Actually that's more conceivable than with a small government - in which case the special interests simply fill the resulting powergap THEMSELVES and there are no oppostion politicians or elections to constrain their abuses.
Make government small enough and the special interests morph into a bunch of warlords. That's what you find everywhere on earth where government is small. Small government = being kidnapped from your home into forced labour (i.e. slavery) by mad warlords who will hapilly burn everybody you love along the way just to show you who is boss.
There are lots of big government countries with very low corruption rates. There isn't a single small government country NOT overrun by brutal, lawless, murderous warlords committing most of the worst atrocities in the world today. The only thing stopping the richest guy in town from buying himself and army and enslaving you and burning every other town to establish his fiefdom is having a government big enough to scare him.
Accusations of hypocrisy (regardless of whether they are true or not) have absolute no bearing whatsoever nor any shred of influence on the validity of the argument - in other words: they are WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS always an ad hominem fallacy.
They are also invalid in this case as Musk was not actually doing what the GP accused him off. He was complaining about the effective subsidy of not placing a punitive tax on the externalities of fossil fuels. Which is several trillion times more than the total subsidies ever given to any other industry - let alone to renewables.
Only in a bizarro world where there is only ONE provider of product B, and nobody competing with him. We have dozens of competing renewable energy techs - if any of them raise their price to "just below fossil fuels" - the other will instantly undercut it - and so it will have to undercut them - and before you know it they are back at reasonable-margine-above-cost-of-production and the choice between them comes back to being mostly determined by geography.
Actually, I am generally against doing it by the law except as a last resort. Sane people who love freedom usually are.
It's generally much better to just try and convince people to do do the right thing than to make the government FORCE them to do it. Funny how libertarians always agree with me about that... EXCEPT when the issue is paying your taxes.
>t was legally put into the code and law, and there is nothing wrong with you taking advantage of this to keep more of your hard earned money.
Bullshit. LOTS of laws are wrong and evil. Taking advantage of them makes you evil to. It was very wrong when the law made Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus. But if you were one of the white people who took advantage of that to sit in the front while a frail old lady was forced to the back - then YOU were evil as well.
>So, perhaps the govt needs to do what most families do....learn to budget, and be able to figure out what they can afford, and what programs within that budget they can afford to do properly, and say "No" to things that can't be afforded.
Yep...the right always brings up this analogy and think they are being insightful while only proving their complete and utter and absolute ignorance of how money, governments, taxation or budgets work. Literally none of the rules that apply to a household budget are *true* of a government's budget. In most cases the reality is almost the opposite - because a huge chunk of a government's *income* is generated *by* it's expenses, and the correlation is exponential. It's impossible to balance a national budget by cutting expenses, mathematically impossible- because ANY cut in expenses causes a (much) larger cut in income. That's not true of household budgets.
Allow me to demonstrate. let's assume a 10% tax rate for simplicity and that a coke costs a dollar. If I do NOT buy a coke tomorrow, I have an extra dollar in my budget. Simple. If government does not buy a coke - they have 1 dollar more in the budget. But they also cannot tax the coke-seller for the income on that coke (since he now never made that dollar income it cannot be taxed)... so they actually have only 90c more in the budget. But... they can't tax the person the coke-seller would have spent the money at either, so that's down to 80c... subtract 10c for every transaction that dollar would *ever* have been spent on until they day the banks recalled it. In practise the budget is actually reduced by about 50 dollars. This is why every austerity program the world has attempted since 2008 in every country that tried it CONSISTENTLY made their debts WORSE and simultaneously put huge swaths of people out of work (after removing the safety netts that might otherwise have protected them in the name of cutting expenses) - because it's not just the government who loses income, it's every person whose hands that dollar would ever have passed through. Many of those persons are businesses who respond to having less income by firing people. And remember only ONE of those people were getting paid "from taxes" - the original coke seller, everybody ELSE was selling in the private market.
The concepts of "income" and "expenses" frankly only make SENSE on an individual scale, beyond that (like at the level of national budgets) they are so utterly senseless as to have no meaning or definitions whatsoever - there's no such thing. Money just moves from one place to another, every transaction is BOTH an expense AND an income (because somebody is receiving the money). And since government's tax incomes - every transaction that happens is money for them, and every transaction that does not happen is money lost.
>But that is not historically what led to the US gaining the strength and economic might that it has (had). Nope... that would be slavery and the absence of decent labour laws (while I will forever argue is the same thing) for most of it's existence.
>and why you see much of Europe having fiscal woes Nope. A flagrant lie. Though I suspect one you wrote thinking it's actually true. Most European nations were cash-positive just a few years ago. Their woes are ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY down to investing all that surplus in American banks - which turned out tbe made up entirely of fraudsters who lied to them about the level of risk they were taking on. There's nothing wrong with offering high risk investments - but it's fraud to pretend they are low risk and pay low yields on them to the people who are bearing those yields. Who do you think was BUYING all those rebranded AAA-securities that the banks had packaged all the NINJA loans into (since they wanted the nice high interest you can charge to high risk lenders but wouldn't accept the high risks of that reward) ? Most of it was bought by European governments. Iceland's entire pension fund was invested in those fun
But everytime somebody proposes a minimum wage that people can live on to correct the "jobs being offered are not very good, and wages are stagnant" problem we're told that this would instantly trigger the automation of all those jobs as well.
The problem is real - and it's only being held at bay by keeping wages so depressed that people *with* jobs are still needing welfare - basically by having taxpayers supplement each other's incomes !
That's silly by every measurement - so bugger raising the minimum wage, scrap it entirely and institute a wage-floor with UBI instead. You get a much more comprehensive way to solve the same problem than the half-arsed hackjob being used right now, with none of the massive downsides, none of the protests and unrest it causes and it costs a LOT less.
We're headed to a world where the only marketable skills will be business-owner, robot-programmer or robotics engineer. So be it, but if the business owners want anybody to be able to buy the things their fully automated businesses produce, we will need some other way for the rest of the population to earn a living.
Actually I'm a Sander's supporter. Hillary gets "lesser of two evils" status at best with me.
I still don't believe claims without evidence though - even about evil people. It's called healthy scepticism.
As for being crude... throughout my 3 decades plus on this planet I always had a deep and abiding love for the sweet and unappreciated poetry of profanity, if that offends you - well fuck you too.
Not a word in there is half as crazy as trump's ideas. As evidenced by the fact that they are absolutely possible. Proven possible by the fact that it has happened before.
Domestically: The next president however will likely get to appoint at least one and probably 2 supreme court justices, and gets free reign to appoint the heads of every government agency. That is substantial power right there. Just wait to see Trump replace the heads of every single regulatory agency with a puppet of the rich to ensure no corporation is ever again impeded from causing misery, mayhem and death for profit or even forced to spend any money to take reasonable precautions against calamitous events. Look forward to a supreme court where we won't be JOKING about the corporation always winning - it will simply be par for the course that the constitution be interpreted as meaning whatever the wealthier of the parties want it to say.
Foreign policy: Let's assume that congress will block and overrule the veto to prevent Trump and the insane clown posse he would appoint as his secretaries from declaring war on every country that made fun o his hair. That's not much of a guarantee I'm afraid. It's ridiculously easy to start a war *against* the wishes of your own government - all you have to do is pressure the other country up to the point where they feel compelled to declare war on *you* at which point your government kind of has to fall in line. History is full of examples of that. A notable one was Britain circa 1897. The liberal government of the day opposed Rhodes's expansionist views and definitely didn't want another war. Cecil John Rhodes (genocidal madman) and his governmental puppet Lord Alfred Milner (governor of the British Cape Colony) wanted to take the boer republics by force, but parliament was adamantly against it. Under advice from colonial secretary Joseph Chamberlain they hatched a plan around that, making increasing insane demands of the boers until eventually - under extreme duress the Boer republics declared war on the British empire. A declaration that, in terms of military comparability was roughly on par with Kenya declaring war on the United States today. They didn't want a war, they were just pressured into believing one was absolutely inevitable and they had best try to strike first. Once war was declared UPON the British government, they kind of had no choice but to fight the war.
Do you think Trump would be above such tactics ? I sure don't. Hell, he's quite insane enough that, when the impossibility of actually building his wall comes home to roost he would blame it on the Mexican government and appease his supporters by causing a second Mexican-American war. The man has no respect for human life, and no qualms whatsoever about wasting millions of them to protect his own interests.
>We need an outsider. Not a puppet of the oligarchy.
That of course is an argument *against* Trump in reality. Seeing as he IS the oligarchy. Literally the only thing WORSE than a puppet of the oligarchy getting the white house is a MEMBER of the oligarchy getting it.
People dont pay to watch. Other companies pay to show ads to people watchng and the streamers get a share. The main reason to watch is in order to learn ways to play better yourself. Almost nobody plays KSP well who has not watched a bunch of Scott Manley videos. Personally for most games I prefer written guides as you can read while you play and keep synched with your progress but many prefer seeing where to look for the secret door they got frustrated looking for in Morrowind.
There isn't a single desktop Linux distribution that doesn't fully support GTK and QT, and in fact I don't believe there are any active desktop environments which are not written USING one of those two. QT is also incredibly popular with developers of various commercial applications because it works on damn near everything - you can use it write apps for Windows, Mac, Linux, IOS and Android. We were talking about graphical applications - and with QT or GTK you CAN support everybody who isn't running a headless server.
So the command line has nothing to do with the discussion, that's another accusation that's twenty years out of date. Ironically - Microsoft is working really hard to make the commandline on Windows actually useable. First there was powershell, now they brag that you can use bash on Windows. They are even making it possible to ssh to a windows machine and get a bash or powershel prompt. Funny how the commandline you are so contemptuous off (quite irrelevant since we are talking about GUI development and *I* only mentioned GUI libraries) seems to be one of the features Microsoft (after years of scoffing) is now most desperate to catch up on !
A note on steam: PlayOnLinux supports steam exceptionally well - so a lot of the games without native steam support still works extremely well under wine and PoL makes installing them an absolute breeze, self-contained in their own jails - with almost no user-skill required. It actually prefers steam installs where available. I played the entire elder scrolls series on Linux and the only one that wasn't in wine was Morrowind where OpenMW works way better and is native (I'm actually busy playing a Spellsword in OpenMW right now).
>Surely some of the latest and greatest games aren't available on Linux.
Yes, "Some of" being the operative word, which is a great progress from the state quite recently where it was "none off" and things like UK2K4 shipping with native Linux support on day one was hugely anomalous. That said the catalog is growing very rapidly and there is certainly a lot there.
>Honestly --- if you have the need or desire to play those games --- go ahead and run Windows. Actually, I would advise people who really want those titles to rather get a console and still run Linux on their PCs. I did that until recently. Sold my xbox one three months ago since steam gave me all the games I wanted on my PC and with a Link+Controller I can even play them in my living room.
> It's a matter of choice, but it is not a matter of Linux being inadequate. I completely agree. Saying you don't like something is fine, but that doesn't mean it's worse in general - and making up non-existent failures to justify it just means you're either trolling or you have a personal axe to grind. I would argue that for the vast majority of users BeOS was better than Windows and, at the time, better than Linux as well. The ability to play an MP3 while browsing the web AND burn a CD without making a coaster was something nothing else at the time could match. As passionate as I am about Linux, as much as I prefer free and open source software in all but gaming (because I don't consider games to be software at all - they are art and not subject to the same ethical constraints) - I won't pretend that BeOS was not technically a far superior desktop OS in 2002 than Linux was in 2002. Linux today is much better and I am prepared to bet that had BeOS survived Linux would today be better than BeOS today - but I don't have to make up non-existent failures in BeOS to try and convince myself it didn't once hold the position as the best desktop OS in the world. I would even concede that my optimism that Linux today would beat a modern BeOS may not be justified and there's a chance the mere existence of BeOS would have stagnated Linux desktop development to the point where it never caught up. Unlikely but possible.
>There are thousands of highly specialised applications on Windows.
Very few of which are used on home desktops and most of which DO have Linux alternatives. There are areas where things are more problematic, but those are rare cases. A good example is accounting software. Many attempts at accounting programs have been made in the open source world, most fizzled - because accounting software needs more than good programmers, it requires lawyers and lawyers that are willing to provide expertise for free are rare.
>Some people are still on XP because Microsoft cut them loose and they can't run applications and devices their organisations depend pm on the newer Windows. Most of these people are prime candidates for Linux migrations - seeing as wine is compatible with significantly MORE pre-Vista windows apps than any Windows version since Vista. I.E. There are more of them who could run those apps successfully under wine then there are who cannot.
>How is something that isn't compatible at all going to do? Another complete fabrication. You really don't seem to think reality needs to influence arguments do you ?
>The facts are still that despite Microsoft's repeated incompetence Linux is nowhere. Nobody dispute that, but NONE of the reasons you cited have anything to do with that fact, they can't - on account of they are not true and haven't been true for well over a decade. I am not saying there are no VALID reasons for that, I'm not even saying SOME of those reasons are NOT things Linux should do better/differently - but your arguments are definitely NOT among the real reasons. Only things that are true in reality can cause things. Those arguments were valid once, up until about 2003-2005 or so they had actual legitimacy, but we have invested millions of man-hours into addressing them and not only did we close the gap with windows on these things - we hugely surpassed it. You won't get anywhere telling us to go back continue investing in an area where we are already millions of miles ahead of the competition - we would rather keep working on the areas where we are, in fact, behind. Backwards compatibility and hardware support are nowhere on that list.
That statement is false. This is a true version:" your current software will not run natively but barring a few highly specialized programs you probably do not use there are better alternatives. If you do use one of those the odds are well over 99% that wine supports it and playonlinux will almost always include an automated installer. If you are into gaming get steam which runs natively and has a larger gaming catalog for linux than xbox and ps4 combined. Your hardware will probably work out of the box and far more easily than under windows. If you do happen to have one of the few devices that need manual intervention ill be happy to spend 5 minutes googling and helping you apply them which will at worst be on par with the default way windows treats all hardware. Worst case scenario you have one device where it will be like all devices are under windows instead of infinitely better"
>The lack of Linux uptake means it's provably true since an OS that was suitable for use by the majority would have killed Windows by now
Your claim had fuckall to do with Linux's suitability, you made a claim about it's ease of use and hardware handling which is provably FALSE. There are many, many things that could account for it's failure to overtake Windows on the desktop, you have presented not a shred of evidence that your provably false assertion is one of them. If this claim was true - why hasn't Apple displaced Microsoft ? None of your claims apply in any way, shape or form to MacOSX (which avoids it all by only running on a single pre-approved set of hardware configurations)- and yet it also languishes at below 10% of the market.
>Even when it came pre-installed on netbooks a few years ago people would return them because they wanted an OS they could run their software on.
Which was PROVABLY a marketing failure and NOT a linux failure since the very NEXT year Apple launched the ipad and lots of Android tablets followed - none of which could run windows software and all of which still sell like hotcakes. Netbooks were never laptops, they were tablets with keyboards. The mistake that was made was marketing them as mini-laptops - and this made people expect to be able to use them for everything a laptop could do - they were nowhere near that in ability, hell they weren't even comparable to desktop linux at the time. Tablets looked different and were marketed AS different from the start - and people were quite happy to run phone apps on that. Microsoft has still never managed to achieve any significant inroads in the tablet market (despite being the first company to ever sell one). Had netbooks been marketed in a similar way they may well have taken off - not despite but BECAUSE of Linux. Part of the mistake in marketing was making them LOOK too much like mini laptops. And even if that history HAD been remotely related to Linux except in the most tangential and inconsequential ways (provable by the fact that windows based netbooks failed just as miserably in the market), the reality is that the people were complaining about applications - which is an entirely DIFFERENT issue to the one you raised and I responded to, and thus this STILL wouldn't support your assertion whatsoever.
Now is Linux perfect ? Of course not. If it was, we'd all go do something else. There's lots of ways it could be better. Is the user-experience significantly better for the absolute vast majority of people than the best Windows can offer ? Definitely. And unlike Windows - if you're one of the few people who do run into one of the incredibly rare issues - there is almost always a solution. Where-as if you run into an issue with windows on your hardware, you're basically fucked.
Why would you idiotically develop "for an interface" anyway ? That's the windows way of thinking. In Linux - you develop using standard libraries (there are really only 2 worth considering QT and GTK and QT is much better for most cases) - and you'll get freedesktop.org standards for free and your app will work on ALL the desktops.
Why the hell would you, if you support a small market like Linux, opt to only support a subset of that market when supporting ALL of it would be significantly LESS work ?
The only people who should develop "to an interface" are those who are actually PART of one of the desktop projects. If you're developing a piece of the KDE suite, then you should develop for KDE and using the KDElibs. If you're anybody else you develop generically and get to support everybody. You think the steam client was developed "to an interface" ? Hell even major application suits like LibreOffice are done using generic libraries.
At best, you can anecdotally say it's not ready for YOUR desktop. The experience you describe is extraordinarily rare to the extent that most people who use Linux regularly on the desktop have not seen it AT ALL for over a decade. That's a one in a billion scenario.
Why is Window's BEST case not acceptable as Linux's WORST case ?
So... do what the rest of us do who don't have time to waste - spend 5 minutes BEFORE you buy any hardware to google "device name Linux" and check it's compatibility and if it has any quirks. If it does have quirks (any at all) - buy something else.
The young'uns can spend hours making stuff work - I don't have time for that shit anymore. That's time I could be playing with my daughter or gaming or any of a thousand more things I never have enough time for. But it's so easy to avoid with literally a single 5-minute google search on those occasions where hardware purchases are made.
Windows is not an alternative... it means shit like that on EVERY machine and with EVERY device. I've never yet seen a windows install get to a remotely usable state in under 4 hours, and that's BEFORE you start installing software (because it comes with fuckall included).
So arguably - even if you do have a machine already with such an issue, it's still less work to get it going on Linux (and thus less time) than on windows. Because Linux doesn't make any effort to limit how you use it or for what.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that's more conceivable than with a small government - in which case the special interests simply fill the resulting powergap THEMSELVES and there are no oppostion politicians or elections to constrain their abuses.
Make government small enough and the special interests morph into a bunch of warlords. That's what you find everywhere on earth where government is small. Small government = being kidnapped from your home into forced labour (i.e. slavery) by mad warlords who will hapilly burn everybody you love along the way just to show you who is boss.
There are lots of big government countries with very low corruption rates. There isn't a single small government country NOT overrun by brutal, lawless, murderous warlords committing most of the worst atrocities in the world today. The only thing stopping the richest guy in town from buying himself and army and enslaving you and burning every other town to establish his fiefdom is having a government big enough to scare him.
Accusations of hypocrisy (regardless of whether they are true or not) have absolute no bearing whatsoever nor any shred of influence on the validity of the argument - in other words: they are WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS always an ad hominem fallacy.
They are also invalid in this case as Musk was not actually doing what the GP accused him off. He was complaining about the effective subsidy of not placing a punitive tax on the externalities of fossil fuels. Which is several trillion times more than the total subsidies ever given to any other industry - let alone to renewables.
Only in a bizarro world where there is only ONE provider of product B, and nobody competing with him. We have dozens of competing renewable energy techs - if any of them raise their price to "just below fossil fuels" - the other will instantly undercut it - and so it will have to undercut them - and before you know it they are back at reasonable-margine-above-cost-of-production and the choice between them comes back to being mostly determined by geography.
Actually, I am generally against doing it by the law except as a last resort. Sane people who love freedom usually are.
It's generally much better to just try and convince people to do do the right thing than to make the government FORCE them to do it. Funny how libertarians always agree with me about that... EXCEPT when the issue is paying your taxes.
>t was legally put into the code and law, and there is nothing wrong with you taking advantage of this to keep more of your hard earned money.
Bullshit. LOTS of laws are wrong and evil. Taking advantage of them makes you evil to. It was very wrong when the law made Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus. But if you were one of the white people who took advantage of that to sit in the front while a frail old lady was forced to the back - then YOU were evil as well.
>So, perhaps the govt needs to do what most families do....learn to budget, and be able to figure out what they can afford, and what programs within that budget they can afford to do properly, and say "No" to things that can't be afforded.
Yep...the right always brings up this analogy and think they are being insightful while only proving their complete and utter and absolute ignorance of how money, governments, taxation or budgets work. Literally none of the rules that apply to a household budget are *true* of a government's budget. In most cases the reality is almost the opposite - because a huge chunk of a government's *income* is generated *by* it's expenses, and the correlation is exponential. It's impossible to balance a national budget by cutting expenses, mathematically impossible- because ANY cut in expenses causes a (much) larger cut in income. That's not true of household budgets.
Allow me to demonstrate. let's assume a 10% tax rate for simplicity and that a coke costs a dollar. ... so they actually have only 90c more in the budget. But... they can't tax the person the coke-seller would have spent the money at either, so that's down to 80c... subtract 10c for every transaction that dollar would *ever* have been spent on until they day the banks recalled it. In practise the budget is actually reduced by about 50 dollars.
If I do NOT buy a coke tomorrow, I have an extra dollar in my budget. Simple.
If government does not buy a coke - they have 1 dollar more in the budget. But they also cannot tax the coke-seller for the income on that coke (since he now never made that dollar income it cannot be taxed)
This is why every austerity program the world has attempted since 2008 in every country that tried it CONSISTENTLY made their debts WORSE and simultaneously put huge swaths of people out of work (after removing the safety netts that might otherwise have protected them in the name of cutting expenses) - because it's not just the government who loses income, it's every person whose hands that dollar would ever have passed through. Many of those persons are businesses who respond to having less income by firing people.
And remember only ONE of those people were getting paid "from taxes" - the original coke seller, everybody ELSE was selling in the private market.
The concepts of "income" and "expenses" frankly only make SENSE on an individual scale, beyond that (like at the level of national budgets) they are so utterly senseless as to have no meaning or definitions whatsoever - there's no such thing. Money just moves from one place to another, every transaction is BOTH an expense AND an income (because somebody is receiving the money). And since government's tax incomes - every transaction that happens is money for them, and every transaction that does not happen is money lost.
>But that is not historically what led to the US gaining the strength and economic might that it has (had).
Nope... that would be slavery and the absence of decent labour laws (while I will forever argue is the same thing) for most of it's existence.
>and why you see much of Europe having fiscal woes
Nope. A flagrant lie. Though I suspect one you wrote thinking it's actually true. Most European nations were cash-positive just a few years ago. Their woes are ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY down to investing all that surplus in American banks - which turned out tbe made up entirely of fraudsters who lied to them about the level of risk they were taking on. There's nothing wrong with offering high risk investments - but it's fraud to pretend they are low risk and pay low yields on them to the people who are bearing those yields.
Who do you think was BUYING all those rebranded AAA-securities that the banks had packaged all the NINJA loans into (since they wanted the nice high interest you can charge to high risk lenders but wouldn't accept the high risks of that reward) ? Most of it was bought by European governments. Iceland's entire pension fund was invested in those fun
But everytime somebody proposes a minimum wage that people can live on to correct the "jobs being offered are not very good, and wages are stagnant" problem we're told that this would instantly trigger the automation of all those jobs as well.
The problem is real - and it's only being held at bay by keeping wages so depressed that people *with* jobs are still needing welfare - basically by having taxpayers supplement each other's incomes !
That's silly by every measurement - so bugger raising the minimum wage, scrap it entirely and institute a wage-floor with UBI instead. You get a much more comprehensive way to solve the same problem than the half-arsed hackjob being used right now, with none of the massive downsides, none of the protests and unrest it causes and it costs a LOT less.
We're headed to a world where the only marketable skills will be business-owner, robot-programmer or robotics engineer. So be it, but if the business owners want anybody to be able to buy the things their fully automated businesses produce, we will need some other way for the rest of the population to earn a living.
Eeeep wrong.
Actually I'm a Sander's supporter. Hillary gets "lesser of two evils" status at best with me.
I still don't believe claims without evidence though - even about evil people. It's called healthy scepticism.
As for being crude ... throughout my 3 decades plus on this planet I always had a deep and abiding love for the sweet and unappreciated poetry of profanity, if that offends you - well fuck you too.
The problem is that the most frightening thing about Trump is the possibility that he actually will keep his promises.
Not a word in there is half as crazy as trump's ideas. As evidenced by the fact that they are absolutely possible. Proven possible by the fact that it has happened before.
Here's the reality you're overlooking:
Domestically:
The next president however will likely get to appoint at least one and probably 2 supreme court justices, and gets free reign to appoint the heads of every government agency. That is substantial power right there. Just wait to see Trump replace the heads of every single regulatory agency with a puppet of the rich to ensure no corporation is ever again impeded from causing misery, mayhem and death for profit or even forced to spend any money to take reasonable precautions against calamitous events. Look forward to a supreme court where we won't be JOKING about the corporation always winning - it will simply be par for the course that the constitution be interpreted as meaning whatever the wealthier of the parties want it to say.
Foreign policy:
Let's assume that congress will block and overrule the veto to prevent Trump and the insane clown posse he would appoint as his secretaries from declaring war on every country that made fun o his hair. That's not much of a guarantee I'm afraid. It's ridiculously easy to start a war *against* the wishes of your own government - all you have to do is pressure the other country up to the point where they feel compelled to declare war on *you* at which point your government kind of has to fall in line. History is full of examples of that. A notable one was Britain circa 1897. The liberal government of the day opposed Rhodes's expansionist views and definitely didn't want another war. Cecil John Rhodes (genocidal madman) and his governmental puppet Lord Alfred Milner (governor of the British Cape Colony) wanted to take the boer republics by force, but parliament was adamantly against it. Under advice from colonial secretary Joseph Chamberlain they hatched a plan around that, making increasing insane demands of the boers until eventually - under extreme duress the Boer republics declared war on the British empire. A declaration that, in terms of military comparability was roughly on par with Kenya declaring war on the United States today. They didn't want a war, they were just pressured into believing one was absolutely inevitable and they had best try to strike first. Once war was declared UPON the British government, they kind of had no choice but to fight the war.
Do you think Trump would be above such tactics ? I sure don't. Hell, he's quite insane enough that, when the impossibility of actually building his wall comes home to roost he would blame it on the Mexican government and appease his supporters by causing a second Mexican-American war. The man has no respect for human life, and no qualms whatsoever about wasting millions of them to protect his own interests.
>We need an outsider. Not a puppet of the oligarchy.
That of course is an argument *against* Trump in reality. Seeing as he IS the oligarchy. Literally the only thing WORSE than a puppet of the oligarchy getting the white house is a MEMBER of the oligarchy getting it.
Slashdot user silentcoder claims he easily and repeatedly convinced actress Jennifer Connolly to let him ejaculate on her face.
Since apparently claims without evidence count as facts now, can I expect fox news to carry THAT story too ?
People dont pay to watch. Other companies pay to show ads to people watchng and the streamers get a share. The main reason to watch is in order to learn ways to play better yourself. Almost nobody plays KSP well who has not watched a bunch of Scott Manley videos.
Personally for most games I prefer written guides as you can read while you play and keep synched with your progress but many prefer seeing where to look for the secret door they got frustrated looking for in Morrowind.
That would be "want to" not "have to".
There isn't a single desktop Linux distribution that doesn't fully support GTK and QT, and in fact I don't believe there are any active desktop environments which are not written USING one of those two.
QT is also incredibly popular with developers of various commercial applications because it works on damn near everything - you can use it write apps for Windows, Mac, Linux, IOS and Android. We were talking about graphical applications - and with QT or GTK you CAN support everybody who isn't running a headless server.
So the command line has nothing to do with the discussion, that's another accusation that's twenty years out of date. Ironically - Microsoft is working really hard to make the commandline on Windows actually useable. First there was powershell, now they brag that you can use bash on Windows. They are even making it possible to ssh to a windows machine and get a bash or powershel prompt.
Funny how the commandline you are so contemptuous off (quite irrelevant since we are talking about GUI development and *I* only mentioned GUI libraries) seems to be one of the features Microsoft (after years of scoffing) is now most desperate to catch up on !
A note on steam: PlayOnLinux supports steam exceptionally well - so a lot of the games without native steam support still works extremely well under wine and PoL makes installing them an absolute breeze, self-contained in their own jails - with almost no user-skill required. It actually prefers steam installs where available. I played the entire elder scrolls series on Linux and the only one that wasn't in wine was Morrowind where OpenMW works way better and is native
(I'm actually busy playing a Spellsword in OpenMW right now).
>Surely some of the latest and greatest games aren't available on Linux.
Yes, "Some of" being the operative word, which is a great progress from the state quite recently where it was "none off" and things like UK2K4 shipping with native Linux support on day one was hugely anomalous. That said the catalog is growing very rapidly and there is certainly a lot there.
>Honestly --- if you have the need or desire to play those games --- go ahead and run Windows.
Actually, I would advise people who really want those titles to rather get a console and still run Linux on their PCs. I did that until recently. Sold my xbox one three months ago since steam gave me all the games I wanted on my PC and with a Link+Controller I can even play them in my living room.
> It's a matter of choice, but it is not a matter of Linux being inadequate.
I completely agree. Saying you don't like something is fine, but that doesn't mean it's worse in general - and making up non-existent failures to justify it just means you're either trolling or you have a personal axe to grind. I would argue that for the vast majority of users BeOS was better than Windows and, at the time, better than Linux as well. The ability to play an MP3 while browsing the web AND burn a CD without making a coaster was something nothing else at the time could match. As passionate as I am about Linux, as much as I prefer free and open source software in all but gaming (because I don't consider games to be software at all - they are art and not subject to the same ethical constraints) - I won't pretend that BeOS was not technically a far superior desktop OS in 2002 than Linux was in 2002. Linux today is much better and I am prepared to bet that had BeOS survived Linux would today be better than BeOS today - but I don't have to make up non-existent failures in BeOS to try and convince myself it didn't once hold the position as the best desktop OS in the world. I would even concede that my optimism that Linux today would beat a modern BeOS may not be justified and there's a chance the mere existence of BeOS would have stagnated Linux desktop development to the point where it never caught up. Unlikely but possible.
>There are thousands of highly specialised applications on Windows.
Very few of which are used on home desktops and most of which DO have Linux alternatives. There are areas where things are more problematic, but those are rare cases. A good example is accounting software. Many attempts at accounting programs have been made in the open source world, most fizzled - because accounting software needs more than good programmers, it requires lawyers and lawyers that are willing to provide expertise for free are rare.
>Some people are still on XP because Microsoft cut them loose and they can't run applications and devices their organisations depend pm on the newer Windows.
Most of these people are prime candidates for Linux migrations - seeing as wine is compatible with significantly MORE pre-Vista windows apps than any Windows version since Vista. I.E. There are more of them who could run those apps successfully under wine then there are who cannot.
>How is something that isn't compatible at all going to do?
Another complete fabrication. You really don't seem to think reality needs to influence arguments do you ?
>The facts are still that despite Microsoft's repeated incompetence Linux is nowhere.
Nobody dispute that, but NONE of the reasons you cited have anything to do with that fact, they can't - on account of they are not true and haven't been true for well over a decade. I am not saying there are no VALID reasons for that, I'm not even saying SOME of those reasons are NOT things Linux should do better/differently - but your arguments are definitely NOT among the real reasons. Only things that are true in reality can cause things. Those arguments were valid once, up until about 2003-2005 or so they had actual legitimacy, but we have invested millions of man-hours into addressing them and not only did we close the gap with windows on these things - we hugely surpassed it.
You won't get anywhere telling us to go back continue investing in an area where we are already millions of miles ahead of the competition - we would rather keep working on the areas where we are, in fact, behind. Backwards compatibility and hardware support are nowhere on that list.
That statement is false.
This is a true version:" your current software will not run natively but barring a few highly specialized programs you probably do not use there are better alternatives. If you do use one of those the odds are well over 99% that wine supports it and playonlinux will almost always include an automated installer. If you are into gaming get steam which runs natively and has a larger gaming catalog for linux than xbox and ps4 combined. Your hardware will probably work out of the box and far more easily than under windows. If you do happen to have one of the few devices that need manual intervention ill be happy to spend 5 minutes googling and helping you apply them which will at worst be on par with the default way windows treats all hardware. Worst case scenario you have one device where it will be like all devices are under windows instead of infinitely better"
>The lack of Linux uptake means it's provably true since an OS that was suitable for use by the majority would have killed Windows by now
Your claim had fuckall to do with Linux's suitability, you made a claim about it's ease of use and hardware handling which is provably FALSE. There are many, many things that could account for it's failure to overtake Windows on the desktop, you have presented not a shred of evidence that your provably false assertion is one of them. If this claim was true - why hasn't Apple displaced Microsoft ? None of your claims apply in any way, shape or form to MacOSX (which avoids it all by only running on a single pre-approved set of hardware configurations)- and yet it also languishes at below 10% of the market.
>Even when it came pre-installed on netbooks a few years ago people would return them because they wanted an OS they could run their software on.
Which was PROVABLY a marketing failure and NOT a linux failure since the very NEXT year Apple launched the ipad and lots of Android tablets followed - none of which could run windows software and all of which still sell like hotcakes. Netbooks were never laptops, they were tablets with keyboards. The mistake that was made was marketing them as mini-laptops - and this made people expect to be able to use them for everything a laptop could do - they were nowhere near that in ability, hell they weren't even comparable to desktop linux at the time. Tablets looked different and were marketed AS different from the start - and people were quite happy to run phone apps on that. Microsoft has still never managed to achieve any significant inroads in the tablet market (despite being the first company to ever sell one). Had netbooks been marketed in a similar way they may well have taken off - not despite but BECAUSE of Linux. Part of the mistake in marketing was making them LOOK too much like mini laptops. And even if that history HAD been remotely related to Linux except in the most tangential and inconsequential ways (provable by the fact that windows based netbooks failed just as miserably in the market), the reality is that the people were complaining about applications - which is an entirely DIFFERENT issue to the one you raised and I responded to, and thus this STILL wouldn't support your assertion whatsoever.
Now is Linux perfect ? Of course not. If it was, we'd all go do something else. There's lots of ways it could be better.
Is the user-experience significantly better for the absolute vast majority of people than the best Windows can offer ? Definitely. And unlike Windows - if you're one of the few people who do run into one of the incredibly rare issues - there is almost always a solution. Where-as if you run into an issue with windows on your hardware, you're basically fucked.
Why would you idiotically develop "for an interface" anyway ?
That's the windows way of thinking. In Linux - you develop using standard libraries (there are really only 2 worth considering QT and GTK and QT is much better for most cases) - and you'll get freedesktop.org standards for free and your app will work on ALL the desktops.
Why the hell would you, if you support a small market like Linux, opt to only support a subset of that market when supporting ALL of it would be significantly LESS work ?
The only people who should develop "to an interface" are those who are actually PART of one of the desktop projects. If you're developing a piece of the KDE suite, then you should develop for KDE and using the KDElibs. If you're anybody else you develop generically and get to support everybody. You think the steam client was developed "to an interface" ? Hell even major application suits like LibreOffice are done using generic libraries.
Because your given reason why is provably false !
At best, you can anecdotally say it's not ready for YOUR desktop. The experience you describe is extraordinarily rare to the extent that most people who use Linux regularly on the desktop have not seen it AT ALL for over a decade.
That's a one in a billion scenario.
Why is Window's BEST case not acceptable as Linux's WORST case ?
You should really post as AC when trolling...amateur...
So... do what the rest of us do who don't have time to waste - spend 5 minutes BEFORE you buy any hardware to google "device name Linux" and check it's compatibility and if it has any quirks. If it does have quirks (any at all) - buy something else.
The young'uns can spend hours making stuff work - I don't have time for that shit anymore. That's time I could be playing with my daughter or gaming or any of a thousand more things I never have enough time for. But it's so easy to avoid with literally a single 5-minute google search on those occasions where hardware purchases are made.
Windows is not an alternative... it means shit like that on EVERY machine and with EVERY device. I've never yet seen a windows install get to a remotely usable state in under 4 hours, and that's BEFORE you start installing software (because it comes with fuckall included).
So arguably - even if you do have a machine already with such an issue, it's still less work to get it going on Linux (and thus less time) than on windows. Because Linux doesn't make any effort to limit how you use it or for what.