at best an interim solution - but it's potentially a good interim solution. Still, there have been some horrendous pollution side-issues. But instead of treating those as solvable engineering challenges, the right (and those on Slashdot that mouth the right's arguments) chooses to portray those that complain about pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground as unrealistic hippies - rather than to question whether fracking could be done with less poisonous materials. Perhaps a bit less efficiently, but balanced by fewer long term costs in terms of environmental degradation.
... or they need to address the midrange market better. That's the only place they're gonna find significant growth. So far, they're still pitching a 'luxury' brand, and the status-seekers already upgrade reliably to each new model. But that's not a growth market. Their latest attempt at midrange isn't so bad - it's just not cheap enough to get much of the midrange market, and it's just cheap enough to turn off the 'apple makes me cool' set.
And the reason for that is that Apple's profits are entirely based on hardware sales. Sure, there's iTunes, but really... If US carriers ever change the model that allows you to think you're getting a new iPhone every 2 years for just $200, Apple will take a huge hit. And it's not because their products aren't good. it's just that they've been good enough for 5 years now, and only through the operators' model of fake-subsidies on new hardware that anybody upgrades any more. I'm using a 3 year old Nexus 4 on T-Mobile, and it's basically fine for my needs. I may upgrade if a reasonable midrange device comes along that meets my needs better, but that's not going to be a $700 iPhone. But if I were stuck on Verizon, I might go for that $200 'subsidized' Galaxy 7...
He's factoring them in at the appropriate level. I.e., negligible in the course of any sane discussion of public policy.
Now maybe you were jockeying for a 'funny' mod, and it's whoever modded you 'insightful' that's the idiot here, but I've grown to appreciate the full range of pseudo-libertarian pseudo-thought on here, and can imagine that you really think pointing to sadists will somehow justify prisons as a solution to poverty. "All lives matter" bro. Right on!.
Why on earth is "They more or less defined the new HTTP/2 protocol" a bad thing? Now, if it's a bad protocol, sure. But Google doing the work to improve web standards, and (presumably) making it available in an open source and unencumbered implementation is a good thing, no? Even if you hate (or fear) Google.