Not necessarily. Some Bernie supporters (probably a small minority) *have* threatened to vote for Trump.
However, I can see a lot of them turning out to vote, but for Stein or some other 3rd party candidate, instead. Or they might just write-in Bernie's name.
And the Democratic Party wonders why Bernie supporters are refusing to do as they're told and get behind Hillary, and why some are threatening to vote for Trump.
You haven't been paying attention then. Linux has had all kinds of vulnerabilities over the years. You've never heard of a "rootkit"?
According to another poster here, this particular vulnerability wasn't with Linux anyway, but the router's webserver, but back to your point, there have been many successful attacks on Linux machines. However, they've all been for network-facing servers. Exploits have been found, for instance, in Apache webservers (commonly used on LAMP-stack servers), PHP, and various low-level network services on Linux servers.
Usually, when people talk about Linux being impervious to attacks in comparison to Windows, they're talking about desktop machines. You don't run an internet-facing Apache server on a desktop Linux box, in fact you generally only connect behind a firewall router, or if not (public Wi-Fi, though that certainly has some kind of firewall router that restricts which services can pass through), you normally don't have many network-facing services running, probably just openssh, if that. It's nothing at all like Windows where an infected email can help someone hack into your system, or automatically install a botnet. Or a webpage that can do the same.
There's been no shortage of security vulnerabilities for various parts of Linux systems. The key is that these are public knowledge, are usually fixed quickly, and the fixes pushed out very quickly. And also that really stupid vulnerabilities affecting desktop systems generally don't exist (like with email). But one weakness that Linux-based systems do have is where some vendor uses Linux because it's free and easy to find semi-competent help to implement, but then they don't bother to keep up on the security fixes and push those out to customers. The vulnerabilities are all publicly disclosed (unlike typical proprietary vendors that try to keep them secret), so if a vendor doesn't take advantage of the fixes and push them out, their customers then become vulnerable.
I'll go farther than that: I think it's a terrible idea. Especially for the reasons you stated (lack of male role model for boys, and also girls to show them how a good father is supposed to be). I was raised by a single mother, and it was not a good experience, mainly because of loneliness. With only a single parent, who works, a child is going to end up being alone for a huge amount of time, and I don't see how anyone can think that's a good way to grow up. It's better than suffering through abuse I guess, but it's definitely not even close to an ideal family situation. So personally, I'm completely against the idea of career women having kids by themselves; I think they're being totally selfish and not thinking of the child.
And with the African-American communities you mention, I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't working out too well there either.
Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted polyamorous lifestyles, with groups of 3-6 adults raising kids communally. It'd be a lot more like the way we used to live before we invented monogamy. Having more responsible adults around to provide resources for the group and the help raise the kids can only be a good thing.
I disagree. In fact, $36k sounds really low to me; I've heard of much higher numbers from people who really weren't *that* well-off. Americans spend an absurd amount of money on weddings.
Just because the magazine reporting that number caters to big spenders doesn't mean their data is faulty. Where'd they get that number? Presumably they're reporting the average cost of weddings nationwide of all people, not just their readers.
Interesting that the only two non-"female" shows where women rated it higher than the men were Planet Earth and Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey.
I wish I could find a girlfriend that like to watch those shows.
But as you can see from the voting numbers, the women who like shows like that, and shows like BSG and Star Trek, and a minority of women. Most women want to watch dreck like Real Housewives or Long Island Medium.
Actually, the 2003 Battlestar Galactica was hugely popular with women as I remember (at least compared to other sci-fi shows). My then-wife absolutely loved it.
Women tend to like shows with a lot of human drama and character development, and BSG had that stuff in spades.
That's probably why Game of Thrones seems to be universally popular too. Tons of human drama and character development, plus lots of battles, swords, etc.
They're probably not "going out of their way". They're probably sitting in bed with their SO watching this crap, but the man has his laptop computer with him so he doesn't have to focus all his attention on the crappy TV show. It's not hard for him to type in a nasty review while he's watching the show.
What's weird, though, is that after many years of not finding a guy to settle down with who meets her expectations, when a woman hits 40 these days and is still never-married, she'll go out and get fertility treatments and a sperm donation from a clinic so she can be pregnant and then put up with raising the kid all by herself even though it's a huge hassle without a partner. I see it all the time; the number of never-married women at ~40 years old in these east coast cities is simply astounding.
If there were a large market of such women, then we probably wouldn't be seeing so many men complaining about having to settle for women who badger them into watching crappy shows like The Bachelor. Men would just dump these women and find ones that liked having sex with them and watching shows the men liked.
Of the shows that I like that my wife does not it is usually war movies like Midway and documentaries.
Yeah, I wish I could find a girlfriend who liked watching documentaries, especially ones about science, space, and nature. Women seem to really hate those for some reason. There's even a question on OKCupid about it, and lots of women answer it in the negative.
He probably did, and all his alternatives were shot down, no matter how good they would have been.
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me. American women these days have to have everything their way or the highway. There's a reason east coast cities are chock full of 40-something women who have never been married and are still looking.
How on earth is Star Trek (the TV show) "male targeted"? "The Shield", sure, I'll agree with that, but not Star Trek. Star Trek is a fairly intellectual show that explores social themes with sci-fi; it's perfect for both women and men. Obviously, the 60s show is a product of its time with the miniskirts, but the 80s-90s TNG did away with that and did even better with both exploring social themes and also having a bunch of episodes that were nothing more than character development and drama. Just look at any episode with Lwaxana Troi (ugh).
Honestly, Star Trek was a great show for men and women to watch together because it had elements for both. Of course, it required that a woman be intelligent, and not a vapid moron who wants to watch "The Bachelor" or worse "The Bachelorette".
That's the Gamergate I remember, at best it was one lying manipulating group of feminists against a lying manipulating group of men - but those men only showed up in response to attacks by feminists, they didn't start it off.
Thanks for the synopsis. Gamergate has always confused me, and this seems to be the most unbiased synopsis of it that I've seen. I guess it confused me because both sides in it seem to be a bunch of jerks, so I didn't know who to believe. If both sides are lying, manipulative jerks, that explains it.
And if a woman is "forced" to watch anything or forced to prepare food for the husband and friends, perhaps she needs to be in a different relationship with a different kind of guy. I've been married 39 years now, and never forced my better half into anything.
Most women are not "forced" to watch stuff they don't want. That was BronsCon's point. In most married couples, the man is like you: he doesn't force his will onto his wife. We've been taught by society to not do that kind of crap, because that kind of thing used to be commonplace ages ago (and still is in some backwards cultures). But the same isn't true for women: they routinely badger their husbands into watching and doing things they don't enjoy, like watching Hallmark movies, going to church, etc. Men do it because after too many years of being single and sex-less, they reason that this is what they have to put up with if they don't want to be alone and only have the company of porn videos at night.
As a society, we've put a lot of effort over the past century into teaching our boys not to be ogres and to treat women respectfully and as equals. However, while we've mostly stopped teaching our girls crap like being submissive and that "a woman's place is in the home", we seem to have overlooked teaching them useful things about how they should behave in relationships to actually achieve the equality we aspire to. (And also, IMO, how to pick decent guys to date.)
I think it depends. Costco and similar places are popular here, so there are plenty of people who do like to buy in bulk to save money, and with large suburban houses they have room to store, for instance, gigantic packages of toilet paper. Not everyone does this though, especially people in small inner-city apartments. There's a pretty big divide between rural and urban here, and also suburban. For rural and suburban people, I think they tend to buy larger packages more often to save money and avoid needing to make so many shopping trips.
There's probably a good reason for keeping ground coffee in smaller packages: staleness. This doesn't apply to sugar. I imagine (I'm not a coffee drinker) that big packages at Costco probably have one big box with multiple small sealed packages inside to avoid this problem.
There's a difference between buying a stake in a company and buying out the whole company. Ford bought a stake in Mazda a while back, and co-developed some vehicles and platforms with them; they no longer have any ownership now however and the two are completely separate. This is rather different from one company completely buying out another company and merging them together (or just killing off the acquisition).
We need to invent a machine that lets us look into parallel universes, and then find the one where that's what happened to BillG, and see how it turned out. It's probably a much better world than the one we live in.
Yep. The video games back then were a lot more fun too. And the movies as well. And music.
These days, we're just making crappy rehashed versions of stuff from the 80s, such as the upcoming Ghostbusters movie. And technology has gotten boring too, because it's all about advertising and marketing rather than making cool stuff.
I haven't bothered to look into Backblaze and exactly how they work, but if your business is all about providing the cheapest mass storage possible by using cheap drives in big RAID arrays, most likely the double-priced drive is a worse deal because it costs twice as much, and the extra performance isn't that important to you. In a massive array, it's going to get replaced when it dies, so you're not worried about risk because redundancy handles that. Plus the extra power consumption is going to cost you. So even if it only lasts exactly half as long, the cheaper drive is still a better deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. Some Bernie supporters (probably a small minority) *have* threatened to vote for Trump.
However, I can see a lot of them turning out to vote, but for Stein or some other 3rd party candidate, instead. Or they might just write-in Bernie's name.
How much is Hillary's PAC paying you to post this?
And the Democratic Party wonders why Bernie supporters are refusing to do as they're told and get behind Hillary, and why some are threatening to vote for Trump.
You haven't been paying attention then. Linux has had all kinds of vulnerabilities over the years. You've never heard of a "rootkit"?
According to another poster here, this particular vulnerability wasn't with Linux anyway, but the router's webserver, but back to your point, there have been many successful attacks on Linux machines. However, they've all been for network-facing servers. Exploits have been found, for instance, in Apache webservers (commonly used on LAMP-stack servers), PHP, and various low-level network services on Linux servers.
Usually, when people talk about Linux being impervious to attacks in comparison to Windows, they're talking about desktop machines. You don't run an internet-facing Apache server on a desktop Linux box, in fact you generally only connect behind a firewall router, or if not (public Wi-Fi, though that certainly has some kind of firewall router that restricts which services can pass through), you normally don't have many network-facing services running, probably just openssh, if that. It's nothing at all like Windows where an infected email can help someone hack into your system, or automatically install a botnet. Or a webpage that can do the same.
There's been no shortage of security vulnerabilities for various parts of Linux systems. The key is that these are public knowledge, are usually fixed quickly, and the fixes pushed out very quickly. And also that really stupid vulnerabilities affecting desktop systems generally don't exist (like with email). But one weakness that Linux-based systems do have is where some vendor uses Linux because it's free and easy to find semi-competent help to implement, but then they don't bother to keep up on the security fixes and push those out to customers. The vulnerabilities are all publicly disclosed (unlike typical proprietary vendors that try to keep them secret), so if a vendor doesn't take advantage of the fixes and push them out, their customers then become vulnerable.
I don't get it: what's with the references to Scotland? Is it full of nerdy women or something? If so, maybe I need to look for a job there....
I'll go farther than that: I think it's a terrible idea. Especially for the reasons you stated (lack of male role model for boys, and also girls to show them how a good father is supposed to be). I was raised by a single mother, and it was not a good experience, mainly because of loneliness. With only a single parent, who works, a child is going to end up being alone for a huge amount of time, and I don't see how anyone can think that's a good way to grow up. It's better than suffering through abuse I guess, but it's definitely not even close to an ideal family situation. So personally, I'm completely against the idea of career women having kids by themselves; I think they're being totally selfish and not thinking of the child.
And with the African-American communities you mention, I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't working out too well there either.
Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted polyamorous lifestyles, with groups of 3-6 adults raising kids communally. It'd be a lot more like the way we used to live before we invented monogamy. Having more responsible adults around to provide resources for the group and the help raise the kids can only be a good thing.
I disagree. In fact, $36k sounds really low to me; I've heard of much higher numbers from people who really weren't *that* well-off. Americans spend an absurd amount of money on weddings.
Just because the magazine reporting that number caters to big spenders doesn't mean their data is faulty. Where'd they get that number? Presumably they're reporting the average cost of weddings nationwide of all people, not just their readers.
Interesting that the only two non-"female" shows where women rated it higher than the men were Planet Earth and Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey.
I wish I could find a girlfriend that like to watch those shows.
But as you can see from the voting numbers, the women who like shows like that, and shows like BSG and Star Trek, and a minority of women. Most women want to watch dreck like Real Housewives or Long Island Medium.
Actually, the 2003 Battlestar Galactica was hugely popular with women as I remember (at least compared to other sci-fi shows). My then-wife absolutely loved it.
Women tend to like shows with a lot of human drama and character development, and BSG had that stuff in spades.
That's probably why Game of Thrones seems to be universally popular too. Tons of human drama and character development, plus lots of battles, swords, etc.
They're probably not "going out of their way". They're probably sitting in bed with their SO watching this crap, but the man has his laptop computer with him so he doesn't have to focus all his attention on the crappy TV show. It's not hard for him to type in a nasty review while he's watching the show.
What's weird, though, is that after many years of not finding a guy to settle down with who meets her expectations, when a woman hits 40 these days and is still never-married, she'll go out and get fertility treatments and a sperm donation from a clinic so she can be pregnant and then put up with raising the kid all by herself even though it's a huge hassle without a partner. I see it all the time; the number of never-married women at ~40 years old in these east coast cities is simply astounding.
If there were a large market of such women, then we probably wouldn't be seeing so many men complaining about having to settle for women who badger them into watching crappy shows like The Bachelor. Men would just dump these women and find ones that liked having sex with them and watching shows the men liked.
Of the shows that I like that my wife does not it is usually war movies like Midway and documentaries.
Yeah, I wish I could find a girlfriend who liked watching documentaries, especially ones about science, space, and nature. Women seem to really hate those for some reason. There's even a question on OKCupid about it, and lots of women answer it in the negative.
He probably did, and all his alternatives were shot down, no matter how good they would have been.
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me. American women these days have to have everything their way or the highway. There's a reason east coast cities are chock full of 40-something women who have never been married and are still looking.
How on earth is Star Trek (the TV show) "male targeted"? "The Shield", sure, I'll agree with that, but not Star Trek. Star Trek is a fairly intellectual show that explores social themes with sci-fi; it's perfect for both women and men. Obviously, the 60s show is a product of its time with the miniskirts, but the 80s-90s TNG did away with that and did even better with both exploring social themes and also having a bunch of episodes that were nothing more than character development and drama. Just look at any episode with Lwaxana Troi (ugh).
Honestly, Star Trek was a great show for men and women to watch together because it had elements for both. Of course, it required that a woman be intelligent, and not a vapid moron who wants to watch "The Bachelor" or worse "The Bachelorette".
That's the Gamergate I remember, at best it was one lying manipulating group of feminists against a lying manipulating group of men - but those men only showed up in response to attacks by feminists, they didn't start it off.
Thanks for the synopsis. Gamergate has always confused me, and this seems to be the most unbiased synopsis of it that I've seen. I guess it confused me because both sides in it seem to be a bunch of jerks, so I didn't know who to believe. If both sides are lying, manipulative jerks, that explains it.
And if a woman is "forced" to watch anything or forced to prepare food for the husband and friends, perhaps she needs to be in a different relationship with a different kind of guy. I've been married 39 years now, and never forced my better half into anything.
Most women are not "forced" to watch stuff they don't want. That was BronsCon's point. In most married couples, the man is like you: he doesn't force his will onto his wife. We've been taught by society to not do that kind of crap, because that kind of thing used to be commonplace ages ago (and still is in some backwards cultures). But the same isn't true for women: they routinely badger their husbands into watching and doing things they don't enjoy, like watching Hallmark movies, going to church, etc. Men do it because after too many years of being single and sex-less, they reason that this is what they have to put up with if they don't want to be alone and only have the company of porn videos at night.
As a society, we've put a lot of effort over the past century into teaching our boys not to be ogres and to treat women respectfully and as equals. However, while we've mostly stopped teaching our girls crap like being submissive and that "a woman's place is in the home", we seem to have overlooked teaching them useful things about how they should behave in relationships to actually achieve the equality we aspire to. (And also, IMO, how to pick decent guys to date.)
Because they're here screaming about how awful it is. Why are they being so vocal? I'm just responding to them.
I think it depends. Costco and similar places are popular here, so there are plenty of people who do like to buy in bulk to save money, and with large suburban houses they have room to store, for instance, gigantic packages of toilet paper. Not everyone does this though, especially people in small inner-city apartments. There's a pretty big divide between rural and urban here, and also suburban. For rural and suburban people, I think they tend to buy larger packages more often to save money and avoid needing to make so many shopping trips.
There's probably a good reason for keeping ground coffee in smaller packages: staleness. This doesn't apply to sugar. I imagine (I'm not a coffee drinker) that big packages at Costco probably have one big box with multiple small sealed packages inside to avoid this problem.
There's a difference between buying a stake in a company and buying out the whole company. Ford bought a stake in Mazda a while back, and co-developed some vehicles and platforms with them; they no longer have any ownership now however and the two are completely separate. This is rather different from one company completely buying out another company and merging them together (or just killing off the acquisition).
There's Mac OS X/iOS and Linux/Android. The only devices running non-unix-like OSs are genuine windows PCs.
You're forgetting Windows Phones. The 6 people who have them are offended that you've ignored them.
We need to invent a machine that lets us look into parallel universes, and then find the one where that's what happened to BillG, and see how it turned out. It's probably a much better world than the one we live in.
Yep. The video games back then were a lot more fun too. And the movies as well. And music.
These days, we're just making crappy rehashed versions of stuff from the 80s, such as the upcoming Ghostbusters movie. And technology has gotten boring too, because it's all about advertising and marketing rather than making cool stuff.
I haven't bothered to look into Backblaze and exactly how they work, but if your business is all about providing the cheapest mass storage possible by using cheap drives in big RAID arrays, most likely the double-priced drive is a worse deal because it costs twice as much, and the extra performance isn't that important to you. In a massive array, it's going to get replaced when it dies, so you're not worried about risk because redundancy handles that. Plus the extra power consumption is going to cost you. So even if it only lasts exactly half as long, the cheaper drive is still a better deal.
Fine, let them suffer with spyware and adware. Their choice. Not my problem.