There you go, perfect, an alternative platform for alternative facts. So people need to stop claiming that they are being silenced just because they got kicked off of whatever particular platform they got kicked from. They're not being silenced, they're just being told to move. That's a big difference.
Are you suggesting that the many millions of dollars spent on political advertising have absolutely no effect? Like, literally no effect as in not changing a single vote? If that's true, then why do politicians always spend millions of dollars on advertising? Do you really think that 100% of voters are so well-informed and engaged that their opinions are already made up and unchangeable before the ads run?
Go back and look at various polls, and pay special attention to the "undecided" answer, and then try to convince me that ads have no effect.
No, it's not like that. Windows 95 runs on top of DOS. That died with Windows ME. Everything after ME, including XP, is built on NT, not DOS.
The API is not the same either, there are many things to point to in more recent Windows APIs that are not present in Windows 95. The Windows 95 API is, at best, a subset of the current Windows API. Trying to suggest that the OS or API hasn't changed much in the past 23 years is a bit disingenuous.
The most obvious example is the fact that filenames on DOS-based systems are limited to the 8.3 format.
That's an interesting point, I don't think I remember either just being on a command prompt and having the computer crash. Applications would crash, and might require a reboot, but I don't recall DOS itself ever going down in flames.
I find it sad that an OS from 95 offered roughly the same functionality offered today but took much less space. Our tech is degrading.
(And yes, I know about faster internet and better security, that is still not a good enough excuse)
Wait, what? "Faster internet" is a feature of more recent operating systems? And you "know" about this "faster internet?" Haha. Wow, you really know about operating systems, don't you? Better mod you right the hell up.
The only thing that Windows 95 has in common with Windows 7 or 10 is that they both let you install and run programs. Turns out that's a major part of being an operating system.
OK, but if the first time a developer bothers to look at the changelog for the current stable version is when the old version they're using is about to go end-of-life, they might not have their priorities in order. They definitely don't have a reason to whine if the rest of the world has moved on without them.
Some of the PHP code which drives my web sites was written in 2007, and they are still working fine.
Which version of PHP are you running?
those Neanderthal women are really hot!
Yeah, well, I was into Neanderthals before they were popular, but I kind of lost interest. I'm more into Denisovans now, but you probably haven't heard of them.
I hear people say things like that from time to time, but where are the real-world attacks? It seems like it is far more likely for people to get hit by vulnerabilities in PHP applications like Wordpress or Drupal than the language itself.
Right now your argument is nothing more than something that can be produced by a Prolog application that checks a dictionary of dogmatic principles and determines if principle X is part of dogma Y.
In contrast to reality, things are not as black and white. We do not, never have, and never will, live in a completely capitalist society, so spitting out an answer of whether principle X is part of dogma Y ignores the reality in which we live. We have some capitalist principles, we have some socialist principles. We have shown over and over that maximizing liberty is not the single goal of the United States (see USA PATRIOT Act). Therefore, rejecting a principle which has obvious benefits to major parts of society, and which we have previously agreed we needed, just because it does not maximize liberty for the relatively small percentage of people who own a business, is a terrible argument.
I'm not comparing Venezuela with anything, I didn't bring Venezuela into this conversation. There are plenty of socialist policies that work fine. We can look at failed systems like Venezuela and find cautionary tales, but it's not accurate to say that any socialist policies are going to inevitably fail like theirs did.
A heaping dose of socialism in the US would cause major problems for a lot of people. It would be a lot better to augment the existing socialist policies that we already have with new ones that have been shown to be effective around the world and stem a major backlash against capitalism when the baby boomers die and the voting demographic changes to people who think they might not be served by the current system.
Ah. We have a minimum wage because it was prophesied by Jefferson. I didn't realize that, I appreciate the history lesson.
Was it a good things just because it was done for some reasons — many of them "historical"?
I'm not saying it is good because it is historical. I'm saying there are reasons why people did things, and if we forget the reasons then it might be possible that we might repeat the same mistakes. I think some smart person said something about that at some point.
So, really, if you want to argue that a minimum wage is bad then we need to look at the history about why we have one, what problems it was supposed to solve, etc. Just being an ideologue and saying "minimum wage is bad because it's not capitalist" misses the point of why we collectively decided we needed one. If you want to talk about why it's bad then let's talk about the reason we have one and what other solutions could be used to solve those problems.
Minimum wage, tovarysh Toshnilovka, is a Socialism invention. There should simply be no such thing.
Feel free to complete the thought.
Why does a minimum wage exist? If we never needed one, then why do we have one?
If people thought that minimum wage was a solution to a problem, what is that problem that it was trying to solve? Why did that problem exist in the first place? If minimum wage is not the solution to that problem, then what is the solution?
I mean, these things don't happen in a vacuum. There are historical reasons why we did things. If you want to argue against something then you need to at least take the historical context into account in your explanation for why we should or should not do something.
There have to be consequences for peoples' actions.
Exactly. It's your dumbass fault for being born with a permanent disease or disability, now you have to live with the consequences of being born. Better learn to talk fast so you can negotiate for medical insurance, because that medication you need is priced to the absolute maximum that the top of the economy will bear.
When you have a huge segment of the population, possibly even a majority, where the system does not work for them, obviously they're going to want a change. The solution is to make sure the system works for the vast majority of people. There are a lot of people who have no money of their own to spend, the only option is to spend other peoples' money.
This is why things like universal healthcare and free public education are as popular as they are, and will get more popular until they become law. Right now we're telling students that they need to take on huge debt in order to get an education to fill jobs which are requirements for the prosperity of the US. Jobs like engineers, doctors, etc. These jobs are required if we're going to remain competitive in the world. But, if people want to do those jobs, which will help the country, then unless they were born into money (and they get to spend their parents' money), the only option is huge debt. We also tell most of our workforce that they can choose to either be healthy or not go bankrupt. A for-profit healthcare system is not only morally wrong, but it's completely counter to a long-term goal of prosperity of the US, because the US only prospers if our workforce is healthy and the for-profit healthcare industry has driven costs far beyond what many people can bear.
Naturally, the solutions to these problems are universal healthcare, which has major opposition from insurance and drug companies who stand to lose a lot of money, and free public education at any level. The long-term gains for these programs should be obvious and are not counter to capitalist principles. In fact, free public education will result in a highly skilled workforce which will boost the economy more than anything else we could do. Skilled people will be graduating who will want to start companies and use their knowledge to help propel themselves and, by extension, the country forward.
And forcing people to choose between being healthy and not being bankrupt, while living in the most wealthy country in the world, is wrong on many levels.
Fact is that the current system does not work for large portions of society. If people want to save capitalism, they need to make it work for the vast majority, not just the top quarter or third. The inevitable result is that, as old people die off and young people enter the voting bloc, they will pass more extreme laws which will cause a huge swing the other direction. Socialism will be the result in the US, possibly followed by collapse, unless capitalists find a way to make the system work for everyone. Free education and healthcare is the most obvious step, and will bring the most obvious long-term benefits to the prosperity of the country. If people want to make America great again, that starts with an educated and healthy workforce.
Slashdot Mirror
There you go, perfect, an alternative platform for alternative facts. So people need to stop claiming that they are being silenced just because they got kicked off of whatever particular platform they got kicked from. They're not being silenced, they're just being told to move. That's a big difference.
Are you suggesting that the many millions of dollars spent on political advertising have absolutely no effect? Like, literally no effect as in not changing a single vote? If that's true, then why do politicians always spend millions of dollars on advertising? Do you really think that 100% of voters are so well-informed and engaged that their opinions are already made up and unchangeable before the ads run?
Go back and look at various polls, and pay special attention to the "undecided" answer, and then try to convince me that ads have no effect.
Right, that's what I was referring to. It does show long names in the GUI, but if you look at the filesystem they're all 8.3.
No, it's not like that. Windows 95 runs on top of DOS. That died with Windows ME. Everything after ME, including XP, is built on NT, not DOS.
The API is not the same either, there are many things to point to in more recent Windows APIs that are not present in Windows 95. The Windows 95 API is, at best, a subset of the current Windows API. Trying to suggest that the OS or API hasn't changed much in the past 23 years is a bit disingenuous.
The most obvious example is the fact that filenames on DOS-based systems are limited to the 8.3 format.
Windows 95 NEVER "ran fine".
Seriously. Windows 95 is probably the single greatest contributor to people asking "well, did you reboot it?" when something isn't working.
I don't recall DOS ever crashing
That's an interesting point, I don't think I remember either just being on a command prompt and having the computer crash. Applications would crash, and might require a reboot, but I don't recall DOS itself ever going down in flames.
I find it sad that an OS from 95 offered roughly the same functionality offered today but took much less space. Our tech is degrading.
(And yes, I know about faster internet and better security, that is still not a good enough excuse)
Wait, what? "Faster internet" is a feature of more recent operating systems? And you "know" about this "faster internet?" Haha. Wow, you really know about operating systems, don't you? Better mod you right the hell up.
The only thing that Windows 95 has in common with Windows 7 or 10 is that they both let you install and run programs. Turns out that's a major part of being an operating system.
3 years is not very long in the scale of things.
OK, but if the first time a developer bothers to look at the changelog for the current stable version is when the old version they're using is about to go end-of-life, they might not have their priorities in order. They definitely don't have a reason to whine if the rest of the world has moved on without them.
Some of the PHP code which drives my web sites was written in 2007, and they are still working fine.
Which version of PHP are you running?
those Neanderthal women are really hot!
Yeah, well, I was into Neanderthals before they were popular, but I kind of lost interest. I'm more into Denisovans now, but you probably haven't heard of them.
Piss off with your spam, Chuck.
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that ignoring errors is a solution.
I hear people say things like that from time to time, but where are the real-world attacks? It seems like it is far more likely for people to get hit by vulnerabilities in PHP applications like Wordpress or Drupal than the language itself.
I really hope this list is not news to any PHP developer. PHP 7 was released Dec 2015.
Yes. So keep that in mind when you're choosing which ISP and which plan. It never hurts to be educated about what you're being sold.
I'm not saying it's good for them to do that or not misleading, I'm just pointing out what ISPs mean when they say unlimited data.
Data at any finite speed is limited within a given amount of time.
The unlimited that they are referring to is the amount of data you can transfer, not the speed at which you can transfer it.
I'm not saying that they don't try to suggest that the speed is unlimited, but that's not the unlimited part.
I'm not a lawyer, ideologue.
Right now your argument is nothing more than something that can be produced by a Prolog application that checks a dictionary of dogmatic principles and determines if principle X is part of dogma Y.
In contrast to reality, things are not as black and white. We do not, never have, and never will, live in a completely capitalist society, so spitting out an answer of whether principle X is part of dogma Y ignores the reality in which we live. We have some capitalist principles, we have some socialist principles. We have shown over and over that maximizing liberty is not the single goal of the United States (see USA PATRIOT Act). Therefore, rejecting a principle which has obvious benefits to major parts of society, and which we have previously agreed we needed, just because it does not maximize liberty for the relatively small percentage of people who own a business, is a terrible argument.
I'm not comparing Venezuela with anything, I didn't bring Venezuela into this conversation. There are plenty of socialist policies that work fine. We can look at failed systems like Venezuela and find cautionary tales, but it's not accurate to say that any socialist policies are going to inevitably fail like theirs did.
A heaping dose of socialism in the US would cause major problems for a lot of people. It would be a lot better to augment the existing socialist policies that we already have with new ones that have been shown to be effective around the world and stem a major backlash against capitalism when the baby boomers die and the voting demographic changes to people who think they might not be served by the current system.
Ah. We have a minimum wage because it was prophesied by Jefferson. I didn't realize that, I appreciate the history lesson.
Was it a good things just because it was done for some reasons — many of them "historical"?
I'm not saying it is good because it is historical. I'm saying there are reasons why people did things, and if we forget the reasons then it might be possible that we might repeat the same mistakes. I think some smart person said something about that at some point.
So, really, if you want to argue that a minimum wage is bad then we need to look at the history about why we have one, what problems it was supposed to solve, etc. Just being an ideologue and saying "minimum wage is bad because it's not capitalist" misses the point of why we collectively decided we needed one. If you want to talk about why it's bad then let's talk about the reason we have one and what other solutions could be used to solve those problems.
Minimum wage, tovarysh Toshnilovka, is a Socialism invention. There should simply be no such thing.
Feel free to complete the thought.
Why does a minimum wage exist? If we never needed one, then why do we have one?
If people thought that minimum wage was a solution to a problem, what is that problem that it was trying to solve? Why did that problem exist in the first place? If minimum wage is not the solution to that problem, then what is the solution?
I mean, these things don't happen in a vacuum. There are historical reasons why we did things. If you want to argue against something then you need to at least take the historical context into account in your explanation for why we should or should not do something.
You understand that not every country with socialist policies is like Venezuela, right? Canada, Japan, and Finland have socialist policies.
So, yeah, the propaganda definitely continues.
The story is also no longer on the front page.
The young always think there is a better way.
Is that how you explain the baby boomers fucking everything up for everyone else after they got theirs?
Your attitude is a big part of the problem. Because YOU PERSONALLY don't see something, it isn't a problem?
Oh, please. This snowball in the US Congress is absolute proof that there is no drought in Australia.
There have to be consequences for peoples' actions.
Exactly. It's your dumbass fault for being born with a permanent disease or disability, now you have to live with the consequences of being born. Better learn to talk fast so you can negotiate for medical insurance, because that medication you need is priced to the absolute maximum that the top of the economy will bear.
When you have a huge segment of the population, possibly even a majority, where the system does not work for them, obviously they're going to want a change. The solution is to make sure the system works for the vast majority of people. There are a lot of people who have no money of their own to spend, the only option is to spend other peoples' money.
This is why things like universal healthcare and free public education are as popular as they are, and will get more popular until they become law. Right now we're telling students that they need to take on huge debt in order to get an education to fill jobs which are requirements for the prosperity of the US. Jobs like engineers, doctors, etc. These jobs are required if we're going to remain competitive in the world. But, if people want to do those jobs, which will help the country, then unless they were born into money (and they get to spend their parents' money), the only option is huge debt. We also tell most of our workforce that they can choose to either be healthy or not go bankrupt. A for-profit healthcare system is not only morally wrong, but it's completely counter to a long-term goal of prosperity of the US, because the US only prospers if our workforce is healthy and the for-profit healthcare industry has driven costs far beyond what many people can bear.
Naturally, the solutions to these problems are universal healthcare, which has major opposition from insurance and drug companies who stand to lose a lot of money, and free public education at any level. The long-term gains for these programs should be obvious and are not counter to capitalist principles. In fact, free public education will result in a highly skilled workforce which will boost the economy more than anything else we could do. Skilled people will be graduating who will want to start companies and use their knowledge to help propel themselves and, by extension, the country forward.
And forcing people to choose between being healthy and not being bankrupt, while living in the most wealthy country in the world, is wrong on many levels.
Fact is that the current system does not work for large portions of society. If people want to save capitalism, they need to make it work for the vast majority, not just the top quarter or third. The inevitable result is that, as old people die off and young people enter the voting bloc, they will pass more extreme laws which will cause a huge swing the other direction. Socialism will be the result in the US, possibly followed by collapse, unless capitalists find a way to make the system work for everyone. Free education and healthcare is the most obvious step, and will bring the most obvious long-term benefits to the prosperity of the country. If people want to make America great again, that starts with an educated and healthy workforce.