Linux is NOT A viable alternative, no matter how much you zealots claim it is.
You're either a paid Microsoft shill, or one of the 'useful idiots', or you're just a fool who doesn't know any better, or you're a fool who has no technical skill with computers and can't handle any so-called 'OS' (of which Windows has only ever been minimally so) that is any higher than the level of Playskool toys for infants, you needing your hand held like a little baby every moment. As such you are to be scoffed at, mocked, deprecated, disbelieved, and disregarded.
Most people need to use more than just a web browser. They need Photoshop, for which GIMP is not a good substitute. They need decent video editing software to edit videos of their family, I've yet to find anything decent under Linux. They need Quicken, they need good-quality tools developed by professionals, and most of the Linux knock-offs are no where close. There USED to be the problem where they would go into a store and buy a piece of software, which is going to be either for Windows or Mac, but that seems pretty quaint these days.
The biggest problem is that we don't live in the 80s anymore where games were simple enough that they could be ported by two people to 8 different platforms at once. Now you target one, maybe TWO platforms if they're gigantic enough, and exclusives are in the mix as well. A platform that has a low marketshare does not see much game development, especially not with Wine helping to prop up the Linux gaming side. It's doubly difficult with so many different distributions and versions of libraries and kernels.
Doesn't matter if it was or not. NATO would have gone absolutely ape-shit if the USSR had invaded. Hell, the US funded a violent, bloody war in Afghanistan despite no one caring about that country.
Here is a thought, Taxes are not the right of government.
It is almost like you are arguing that taxes at 45% is "fair". I call it criminal.
Of course taxes are the "right" of government. If you want government services, and yes nearly all Americans want some sort of government, taxes are the way to go. You can only tariff so much, and excess tariffs have other trade-related secondary effects.
Do I think the federal government does too much? Sure. However, we have decided as a country that we NEED certain things to be... well, certain. Not optional, not up to charity, and not underfunded by the states that traditionally have done jack squat to support their citizens. We've decided we need things like the social safety nets of Social Security and unemployment support. We've decided that we want a strong military. We've decided that health care should be a human right, not something that only the wealthy can afford. And yes, we didn't have these things in the 1700s, but unless you were rich, life was SHIT in the 1700s.
Calling Hilary "Leftist" is pretty ridiculous though. Maybe she is leftist in the seriously "rightist" biased US; but she is definitely at least "moderate-right" to just plain "right" from a European POV.
That's what I used to think. Then I realized that the European POV is pretty much isolated to a number of countries in Western Europe, but that scale doesn't apply very well to any other continent save Australia.
That's a possible explanation - but I don't think you're right, you're still ignoring the fact that they are told all their lives that pursuing all the sex you can get is the right and proper way to live. It's only who they pursue it from that's frowned upon - as soon as they stop caring about that frowning, the pursuits are unimpeded.
The media usually gets it wrong -- they want a uniform face on a group of people, but the fact of the matter is that most gay people do NOT live in these hot, promiscuous enclaves of "gay society." Those places exist, but they are not as prominent as most people outside of the gay community assume. Most gay people are normal people, eschewing what we would stereotype as the gay lifestyle, and are mostly indistinguishable from other folks in society. They aren't out there in parades, trolling through Grinder, affecting a lisp, hooking up with every dude they can, and our media fixation with that type is only a little more accurate than the dudes you'll see in Spring Break sex videos being representative of the heterosexual lifestyle.
No judgement from me here either, I'm a bisexual man married to another man. American society still has no clue what to think of bisexuals.;-) Most people just sort of think I'm gay; that's easier for them to deal with and relate to for the moment.
No, not to the Democrats, they lost to the Tea Party.
Rereading this, I should clarify (sigh) because that's part wrong. They DID lose out to the Democrats, and the election went to Obama in 2008, and the alt-right gained a lot of ground in response to that.
It used to be the neocons. Suddenly, now the focus has shifted to alt-right? What happened
The Neocons lost, that's what happened.
No, not to the Democrats, they lost to the Tea Party. The NeoCons pushed the Iraq War in their goal of reshaping the Middle East, and the alt-right is a bit more "what are we spending all this money for?"
My suspicion is that the Neocons are more socially conservative than the alt-right (they courted evangelicals very well), and maaaaaybe a little less economically conservative.
Not for lack of trying - the only difference is that half the gay men have not spent their whole lives being told that their total value as a person is dependent on how little they have sex, that if they enjoy it they have bad self respect etc. etc. in fact the gay male population is entirely made up of people who have been told all their lives that their value as a person is measured by how MANY people they have sex with.
Most gay males (in the US) grow up being told that they're horrible and disgusting for even wanting to have sex with someone of the same gender. They have this reinforced over and over again at school, at home, and at church, where they're at least told that they can still be good people if they have those urges but NEVER act on them.
Then they get to college or leave town or whatever and meet other gays and the rebound in the other direction is astounding.
This article shows that. I've always been very surprised that not a single doctor who dealt with AIDS patients before 1980 (and now we know there were hundreds of them) stepped up and called out the timeline as being utterly wrong.
There were no blood or dna tests for HIV back in the 70s, and no one dies from HIV or AIDS. They just become susceptible to other diseases, and it's those other diseases that waste you away or outright kill you.
If you had pneumonia in the 1970s, doctors would probably have concluded that you died of pneumonia. Sure, it was pneumonia that the body never fought off because its immune system was destroyed, but 10-15 years after the fact when we realized that might have been what was happening, it's difficult to open old cases and judge that it wasn't ordinary pneumonia, but one that the body was vulnerable to due to its AIDS-related weakness.
Nancy Reagan was the real asshole. She denied it's existence and so thousands died. And face it, as Ronald became more and more senile she ran the Presidency.
That's a real stretch. Nancy exerted a bit of control over Ronald's schedule, but that's a far, far cry from "she ran the Presidency."
You mean like how "left" was a word that had something to do with politics once, but now it is a label used by the alt-right to denegrate anyone who views "sexism" and "racism" as legitimate concepts?
If a Democrat Prosecutor refuses to do their job and pursue charges against a Democrat Politician, that is proof to you that the Politician is clean?
Prosecutors refuse to press charges often. Do you think "there's an allegation, we have to press charges" is an absolute requirement for a prosecutor? Prosecutors pursue charges if they think they have a winable case. If the evidence is suspect or insufficient, often they will not because it's a waste of time or money.
Gloria Allred calls press conferences and announces that she is representing some poor young female "victim" (often multiple "victims") of a Republican and then after the election *POOF* they all scurry away never to be seen again (remember all the women she trotted out as "victims" of Herman Cain?)
Well, they aren't legally actionable, especially since they happened so long ago. And of course, any time that sexual harassment happens in private, it's he said / she said. No one reported it to the police at the time for understandable reasons. This was the 90s, no one is accusing Cain of sexual violence or rape or anything. What we do know is Sharon Bialek told her boyfriend at the time about it in 1997, and that she was upset, so this wasn't just some incident manufactured in 2011. Herman Cain had admitted to paying some of these women hush money, but did not recall how much.
"Colluding with a foreign nation against the interests of America (Saudi Arabia/Qatar)" So is that the next target for Putin? Destabilize the middle east oil supply? I know you lot don't get to see the big plan, but you'll be given a list of astroturf from the Kremlin
WHAT. THE. FUCK. Are you seriously saying that Saudi Arabia does not work against US interests? Have you seen their promotion of Wahhabism and Salafism, responsible for much of the jihaddi violence throughout the world? It's no coincidence that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince seems friendly the US, but most of the country is in the hands of ultra-conservative nutjobs. I trust Iran more than Saudi Arabia.
The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape.
Gawker would not have gotten into much trouble if they'd just reported that Hogan had extra-marital sex. That would be the analogy to Valerie Plame. But Gawker published the tape. And then they refused a court order afterwards. I don't think there's really any parallel to the Valerie Plame case in that situation.
So right, let's execute shoplifters for stealing food from supermarkets, because the corporations that own the supermarkets have been wronged, and they shouldn't have to just deal with it like shoplifting is a cost of doing business.
You don't execute shoplifters, but sometimes they get prosecuted, or at least they face a legal penalty. This judgement came down due to the severity of damage (Hogan's reputation and privacy loss), but far more than that, because of Gawker's willfulness and public mocking of court orders they refused to follow. Do that, and punitive damages will be high.
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
If only we could prove that they actually were or were not rape victims. If there was no question, then you wouldn't even need a trial, just sentencing. But here's the thing: in a criminal case, the accused is presumed not guilty. You must be able to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and introducing doubt, regardless of crime or circumstances, is fair game. Because everyone, everyone without exception, is entitled to defense under the law. The scales of justice truly are that -- the prosecution on one side, and the defense on the other, with the judge/jury in the center seeing which side has more weight.
What if he wasn't a rapist? What if the accuser really did have mental problems and there was no basis behind her claims? Is that really so far-fetched? The court can't wave a magic wand and find out. These cases have to be argued. I'll always agree with Blackstone's Forumula, where I would rather ten guilty men go rather than condemn one innocent man. We are inundated with bad TV shows and movies where "crooked defense lawyers" get "clearly guilty people" off with some stupid technicality, and we're now conditioned to hate the criminal defense attorney. But reality is different and messier.
totally bust the bubble of the LWLs (Left Wing Loons, for those wondering) who claim that Law Enforcement tracks people on Social Media and anything on the internet so that they can aggressively go after them.
The mistake there would be in assuming all forms of law enforcement are the same or that they work in concert with each other. The FBI and NSA probably monitor Facebook, but the local police department? Quite unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is NOT A viable alternative, no matter how much you zealots claim it is.
You're either a paid Microsoft shill, or one of the 'useful idiots', or you're just a fool who doesn't know any better, or you're a fool who has no technical skill with computers and can't handle any so-called 'OS' (of which Windows has only ever been minimally so) that is any higher than the level of Playskool toys for infants, you needing your hand held like a little baby every moment. As such you are to be scoffed at, mocked, deprecated, disbelieved, and disregarded.
Most people need to use more than just a web browser. They need Photoshop, for which GIMP is not a good substitute. They need decent video editing software to edit videos of their family, I've yet to find anything decent under Linux. They need Quicken, they need good-quality tools developed by professionals, and most of the Linux knock-offs are no where close. There USED to be the problem where they would go into a store and buy a piece of software, which is going to be either for Windows or Mac, but that seems pretty quaint these days.
The biggest lock they have is inertia
The biggest problem is that we don't live in the 80s anymore where games were simple enough that they could be ported by two people to 8 different platforms at once. Now you target one, maybe TWO platforms if they're gigantic enough, and exclusives are in the mix as well. A platform that has a low marketshare does not see much game development, especially not with Wine helping to prop up the Linux gaming side. It's doubly difficult with so many different distributions and versions of libraries and kernels.
Sweden is not in the NATO, dumbass.
Doesn't matter if it was or not. NATO would have gone absolutely ape-shit if the USSR had invaded.
Hell, the US funded a violent, bloody war in Afghanistan despite no one caring about that country.
Here is a thought, Taxes are not the right of government.
It is almost like you are arguing that taxes at 45% is "fair". I call it criminal.
Of course taxes are the "right" of government. If you want government services, and yes nearly all Americans want some sort of government, taxes are the way to go. You can only tariff so much, and excess tariffs have other trade-related secondary effects.
Do I think the federal government does too much? Sure. However, we have decided as a country that we NEED certain things to be... well, certain. Not optional, not up to charity, and not underfunded by the states that traditionally have done jack squat to support their citizens. We've decided we need things like the social safety nets of Social Security and unemployment support. We've decided that we want a strong military. We've decided that health care should be a human right, not something that only the wealthy can afford. And yes, we didn't have these things in the 1700s, but unless you were rich, life was SHIT in the 1700s.
Calling Hilary "Leftist" is pretty ridiculous though. Maybe she is leftist in the seriously "rightist" biased US; but she is definitely at least "moderate-right" to just plain "right" from a European POV.
That's what I used to think. Then I realized that the European POV is pretty much isolated to a number of countries in Western Europe, but that scale doesn't apply very well to any other continent save Australia.
That's a possible explanation - but I don't think you're right, you're still ignoring the fact that they are told all their lives that pursuing all the sex you can get is the right and proper way to live. It's only who they pursue it from that's frowned upon - as soon as they stop caring about that frowning, the pursuits are unimpeded.
The media usually gets it wrong -- they want a uniform face on a group of people, but the fact of the matter is that most gay people do NOT live in these hot, promiscuous enclaves of "gay society." Those places exist, but they are not as prominent as most people outside of the gay community assume. Most gay people are normal people, eschewing what we would stereotype as the gay lifestyle, and are mostly indistinguishable from other folks in society. They aren't out there in parades, trolling through Grinder, affecting a lisp, hooking up with every dude they can, and our media fixation with that type is only a little more accurate than the dudes you'll see in Spring Break sex videos being representative of the heterosexual lifestyle.
No judgement from me here either, I'm a bisexual man married to another man. American society still has no clue what to think of bisexuals. ;-) Most people just sort of think I'm gay; that's easier for them to deal with and relate to for the moment.
The Neocons lost, that's what happened.
No, not to the Democrats, they lost to the Tea Party.
Rereading this, I should clarify (sigh) because that's part wrong. They DID lose out to the Democrats, and the election went to Obama in 2008, and the alt-right gained a lot of ground in response to that.
It used to be the neocons. Suddenly, now the focus has shifted to alt-right? What happened
The Neocons lost, that's what happened.
No, not to the Democrats, they lost to the Tea Party. The NeoCons pushed the Iraq War in their goal of reshaping the Middle East, and the alt-right is a bit more "what are we spending all this money for?"
My suspicion is that the Neocons are more socially conservative than the alt-right (they courted evangelicals very well), and maaaaaybe a little less economically conservative.
Jordan is cool. Indonesia isn't terrible.
Turkey is starting to get a bit scary these days.
Who says that everything in 2016 sucked?
Not for lack of trying - the only difference is that half the gay men have not spent their whole lives being told that their total value as a person is dependent on how little they have sex, that if they enjoy it they have bad self respect etc. etc. in fact the gay male population is entirely made up of people who have been told all their lives that their value as a person is measured by how MANY people they have sex with.
Most gay males (in the US) grow up being told that they're horrible and disgusting for even wanting to have sex with someone of the same gender. They have this reinforced over and over again at school, at home, and at church, where they're at least told that they can still be good people if they have those urges but NEVER act on them.
Then they get to college or leave town or whatever and meet other gays and the rebound in the other direction is astounding.
This article shows that. I've always been very surprised that not a single doctor who dealt with AIDS patients before 1980 (and now we know there were hundreds of them) stepped up and called out the timeline as being utterly wrong.
There were no blood or dna tests for HIV back in the 70s, and no one dies from HIV or AIDS. They just become susceptible to other diseases, and it's those other diseases that waste you away or outright kill you.
If you had pneumonia in the 1970s, doctors would probably have concluded that you died of pneumonia. Sure, it was pneumonia that the body never fought off because its immune system was destroyed, but 10-15 years after the fact when we realized that might have been what was happening, it's difficult to open old cases and judge that it wasn't ordinary pneumonia, but one that the body was vulnerable to due to its AIDS-related weakness.
Nancy Reagan was the real asshole. She denied it's existence and so thousands died. And face it, as Ronald became more and more senile she ran the Presidency.
That's a real stretch. Nancy exerted a bit of control over Ronald's schedule, but that's a far, far cry from "she ran the Presidency."
Sticking your penis in anything is not very smart.
That's the entire, one-and-only reason we have a penis in the first place, as opposed to a urethra that didn't.. well... dangle so much.
You mean like how "left" was a word that had something to do with politics once, but now it is a label used by the alt-right to denegrate anyone who views "sexism" and "racism" as legitimate concepts?
No, that's "SJW".
If a Democrat Prosecutor refuses to do their job and pursue charges against a Democrat Politician, that is proof to you that the Politician is clean?
Prosecutors refuse to press charges often. Do you think "there's an allegation, we have to press charges" is an absolute requirement for a prosecutor?
Prosecutors pursue charges if they think they have a winable case. If the evidence is suspect or insufficient, often they will not because it's a waste of time or money.
Yep, it was the Russians and not the fact that Podesta is an @ssh0le and accessory to murder. [thegatewaypundit.com]
Hahahahaa... this is the funniest, most ridiculous thing I've read all week.
Gloria Allred calls press conferences and announces that she is representing some poor young female "victim" (often multiple "victims") of a Republican and then after the election *POOF* they all scurry away never to be seen again (remember all the women she trotted out as "victims" of Herman Cain?)
Well, they aren't legally actionable, especially since they happened so long ago. And of course, any time that sexual harassment happens in private, it's he said / she said. No one reported it to the police at the time for understandable reasons. This was the 90s, no one is accusing Cain of sexual violence or rape or anything. What we do know is Sharon Bialek told her boyfriend at the time about it in 1997, and that she was upset, so this wasn't just some incident manufactured in 2011. Herman Cain had admitted to paying some of these women hush money, but did not recall how much.
"Colluding with a foreign nation against the interests of America (Saudi Arabia/Qatar)"
So is that the next target for Putin? Destabilize the middle east oil supply? I know you lot don't get to see the big plan, but you'll be given a list of astroturf from the Kremlin
WHAT. THE. FUCK. Are you seriously saying that Saudi Arabia does not work against US interests? Have you seen their promotion of Wahhabism and Salafism, responsible for much of the jihaddi violence throughout the world? It's no coincidence that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince seems friendly the US, but most of the country is in the hands of ultra-conservative nutjobs. I trust Iran more than Saudi Arabia.
The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape.
Gawker would not have gotten into much trouble if they'd just reported that Hogan had extra-marital sex. That would be the analogy to Valerie Plame.
But Gawker published the tape. And then they refused a court order afterwards. I don't think there's really any parallel to the Valerie Plame case in that situation.
So right, let's execute shoplifters for stealing food from supermarkets, because the corporations that own the supermarkets have been wronged, and they shouldn't have to just deal with it like shoplifting is a cost of doing business.
You don't execute shoplifters, but sometimes they get prosecuted, or at least they face a legal penalty. This judgement came down due to the severity of damage (Hogan's reputation and privacy loss), but far more than that, because of Gawker's willfulness and public mocking of court orders they refused to follow. Do that, and punitive damages will be high.
Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor.
That's a positive, not a negative.
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
If only we could prove that they actually were or were not rape victims. If there was no question, then you wouldn't even need a trial, just sentencing.
But here's the thing: in a criminal case, the accused is presumed not guilty. You must be able to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and introducing doubt, regardless of crime or circumstances, is fair game. Because everyone, everyone without exception, is entitled to defense under the law. The scales of justice truly are that -- the prosecution on one side, and the defense on the other, with the judge/jury in the center seeing which side has more weight.
What if he wasn't a rapist? What if the accuser really did have mental problems and there was no basis behind her claims? Is that really so far-fetched? The court can't wave a magic wand and find out. These cases have to be argued. I'll always agree with Blackstone's Forumula, where I would rather ten guilty men go rather than condemn one innocent man. We are inundated with bad TV shows and movies where "crooked defense lawyers" get "clearly guilty people" off with some stupid technicality, and we're now conditioned to hate the criminal defense attorney. But reality is different and messier.
totally bust the bubble of the LWLs (Left Wing Loons, for those wondering) who claim that Law Enforcement tracks people on Social Media and anything on the internet so that they can aggressively go after them.
The mistake there would be in assuming all forms of law enforcement are the same or that they work in concert with each other. The FBI and NSA probably monitor Facebook, but the local police department? Quite unlikely.
And that's a problem for whom??
For most of the major moneyed stakeholders.
Also, for the advertisers who keep these sites running.