What I'd really like to see happen is for the rest of the Sanders supporters to keep at it - not just at the presidential level, but in the Congressional races, and state/local too. Support progressive candidates, and fscking turn out in off years, too. That's how you get taken seriously - make them scared of being primaried, not just for President, but every single one. Politicians aren't born honest, you have to keep them honest, and primaries do exactly that. Look how the Republicans have kept their congresspeople/Senators in check and tied to their agenda. They're all scared sh*tless of being primaried from the Right.
I'm curious as to what you think he was setting out to do.
Politics isn't an absolute win or lose game, and at least from an idealistic perspective, the goal isn't about gaining power, or even necessarily about having a perfectly virtuous leader, so much as it is about getting the right policies put in place. At the end of the day, it's the policies and governance that matter. Sure, a virtuous leader is more likely to enact good policies than an immoral or unethical one, but don't lose sight of the ultimate goal. In the US alone, we've had virtuous leaders take us down a ruinous path, and questionable ones who nonetheless left the country in a better state than they found it.
Did you somehow think Bernie Sanders entered the race with the express intent and goal of taking out Hillary Clinton? If so, you weren't listening to what he said. He's had very specific goals and ideas that he, and many others, did not feel at the start of the primary that Clinton would enough to push, at least not without being pushed. Seeing no other similar candidate (such as Elizabeth Warren) running, he entered the race. He didn't win, but he did manage to get Clinton to adopt many of his ideas. That's not a complete victory, but at this point, he's being entirely rational by concluding that Clinton will move things in the direction he wants them to move, even if not as far as he'd like. This is progress, even if slow. In 4 or 8 years, Sanders, or whomever succeeds him as the standard bearer of the Progressive wing, will be in a better position to achieve those goals.
In other words, he's done exactly what a politician who puts his ideals, beliefs, and goals, ahead of his own personal self-aggrandizement/status/power, rationally would do in his position.
Microsoft continues to amaze and excel as they go to new lengths to make the Windows experience even more excruciatingly intolerable to any user that has the slightest clue what they're doing with a computer. They've outdone themselves this time, but are likely already hard at work at making things even worse in the next update.
Meanwhile, I'm eminently glad that I managed to avoid the Windows 10 Update demand scheduler on my laptop, which still remains comfortably on Windows 7 (for now, at least - I'm sure they're working on that, too).
It's all about setting the terms to make yourself look good.
The question is what makes for a valuable metric. For instance, let's play with the terms a bit more. Has Apple sold more phones than, say, Samsung or Nokia? I'm talking all cellphones, not smartphones. For the sake of argument (and because I don't want to bother digging up the statistics) let's say that Nokia sold more phones, when you include feature/flip/etc cheap-o's. Why is that number less or more relevant? Why include the 2g iPhone, but not those? Basically someone is making a choice of where to draw the line on the category, one way or another. It's a PR/marketing move, so of course Apple wants to do it in a way that puts them in a favorable light. You say apples and oranges, but I say they were comparing Apple sales to Car sales to Album sales. Why is it a bad thing to want to compare fruit to fruit, in that vein?
I mean, to play devil's advocate in another way, McDonald's has sold however many billions of hamburgers, but what does that tell us compared to smartphones?
The biggest problem with the Terrorism threat level was that it didn't convey any useful information. It was a vague, seemingly arbitrary distraction that didn't tell you anything other than maybe how scared the government wanted you to be (really scared or super mega scared) - and even that just faded into the background. Contrast it with the U.S. Military's force protection levels, each of which had very specific and meaningful implications, and which had very high levels that weren't intended to be maintained, only used in very specific instances when the warnings dictated. Alternately, consider the Hurricane scale, which tells you roughly how destructive a storm to expect - useful information based on clear criteria, of which the Terrorism threat level had neither.
This at least seems to be something more on the lines of a post-incident category to tell you how 'bad' it was, and probably has more in common with something like the "cyber kill chain" ( http://cyber.lockheedmartin.co... ) rather than the Terrorism Color Code. Now, this doesn't mean it couldn't be used to overhype (or downplay) a hacking incident, but it at least does seem to be trying to pass along information of some sort.
It's not renting since you're not paying for it. If anything, it's more like a really nosy homeowners' association that is constantly up in your business, keeping tabs on who's coming and going from your house, who's sending you mail, what newspapers you get, how often you're mowing the grass, etc, all the while making up arbitrary changes because it would be against the bylaws for you to paint your door eggshell white instead of eggwhite white. Oh, sure, it's YOUR computer, but if you want to use it, you have to do it by their rules...
I keep thinking that we seem to be inching closer and closer to Shadowrun... but I'm still waiting for the elves, orcs, and the magic to start popping up. Nevermind a dragon running for president.
It's not so much that Christianity is losing its "edge" so much as that it's lost its political influence. Go take a look, there are lots of nutjobs in Christian churches that will talk about how Pokemon is demonic/evil/etc (or Harry Potter, or what have you). The main difference is that these people don't have a direct pipeline to getting laws passed as a result. They used to, back in the old days, but over time they've increasingly lost that power - first the formal link based on direct power, and then later the informal links based on influence.
But don't think for a minute that they don't want that power back.
Just the facts checker here, you cant use blanks on rifle without a blank adapter. Unless the conscript are truly clueless, that does not fly.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Blank adapters are in no way necessary to fire a blank. The mechanics of the rifle (firing pin, primer, etc) all have NOTHING to do with the blank adapter. What you will run into problems with is trying to fire semi-automatic with blanks, without a blank adapter, because the purpose of the blank adapter is to ensure that enough gas pressure exists to operate that mechanism.
To explain another way, the reason an M-16/AR-15/etc can fire in semi-automatic (or burst, or fully automatic) mode is because part of the expanding gases from the round being fired are pushed back through a tube, and reset the firing mechanism. Without a bullet in front of them, the gas pressure heading back wouldn't be enough to reset the firing mechanism. This is what the blank adapter is for - to delay/retard the release of the propellant gases from the muzzle enough that sufficient force goes back to reset the firing mechanism. Without it, you can easily fire, but you'll have to manually chamber the next round and re-cock the firing mechanism, etc.
A better argument is that soldiers would know they're loading blanks, and would likely ask why they're not using blank adapters - but then again, maybe the fact that they're conscripts is why? Their NCOs still ought to know better, even in that case.
Yes.
Torrents are a protocol relating to efficient and distributed file transfer, that in no way is inherently piratical or illegal. There are legitimate uses for the protocol, even if piracy of music and entertainment is a fairly common use, too. Even if these groups got what they wanted, and people weren't allowed to search for "torrent", guess about how long before a new term would come into common use meaning the exact same thing? Hint: not long.
My guess would be something along those lines. That is, the missing information being something like "of the DISA-approved mobile devices, using Apple iPhones provides us with a much more powerful solution."
It does seem like we're missing part of the story here. The hardware isn't the core difference between Apple and the various Android phones, most of them are as capable as any other if you picked up a reasonably recent model. If anything, there are Android phones sporting more memory or faster processors.
The real difference is in the software. It's in the operating system, as well as how it handles applications, and which applications are available for the device. It's also potentially in the enterprise management of such devices, but I don't see that mentioned here either. All of those are software differences primarily.
No, property taxes are not rent. This isn't about payments made, it's about what right I have to do with my stuff.
If I rent an apartment, I know that I don't 'own' it, and don't expect to be able to renovate the kitchen or tear down a wall on a whim. Conversely, I expect my landlord to pay for fixing things that break, not to have to take care of it myself.
If anything, what John Deere is doing is like trying to impose a mandatory HoA agreement, and insisting that if I buy one of their houses, I can only make modifications and repairs according to what their HoA says is okay - except in this case, I don't even have the option of trying to organize my fellow homeowners to make changes in what the HoA allows. Even if I live in an area with no property taxes, I'm still constrained by the HoA which insists I can't paint my door eggshell white, I have to use alabaster white instead (and buy it from their preferred John Deere store).
Considering that a light breeze is all that it seems to take to bring down the Pokemon Go servers, they'd better provide some proof it was actually their doing, I'd say.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that a volatile high stress situation like this, with lots of firearms thrown into the mix, somehow isn't a situation where someone is likely to get shot, one way or another. The GP even noted that it could occur on either side. I'd hate to be a cop in that mix, or a protester, nevermind some poor jerk just trying to go to my regular job.
I'm just glad I'm not anywhere near there, but it sure must suck to be those people.
I get the impression that it's kind of like the Verizon of Japan, except maybe with an even larger market share. I believe they own Sprint in the U.S., too.
In terms of size and coverage, definitely. I haven't heard anything negative about them the way Verizon has a reputation for in the U.S., at least.
And yes, Softbank bought Sprint several years ago.
For one, he's a lot less likely to be in need of anti-discrimination laws. He's not exactly afraid of being fired for being gay. If some bakery refuses to serve him, he can probably just buy the bakery itself outright, or ten others like it. He's probably not worried about being beaten up for being gay because he can hire a massive personal security detail. Money of the kind he's got carries a -LOT- of privileges.
It's probably easier to think of him as someone who politically is rich and libertarian first, and gay only second or third at best.
That, or he just doesn't care, because his money insulates him from any of the negative impacts - and he believes that their policies related to his money are far more important to him. It's a cynical/selfish calculation, but that doesn't make it irrational. Not everyone votes solely based on just one issue.
I knew being poor in America sucked, but I never realized it would mean having Comcast as your only affordable option. Isn't that a human rights violation or something?
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd really like to see happen is for the rest of the Sanders supporters to keep at it - not just at the presidential level, but in the Congressional races, and state/local too. Support progressive candidates, and fscking turn out in off years, too. That's how you get taken seriously - make them scared of being primaried, not just for President, but every single one. Politicians aren't born honest, you have to keep them honest, and primaries do exactly that. Look how the Republicans have kept their congresspeople/Senators in check and tied to their agenda. They're all scared sh*tless of being primaried from the Right.
I'm curious as to what you think he was setting out to do.
Politics isn't an absolute win or lose game, and at least from an idealistic perspective, the goal isn't about gaining power, or even necessarily about having a perfectly virtuous leader, so much as it is about getting the right policies put in place. At the end of the day, it's the policies and governance that matter. Sure, a virtuous leader is more likely to enact good policies than an immoral or unethical one, but don't lose sight of the ultimate goal. In the US alone, we've had virtuous leaders take us down a ruinous path, and questionable ones who nonetheless left the country in a better state than they found it.
Did you somehow think Bernie Sanders entered the race with the express intent and goal of taking out Hillary Clinton? If so, you weren't listening to what he said. He's had very specific goals and ideas that he, and many others, did not feel at the start of the primary that Clinton would enough to push, at least not without being pushed. Seeing no other similar candidate (such as Elizabeth Warren) running, he entered the race. He didn't win, but he did manage to get Clinton to adopt many of his ideas. That's not a complete victory, but at this point, he's being entirely rational by concluding that Clinton will move things in the direction he wants them to move, even if not as far as he'd like. This is progress, even if slow. In 4 or 8 years, Sanders, or whomever succeeds him as the standard bearer of the Progressive wing, will be in a better position to achieve those goals.
In other words, he's done exactly what a politician who puts his ideals, beliefs, and goals, ahead of his own personal self-aggrandizement/status/power, rationally would do in his position.
Microsoft continues to amaze and excel as they go to new lengths to make the Windows experience even more excruciatingly intolerable to any user that has the slightest clue what they're doing with a computer. They've outdone themselves this time, but are likely already hard at work at making things even worse in the next update.
Meanwhile, I'm eminently glad that I managed to avoid the Windows 10 Update demand scheduler on my laptop, which still remains comfortably on Windows 7 (for now, at least - I'm sure they're working on that, too).
It's all about setting the terms to make yourself look good.
The question is what makes for a valuable metric. For instance, let's play with the terms a bit more. Has Apple sold more phones than, say, Samsung or Nokia? I'm talking all cellphones, not smartphones. For the sake of argument (and because I don't want to bother digging up the statistics) let's say that Nokia sold more phones, when you include feature/flip/etc cheap-o's. Why is that number less or more relevant? Why include the 2g iPhone, but not those? Basically someone is making a choice of where to draw the line on the category, one way or another. It's a PR/marketing move, so of course Apple wants to do it in a way that puts them in a favorable light. You say apples and oranges, but I say they were comparing Apple sales to Car sales to Album sales. Why is it a bad thing to want to compare fruit to fruit, in that vein?
I mean, to play devil's advocate in another way, McDonald's has sold however many billions of hamburgers, but what does that tell us compared to smartphones?
Can someone please tell me which one of these candidates is the lesser evil?
Cthulhu.
The biggest problem with the Terrorism threat level was that it didn't convey any useful information. It was a vague, seemingly arbitrary distraction that didn't tell you anything other than maybe how scared the government wanted you to be (really scared or super mega scared) - and even that just faded into the background. Contrast it with the U.S. Military's force protection levels, each of which had very specific and meaningful implications, and which had very high levels that weren't intended to be maintained, only used in very specific instances when the warnings dictated. Alternately, consider the Hurricane scale, which tells you roughly how destructive a storm to expect - useful information based on clear criteria, of which the Terrorism threat level had neither.
This at least seems to be something more on the lines of a post-incident category to tell you how 'bad' it was, and probably has more in common with something like the "cyber kill chain" ( http://cyber.lockheedmartin.co... ) rather than the Terrorism Color Code. Now, this doesn't mean it couldn't be used to overhype (or downplay) a hacking incident, but it at least does seem to be trying to pass along information of some sort.
It's not renting since you're not paying for it. If anything, it's more like a really nosy homeowners' association that is constantly up in your business, keeping tabs on who's coming and going from your house, who's sending you mail, what newspapers you get, how often you're mowing the grass, etc, all the while making up arbitrary changes because it would be against the bylaws for you to paint your door eggshell white instead of eggwhite white. Oh, sure, it's YOUR computer, but if you want to use it, you have to do it by their rules...
They found it in your data caps and overage fees, naturally. Where else would a telecom company go to for cash?
I keep thinking that we seem to be inching closer and closer to Shadowrun... but I'm still waiting for the elves, orcs, and the magic to start popping up. Nevermind a dragon running for president.
It's not so much that Christianity is losing its "edge" so much as that it's lost its political influence. Go take a look, there are lots of nutjobs in Christian churches that will talk about how Pokemon is demonic/evil/etc (or Harry Potter, or what have you). The main difference is that these people don't have a direct pipeline to getting laws passed as a result. They used to, back in the old days, but over time they've increasingly lost that power - first the formal link based on direct power, and then later the informal links based on influence.
But don't think for a minute that they don't want that power back.
Lucky for him he doesn't live in the USA, though, where the major telecom companies probably would've gotten the state legislature to outlaw it.
Just the facts checker here, you cant use blanks on rifle without a blank adapter. Unless the conscript are truly clueless, that does not fly.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Blank adapters are in no way necessary to fire a blank. The mechanics of the rifle (firing pin, primer, etc) all have NOTHING to do with the blank adapter. What you will run into problems with is trying to fire semi-automatic with blanks, without a blank adapter, because the purpose of the blank adapter is to ensure that enough gas pressure exists to operate that mechanism.
To explain another way, the reason an M-16/AR-15/etc can fire in semi-automatic (or burst, or fully automatic) mode is because part of the expanding gases from the round being fired are pushed back through a tube, and reset the firing mechanism. Without a bullet in front of them, the gas pressure heading back wouldn't be enough to reset the firing mechanism. This is what the blank adapter is for - to delay/retard the release of the propellant gases from the muzzle enough that sufficient force goes back to reset the firing mechanism. Without it, you can easily fire, but you'll have to manually chamber the next round and re-cock the firing mechanism, etc.
A better argument is that soldiers would know they're loading blanks, and would likely ask why they're not using blank adapters - but then again, maybe the fact that they're conscripts is why? Their NCOs still ought to know better, even in that case.
Yes.
Torrents are a protocol relating to efficient and distributed file transfer, that in no way is inherently piratical or illegal. There are legitimate uses for the protocol, even if piracy of music and entertainment is a fairly common use, too. Even if these groups got what they wanted, and people weren't allowed to search for "torrent", guess about how long before a new term would come into common use meaning the exact same thing? Hint: not long.
My guess would be something along those lines. That is, the missing information being something like "of the DISA-approved mobile devices, using Apple iPhones provides us with a much more powerful solution."
It does seem like we're missing part of the story here. The hardware isn't the core difference between Apple and the various Android phones, most of them are as capable as any other if you picked up a reasonably recent model. If anything, there are Android phones sporting more memory or faster processors.
The real difference is in the software. It's in the operating system, as well as how it handles applications, and which applications are available for the device. It's also potentially in the enterprise management of such devices, but I don't see that mentioned here either. All of those are software differences primarily.
No, property taxes are not rent. This isn't about payments made, it's about what right I have to do with my stuff.
If I rent an apartment, I know that I don't 'own' it, and don't expect to be able to renovate the kitchen or tear down a wall on a whim. Conversely, I expect my landlord to pay for fixing things that break, not to have to take care of it myself.
If anything, what John Deere is doing is like trying to impose a mandatory HoA agreement, and insisting that if I buy one of their houses, I can only make modifications and repairs according to what their HoA says is okay - except in this case, I don't even have the option of trying to organize my fellow homeowners to make changes in what the HoA allows. Even if I live in an area with no property taxes, I'm still constrained by the HoA which insists I can't paint my door eggshell white, I have to use alabaster white instead (and buy it from their preferred John Deere store).
I'd suggest voting for Cthulhu, but apparently he's dropped out - he can't compete with the level of evil this year.
Considering that a light breeze is all that it seems to take to bring down the Pokemon Go servers, they'd better provide some proof it was actually their doing, I'd say.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that a volatile high stress situation like this, with lots of firearms thrown into the mix, somehow isn't a situation where someone is likely to get shot, one way or another. The GP even noted that it could occur on either side. I'd hate to be a cop in that mix, or a protester, nevermind some poor jerk just trying to go to my regular job.
I'm just glad I'm not anywhere near there, but it sure must suck to be those people.
I get the impression that it's kind of like the Verizon of Japan, except maybe with an even larger market share. I believe they own Sprint in the U.S., too.
In terms of size and coverage, definitely. I haven't heard anything negative about them the way Verizon has a reputation for in the U.S., at least.
And yes, Softbank bought Sprint several years ago.
For one, he's a lot less likely to be in need of anti-discrimination laws. He's not exactly afraid of being fired for being gay. If some bakery refuses to serve him, he can probably just buy the bakery itself outright, or ten others like it. He's probably not worried about being beaten up for being gay because he can hire a massive personal security detail. Money of the kind he's got carries a -LOT- of privileges.
It's probably easier to think of him as someone who politically is rich and libertarian first, and gay only second or third at best.
Better yet, pay attention to which way _your_ representative voted.
If they voted for this, then vote against them - and let them know that. Vote against them in the primaries for someone else, at the very least.
That, or he just doesn't care, because his money insulates him from any of the negative impacts - and he believes that their policies related to his money are far more important to him. It's a cynical/selfish calculation, but that doesn't make it irrational. Not everyone votes solely based on just one issue.
I knew being poor in America sucked, but I never realized it would mean having Comcast as your only affordable option. Isn't that a human rights violation or something?
Banning trucks would only put us at more risk, because the only effective defense against a bad guy with a truck, is a good guy with a truck.