It's a tricky thing. Say you have one weak liberal candidate and ten strong conservative candidates. The conservatives get 1/10 of the votes from conservative voters while the liberal candidate gets all of the votes from liberal voters. The weak candidate wins against ten strong candidates because we didn't political parties. Now we could have more parties, but I think what happens there is that we divvy up the two we have into buckets and what I just described still happens to some extent. How would someone choose which party's ballot to vote for during a primary? If anything, maybe we want to look at giving the people more say directly through electronic voting rather than to rely so heavily on representatives. But where our culture is at this point, perhaps that would be too dangerous.
There is nothing Nazi-esque about Trump's campaign unless your only news sources are those that are agenda driven. His views on the southern border? He wants to uphold the laws we already have. Illegal aliens are here illegally. That's not a new concept. Defending the borders and controlling immigration are among the few things that our federal government was intended to control. Same thing with muslim immigration. He wants a temporary restriction, which is the same exact thing France put in place after the theater and cafe attack. We know that terrorists can blend in with immigrants to get into western nations, and we know there's a problem with immigrants already in western nations turning on their host nations after they're here.
One opinion is we just accept that as a risk of living in a free society, but there's an equally popular opinion that we don't allow that risk into the country in the first place. That doesn't make Trump into Hitler. His talking points represent the views of a significant portion of the population. Uphold our laws, protect our people. We should be happy that we have candidates with such wildly different views because it shows that we still have some semblance of a functioning representative democracy. Referring to half the population as neo-Nazis achieves nothing. That's basically what the other Republican candidates tried to do and it backfired. The people want laws to have meaning and they want to know that the government is trying to keep them safe. It's better to address those wants rather than making more photoshops of Trump being Hitler.
We're not electing a fund raiser. Campaign donations to me are a negative anyway. Those are lot of connected individuals that expect to get something back in exchange.
Police in general are tasked with protecting society and they leverage laws to their advantage to do this task. Enabling Trump is hardly what I would call "protected society".
Laws don't matter and neither does your vote. That's basically what you're suggesting, right?
It's not about the insurers, it's about many of us not wanting to be forced into a system bigger and more corrupt than the VA. If you get screwed over by single payer, you have zero recourse. So then what, we have to have private insurance along with our single payer? I'd rather just have the private insurance and be done with it.
Say what you want about Trump, but if he gets elected it shows that democracy is still alive. He certainly isn't the pick of either parties or any of the lifetime politicos or their corporate masters. We can despise the man but respect the process.
Yet many of the TEA Party protests had many armed individuals and there was no loss of life. The people behind the mass killings are not NRA members. You take away the right to carry, you take away people's right to defend themselves. Gun free zones are shooting galleries for those that don't care much about the law. Schools, movie theaters, clubs.. gun free zones.
They've opened it up to other platforms. Doesn't seem like they're in a hurry to make it obsolete. It could potentially replace Java, especially if Oracle keeps suing people for using it.
I submitted the story, so yea.. I read the links. I added my $0.02 to the linked issue years ago. One does follow the other. They're obviously willing to spend some money in some areas of the product, but unwilling in this case. Those oddles of plugins are what makes Visual Studio desirable. As for drowning kittens, there's a lot of that going around. So many 32-bit kittens, never going to grow up to be 64-bit.
That's really what it feels like. Visual Studio has a lot of powerful built in tools and most enterprise users add in even more. I have a solution with a half dozen projects that can hit the memory wall in a couple days or so. Perhaps it's that the IDE leaks memory badly, in which case 64-bit would let it leak worse. Either way though, it needs to be addressed. Their response was completely lame. They've done great things with C# and C++ lately which means they're putting money into the product, it's bizarre that they're passing on this. I'd take it even if some features were missing and were added back in as updates later on.
If you use Media Center, that's one reason. It's not supported in Win10. If you like being able to control updates, that's not supported in Win10 either. You can choose to "defer" updates, but Windows basically ignores that setting. If you don't want your PC waking up at odd hours of the night to do God knows what, Win10 doesn't support it. Even if you disable wake timers in power management, Win10 still honors some of its own wake timers. You disable those scheduled maintenance tasks, but Windows eventually re-enables them. If you have updates staged and don't have time to let them install, Win10 eventually does it anyway. No way to cancel it once it decides it's time. Doing a software build or some other long running task? Tough. Win10 doesn't care.
Basically, if you want to run Windows apps and still own your PC, you can't install Win10. If you want to transfer ownership of your PC to Redmond, that's the only thing Win10 supports.
Oh and ads in the fucking start menu. What the hell.
It's a shame because Win10 could have been a decent product.
There's no proof that they're "going out of their way". They may be watching the shows but still not value them highly. One thought is they're watching stuff out of boredom.
It's only the same cable if you buy phone/tv/internet from the same company. The fact that they can share the same cable for different services doesn't make them "naturally related". My vacuum cleaner and my refrigerator might plug into the same electrical circuit, but they don't have much in common in the way of functionality or purpose.
Having options other than traditional taxi cabs is eliminating competition? If the extra regulation of taxis is truly worthwhile and desired by the public then it would be impossible for Uber or Lyft to compete with them, right?
How do you rationalize the Affordable Healthcare Act demanding that all citizens purchase health insurance from for-profit insurance companies as being liberal and free whereas the conservatives and libertarians saying that healthcare should be between the individual and their doctor? At least business has some accountability under the law, the government has zero accountability. You can vote the scum out but then the people you vote in to replace them become just as drunk with power as the last administration. I can choose which companies to work for or buy from, I can't do that with the government. You've got one choice and no recourse.
That's like saying one of those radar enabled speed limit signs that shows your current speed encourages people to speed because it flashes if you go fast enough. Ooo, look, I made it flash!
Sounds like they're excited to see their users go somewhere else for video content. People will rip the content from youtube and upload it somewhere else. Ads, ads, everywhere ads. Seems like a missed opportunity for mobile. Why not exempt Android users from the ads and only force them on iPhones? They could market it is another advantage for going with Android.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a tricky thing. Say you have one weak liberal candidate and ten strong conservative candidates. The conservatives get 1/10 of the votes from conservative voters while the liberal candidate gets all of the votes from liberal voters. The weak candidate wins against ten strong candidates because we didn't political parties. Now we could have more parties, but I think what happens there is that we divvy up the two we have into buckets and what I just described still happens to some extent. How would someone choose which party's ballot to vote for during a primary? If anything, maybe we want to look at giving the people more say directly through electronic voting rather than to rely so heavily on representatives. But where our culture is at this point, perhaps that would be too dangerous.
There is nothing Nazi-esque about Trump's campaign unless your only news sources are those that are agenda driven. His views on the southern border? He wants to uphold the laws we already have. Illegal aliens are here illegally. That's not a new concept. Defending the borders and controlling immigration are among the few things that our federal government was intended to control. Same thing with muslim immigration. He wants a temporary restriction, which is the same exact thing France put in place after the theater and cafe attack. We know that terrorists can blend in with immigrants to get into western nations, and we know there's a problem with immigrants already in western nations turning on their host nations after they're here.
One opinion is we just accept that as a risk of living in a free society, but there's an equally popular opinion that we don't allow that risk into the country in the first place. That doesn't make Trump into Hitler. His talking points represent the views of a significant portion of the population. Uphold our laws, protect our people. We should be happy that we have candidates with such wildly different views because it shows that we still have some semblance of a functioning representative democracy. Referring to half the population as neo-Nazis achieves nothing. That's basically what the other Republican candidates tried to do and it backfired. The people want laws to have meaning and they want to know that the government is trying to keep them safe. It's better to address those wants rather than making more photoshops of Trump being Hitler.
We're not electing a fund raiser. Campaign donations to me are a negative anyway. Those are lot of connected individuals that expect to get something back in exchange.
Police in general are tasked with protecting society and they leverage laws to their advantage to do this task. Enabling Trump is hardly what I would call "protected society".
Laws don't matter and neither does your vote. That's basically what you're suggesting, right?
"Respectable dealership" is an oxymoron here in the states.
It's not about the insurers, it's about many of us not wanting to be forced into a system bigger and more corrupt than the VA. If you get screwed over by single payer, you have zero recourse. So then what, we have to have private insurance along with our single payer? I'd rather just have the private insurance and be done with it.
How has hope and change worked out for you?
Say what you want about Trump, but if he gets elected it shows that democracy is still alive. He certainly isn't the pick of either parties or any of the lifetime politicos or their corporate masters. We can despise the man but respect the process.
Yet many of the TEA Party protests had many armed individuals and there was no loss of life. The people behind the mass killings are not NRA members. You take away the right to carry, you take away people's right to defend themselves. Gun free zones are shooting galleries for those that don't care much about the law. Schools, movie theaters, clubs.. gun free zones.
They've opened it up to other platforms. Doesn't seem like they're in a hurry to make it obsolete. It could potentially replace Java, especially if Oracle keeps suing people for using it.
I submitted the story, so yea.. I read the links. I added my $0.02 to the linked issue years ago. One does follow the other. They're obviously willing to spend some money in some areas of the product, but unwilling in this case. Those oddles of plugins are what makes Visual Studio desirable. As for drowning kittens, there's a lot of that going around. So many 32-bit kittens, never going to grow up to be 64-bit.
That's really what it feels like. Visual Studio has a lot of powerful built in tools and most enterprise users add in even more. I have a solution with a half dozen projects that can hit the memory wall in a couple days or so. Perhaps it's that the IDE leaks memory badly, in which case 64-bit would let it leak worse. Either way though, it needs to be addressed. Their response was completely lame. They've done great things with C# and C++ lately which means they're putting money into the product, it's bizarre that they're passing on this. I'd take it even if some features were missing and were added back in as updates later on.
If you use Media Center, that's one reason. It's not supported in Win10. If you like being able to control updates, that's not supported in Win10 either. You can choose to "defer" updates, but Windows basically ignores that setting. If you don't want your PC waking up at odd hours of the night to do God knows what, Win10 doesn't support it. Even if you disable wake timers in power management, Win10 still honors some of its own wake timers. You disable those scheduled maintenance tasks, but Windows eventually re-enables them. If you have updates staged and don't have time to let them install, Win10 eventually does it anyway. No way to cancel it once it decides it's time. Doing a software build or some other long running task? Tough. Win10 doesn't care.
Basically, if you want to run Windows apps and still own your PC, you can't install Win10. If you want to transfer ownership of your PC to Redmond, that's the only thing Win10 supports.
Oh and ads in the fucking start menu. What the hell.
It's a shame because Win10 could have been a decent product.
Internet accomplished!
Weather isn't climate when it doesn't fit the narrative. Weather is climate when it does. Cue the armchair scientists.
Meanwhile, I don't think anyone really gives a crap if it's man made climate change or not. We need to treat the planet better either way.
There's no proof that they're "going out of their way". They may be watching the shows but still not value them highly. One thought is they're watching stuff out of boredom.
I don't take my laptop home.
It's only the same cable if you buy phone/tv/internet from the same company. The fact that they can share the same cable for different services doesn't make them "naturally related". My vacuum cleaner and my refrigerator might plug into the same electrical circuit, but they don't have much in common in the way of functionality or purpose.
Having options other than traditional taxi cabs is eliminating competition? If the extra regulation of taxis is truly worthwhile and desired by the public then it would be impossible for Uber or Lyft to compete with them, right?
How do you rationalize the Affordable Healthcare Act demanding that all citizens purchase health insurance from for-profit insurance companies as being liberal and free whereas the conservatives and libertarians saying that healthcare should be between the individual and their doctor? At least business has some accountability under the law, the government has zero accountability. You can vote the scum out but then the people you vote in to replace them become just as drunk with power as the last administration. I can choose which companies to work for or buy from, I can't do that with the government. You've got one choice and no recourse.
That's like saying one of those radar enabled speed limit signs that shows your current speed encourages people to speed because it flashes if you go fast enough. Ooo, look, I made it flash!
I'd expect that to be laughed out of court.
I'm sure Russia was very impressed by Hillary and her reset button.
This is a gun free zone, please stop with the verbal violence.
Content producers won't put content on a site that has no viewers.
Sounds like they're excited to see their users go somewhere else for video content. People will rip the content from youtube and upload it somewhere else. Ads, ads, everywhere ads. Seems like a missed opportunity for mobile. Why not exempt Android users from the ads and only force them on iPhones? They could market it is another advantage for going with Android.