I'm not breeding any contempt: they've single handedly earned it w/ everything they've done worldwide since 9/11
You're so stuck in your hatred that you cannot even see that I was talking about the contempt you are breeding among Muslims. You're giving them every reason to hate you.
Be an adult and answer my earlier question: Imagine a Muslim in the US. Do you think that if that Muslim read what you just wrote, that it would: a. decrease b. increase the chance of him committing an act of terrorism?
But I did say that people who oppose the ban despite the overwhelming evidence are definitely NOT.
So a soldier who did three tours in Afghanistan, has a purple heart and carries the constitution everywhere, but who opposes the ban is not a patriot? You're making a fool of yourself.
Had he been as patriotic as his son was, he would have been more interested in stopping Jihadi attacks in the US, rather than stopping one of the few things that have some probability of reducing it.
This is fallacious reasoning. You're stating that only people who support a ban on Muslims entering the US can be patriotic. That is bullshit. It is perfectly possible for mr. Khan to be a patriot and not believe that said ban would do anything against terroristic acts (or quite the opposite, even).
You know, you've just proven my point: "The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders." Through indoctrination and fear, you've become incapable of seeing Muslims as people who could ever be part of 'your people', your in-group.
Think about this and think about it well: Imagine a Muslim in the US. Do you think that if that Muslim read what you just wrote, that it would: a. decrease b. increase the chance of him committing an act of terrorism?
That's the thing you are missing. By directing your ire at all Muslims, you are just pouring oil on the fire by making all of them feel less a 'compatriot', less as one of us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to justify terrorism or trying to paint Muslims as some sort of victims. I am saying your and Trump's rhetoric is just estranging and angering all Muslims.
But everybody hid the fact that Khizr Khan actually has an immigration business where he promotes Muslim immigration
The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders.
Consider being an intellectual (or just a sane person in general) living in a country with lots of religious oppression, anti-intellectualism, ridiculous corporal punishments, etc. Given that situation, I'd yearn for a country of freedom and opportunity, where I could be who I wanted to be. Shouldn't Americans then be proud that people yearn for the US as being that country? As vindication of the US and its culture being much more advanced than the countries of origin?
I'll readily admit that I don't know mr. Khans motivations, but if I were an intellectual who had 'escaped' such oppression and found my place in the US, I'd probably want the same for others like me and I could imagine striving to make that step easier for them. To simply assume that the guy just wants to keep making money seems utterly shallow.
As for the baby stuff: I'm not a fan of Trump, but when I saw the headlines I immediately knew that it was more media hype than substance. So yeah:/ignore.
Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe.
This is really the only thing I am slightly worried about with Clinton.
The foreign policy of the US in the last couple of decades is definitely not something to be proud of and if she is indeed as hawkish as they say, more of that would be a bad thing. I'm quite sure she will be much, much more diplomatic than Trump, but even then a lot of damage can be inflicted on the world.
They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.
The transparency doesn't really help, now does it? Given his temperament, the chances for catastrophic escalation of whatever international incident there is are just enormous with this guy. With his thin skin and see-through character, he'll be played like a chump by other world leaders and once he realizes he's being played, he'll be prepared to burn the house down out of spite. You know it's true.
Although I do think the McCain comment was much less incendiary. McCain is still alive and could easily I see a lot of people thinking that soldiers who 'let themselves be captured' are weak. Few people would boast about (someone) being captured, whereas sacrificing yourself for your buddies is undoubtedly heroic.
But your point stands. It was definitely a stupid thing to say unfriendly to the military (especially for a Republican).
I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era
Such an exaggeration. I've thought about this a lot and even though I have always been a Bernie supporter and am quite convinced Hillary isn't going to do much about 'money in politics' and about lobbying in general, the truth is probably that she is just very very status quo and slightly progressive.
Her presidency would probably just be boring same old same old classic Democratic politics; Simply uneventful; Just slow, slow progress. Especially if the House and Senate do not flip to the Democrats and it's another 2 (or 4) years of obstructionism in the legislative branch. In my opinion such a presidency is far from great, but it wouldn't be terrible or unpredictable. Which, I believe is pretty much the Clinton slogan at this point: "Hillary Clinton. Far from great, but you know, not terrible."
I want very much to be a Trump apologist but he is making it really really hard lately.
I really don't get this. I understand being against the status quo and everything, but let's be honest, the guy is a huge asshole and not in the "Visionary CEO" kind of way. The asshole CEOs that get stuff done don't bother with all the petty stuff Trump bothers with. They'll fire someone, tell them to fuck off and walk away, but they're not going to linger in some stupid vendetta with people they deem meaningless or flail around aimlessly pissing off anyone and everyone, enemies and allies alike. Forget about his total lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. He's basically white Kanye West.
Same here. It seems that shortly after he clinched the Republican nomination, his 'gaffes' have become much much worse from a Republican standpoint.
The stuff that was deemed 'outrageous' used to be just mostly outrageous to Democrats. Some racism, some bullying, kind of run of the mill Fox News-level stuff, basically. But after the nomination he almost immediately went after military folk, parents of a dead soldier, even. If you're trying to appeal to Republicans (and Americans in general), that is pretty much the worst thing to do.
The three theories I actually deem plausible (I'm afraid to admit it, but it's true): 1. Trump doesn't want to win the election for some unknown reason: wouldn't like the (pressure of the) job, thinks the White House is a shitty place to live, etc. 2. Trump is still a Democrat, Clinton asked him whether he'd want to help blow up the GOP and gain lots of media attention in the process, and so they proceeded. 3. Trump is just a total narcissistic fuckwit who has no idea what he's doing and thinks that his stream-of-consciousness primary success somehow translates into "All people love me and how I act"
I deem the latter the most probable. The 2nd would be both evil and genius at the same time. It's hard to see how they could have predicted Trump's primary success (nobody else did), though. Also, I still can't believe I'm seriously considering it as plausible. Someone pinch me.
Yes. The expression "They don't make em like they used to" is meant to convey an appreciation of the quality of the products, not their production process.
You know what else isn't made like it used to? News.
A security guy (admittedly someone random on the internet) mentioned the relative ease with which criminals can make their own communications and storage apps (or have them made). Apps which due to their custom nature render trying to strongarm the (now sidelined) 'big guys' into weakening their encryption completely useless.
In fact, the possibilities for any serious criminal network to create their own secure communications channels and data storage are so mindbogglingly vast that the only criminals the current situation is 'letting [...] conduct their business' are pretty obviously small time or just stupid drug dealers. Hardly the type of criminals envisioned when urged to give up the basic human right of privacy.
I agree that the second part of that (fictitious) reply was not very constructive. It is something I would think as such but generally utter in a paraphrased manner.
Do note however that in this hypothetical (but common) situation, the first real aggression comes from the "oh, shut up"-part. People feel personally insulted when you criticize something they like, in this case (the quality of) a movie. Even though I would not be insulting them personally, they would experience it as such and proceed to attack me ("you're a killjoy", "shut up", "just enjoy the movie") for voicing my opinion.
A good blockbuster action flick doesn't need a great story
The quality of a story is not a binary thing. A story is not either great or shit. Action movies indeed do not need a great, thought-provoking story, but if the story is inconsistent or full of plot holes it is shit and should be allowed to be called out as such. People get their panties in a bunch when you dare call movies they liked shit and start attacking you for being a killjoy and start throwing all kinds of straw men at you. Instead, they should just accept that they like shitty low-quality things from time to time, which is fine (and which in areas such as food doesn't seem to spark the same aggression towards critics).
Some of us just need to veg out from time to time with a few rattles and shiny things, plot holes and character development be damned.
There is this concept called 'the suspension of disbelief'. A story with fewer plot holes makes 'vegging out' much, much easier, because there is less disbelief to suspend.
I will even take "Battleship" over yet another god-damned superhero reboot.
The sentiment in the latter I agree with. But you should understand that in a way, you are partly responsible for those. The 'vegging out'-crowd is (still) not only rewarding but being very defensive of ever crappier movies with lots of rattles and shiny things in them. That (lack of) selection pressure is evolving the blockbusters in a certain way.
It really doesn't help that any time you criticize the story, you are so often met with the following classic comment: "Oh, shut up, it's just a movie. I enjoyed it." No, that movie had a shit story which was riddled with plot holes, both of which you failed to become aware of because the filmmakers were shaking rattles and dangling shiny things in front of you.
This survey is obviously not meant for consumers, but for organisations that could actually benefit from 5G. 3.5G (at 21 mbit/s) has been sufficient for consumer purposes for a long time now and this line from the summary is just bullshit: "The EU is asking the public to share their feedback on the manifesto."
We should really be using machine learning to create the ultimate anti telemarketeer chatbot. On the other hand, if there is one set of interactions that would drive AI to want to destroy humanity, it is this one.
Exactly. The writer somehow assumes that 'turn out' is the appropriate verb here, as if (the societies in) these universes somehow evolved into what they are instead of just being conjured up.
You're an idiot if you think that is enough to properly gauge battery life. The battery sensors are not even calibrated at that point.
There are hundreds of screenshots by people easily lasting 3 days with their privs (and that is my personal experience as well). Screen on-time is less and varies, obviously, but it is perfectly reasonable compared to the competition.
1. BBOS is EOL, so that would be a no go on the 'decent phone' front (with security and regular updates being pretty much inexistent). 2. The Passport does not have a slide out physical keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not breeding any contempt: they've single handedly earned it w/ everything they've done worldwide since 9/11
You're so stuck in your hatred that you cannot even see that I was talking about the contempt you are breeding among Muslims. You're giving them every reason to hate you.
Be an adult and answer my earlier question:
Imagine a Muslim in the US. Do you think that if that Muslim read what you just wrote, that it would:
a. decrease
b. increase
the chance of him committing an act of terrorism?
But I did say that people who oppose the ban despite the overwhelming evidence are definitely NOT.
So a soldier who did three tours in Afghanistan, has a purple heart and carries the constitution everywhere, but who opposes the ban is not a patriot?
You're making a fool of yourself.
Had he been as patriotic as his son was, he would have been more interested in stopping Jihadi attacks in the US, rather than stopping one of the few things that have some probability of reducing it.
This is fallacious reasoning.
You're stating that only people who support a ban on Muslims entering the US can be patriotic. That is bullshit.
It is perfectly possible for mr. Khan to be a patriot and not believe that said ban would do anything against terroristic acts (or quite the opposite, even).
You know, you've just proven my point:
"The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders."
Through indoctrination and fear, you've become incapable of seeing Muslims as people who could ever be part of 'your people', your in-group.
Think about this and think about it well:
Imagine a Muslim in the US. Do you think that if that Muslim read what you just wrote, that it would:
a. decrease
b. increase
the chance of him committing an act of terrorism?
That's the thing you are missing. By directing your ire at all Muslims, you are just pouring oil on the fire by making all of them feel less a 'compatriot', less as one of us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to justify terrorism or trying to paint Muslims as some sort of victims. I am saying your and Trump's rhetoric is just estranging and angering all Muslims.
You are breeding contempt.
But everybody hid the fact that Khizr Khan actually has an immigration business where he promotes Muslim immigration
The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders.
Consider being an intellectual (or just a sane person in general) living in a country with lots of religious oppression, anti-intellectualism, ridiculous corporal punishments, etc. Given that situation, I'd yearn for a country of freedom and opportunity, where I could be who I wanted to be. Shouldn't Americans then be proud that people yearn for the US as being that country? As vindication of the US and its culture being much more advanced than the countries of origin?
I'll readily admit that I don't know mr. Khans motivations, but if I were an intellectual who had 'escaped' such oppression and found my place in the US, I'd probably want the same for others like me and I could imagine striving to make that step easier for them. To simply assume that the guy just wants to keep making money seems utterly shallow.
As for the baby stuff: I'm not a fan of Trump, but when I saw the headlines I immediately knew that it was more media hype than substance. So yeah: /ignore.
Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe.
This is really the only thing I am slightly worried about with Clinton.
The foreign policy of the US in the last couple of decades is definitely not something to be proud of and if she is indeed as hawkish as they say, more of that would be a bad thing. I'm quite sure she will be much, much more diplomatic than Trump, but even then a lot of damage can be inflicted on the world.
They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.
The transparency doesn't really help, now does it?
Given his temperament, the chances for catastrophic escalation of whatever international incident there is are just enormous with this guy. With his thin skin and see-through character, he'll be played like a chump by other world leaders and once he realizes he's being played, he'll be prepared to burn the house down out of spite.
You know it's true.
I'd vote for Abu Baqr al Baghdadi as president before I vote for Hitlery Rotten KKKlinton
I've always suspected that Trump supporters were like ISIS supporters. Different team, different ethnicity, but equally hateful and violent at heart.
Good point.
Although I do think the McCain comment was much less incendiary. McCain is still alive and could easily I see a lot of people thinking that soldiers who 'let themselves be captured' are weak. Few people would boast about (someone) being captured, whereas sacrificing yourself for your buddies is undoubtedly heroic.
But your point stands. It was definitely a stupid thing to say unfriendly to the military (especially for a Republican).
I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era
Such an exaggeration. I've thought about this a lot and even though I have always been a Bernie supporter and am quite convinced Hillary isn't going to do much about 'money in politics' and about lobbying in general, the truth is probably that she is just very very status quo and slightly progressive.
Her presidency would probably just be boring same old same old classic Democratic politics; Simply uneventful; Just slow, slow progress. Especially if the House and Senate do not flip to the Democrats and it's another 2 (or 4) years of obstructionism in the legislative branch.
In my opinion such a presidency is far from great, but it wouldn't be terrible or unpredictable. Which, I believe is pretty much the Clinton slogan at this point:
"Hillary Clinton. Far from great, but you know, not terrible."
I want very much to be a Trump apologist but he is making it really really hard lately.
I really don't get this. I understand being against the status quo and everything, but let's be honest, the guy is a huge asshole and not in the "Visionary CEO" kind of way. The asshole CEOs that get stuff done don't bother with all the petty stuff Trump bothers with. They'll fire someone, tell them to fuck off and walk away, but they're not going to linger in some stupid vendetta with people they deem meaningless or flail around aimlessly pissing off anyone and everyone, enemies and allies alike.
Forget about his total lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. He's basically white Kanye West.
Same here. It seems that shortly after he clinched the Republican nomination, his 'gaffes' have become much much worse from a Republican standpoint.
The stuff that was deemed 'outrageous' used to be just mostly outrageous to Democrats. Some racism, some bullying, kind of run of the mill Fox News-level stuff, basically. But after the nomination he almost immediately went after military folk, parents of a dead soldier, even. If you're trying to appeal to Republicans (and Americans in general), that is pretty much the worst thing to do.
The three theories I actually deem plausible (I'm afraid to admit it, but it's true):
1. Trump doesn't want to win the election for some unknown reason: wouldn't like the (pressure of the) job, thinks the White House is a shitty place to live, etc.
2. Trump is still a Democrat, Clinton asked him whether he'd want to help blow up the GOP and gain lots of media attention in the process, and so they proceeded.
3. Trump is just a total narcissistic fuckwit who has no idea what he's doing and thinks that his stream-of-consciousness primary success somehow translates into "All people love me and how I act"
I deem the latter the most probable.
The 2nd would be both evil and genius at the same time. It's hard to see how they could have predicted Trump's primary success (nobody else did), though.
Also, I still can't believe I'm seriously considering it as plausible. Someone pinch me.
Yes. The expression "They don't make em like they used to" is meant to convey an appreciation of the quality of the products, not their production process.
You know what else isn't made like it used to? News.
For me it is not about Google vs Apple, but Android vs iOS and the philosophies behind them.
I believe in open platforms being better for mankind in the end, warts and all.
Thank you, this is why I come to /.
A security guy (admittedly someone random on the internet) mentioned the relative ease with which criminals can make their own communications and storage apps (or have them made). Apps which due to their custom nature render trying to strongarm the (now sidelined) 'big guys' into weakening their encryption completely useless.
In fact, the possibilities for any serious criminal network to create their own secure communications channels and data storage are so mindbogglingly vast that the only criminals the current situation is 'letting [...] conduct their business' are pretty obviously small time or just stupid drug dealers. Hardly the type of criminals envisioned when urged to give up the basic human right of privacy.
I agree that the second part of that (fictitious) reply was not very constructive. It is something I would think as such but generally utter in a paraphrased manner.
Do note however that in this hypothetical (but common) situation, the first real aggression comes from the "oh, shut up"-part. People feel personally insulted when you criticize something they like, in this case (the quality of) a movie. Even though I would not be insulting them personally, they would experience it as such and proceed to attack me ("you're a killjoy", "shut up", "just enjoy the movie") for voicing my opinion.
I find the latter objectionable.
A good blockbuster action flick doesn't need a great story
The quality of a story is not a binary thing. A story is not either great or shit. Action movies indeed do not need a great, thought-provoking story, but if the story is inconsistent or full of plot holes it is shit and should be allowed to be called out as such.
People get their panties in a bunch when you dare call movies they liked shit and start attacking you for being a killjoy and start throwing all kinds of straw men at you. Instead, they should just accept that they like shitty low-quality things from time to time, which is fine (and which in areas such as food doesn't seem to spark the same aggression towards critics).
Some of us just need to veg out from time to time with a few rattles and shiny things, plot holes and character development be damned.
There is this concept called 'the suspension of disbelief'. A story with fewer plot holes makes 'vegging out' much, much easier, because there is less disbelief to suspend.
I will even take "Battleship" over yet another god-damned superhero reboot.
The sentiment in the latter I agree with. But you should understand that in a way, you are partly responsible for those. The 'vegging out'-crowd is (still) not only rewarding but being very defensive of ever crappier movies with lots of rattles and shiny things in them. That (lack of) selection pressure is evolving the blockbusters in a certain way.
It really doesn't help that any time you criticize the story, you are so often met with the following classic comment: "Oh, shut up, it's just a movie. I enjoyed it."
No, that movie had a shit story which was riddled with plot holes, both of which you failed to become aware of because the filmmakers were shaking rattles and dangling shiny things in front of you.
Obligatory Harry Plinkett review and filmmaking 101 class:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Well, not really. You could be an employee of such a company but not necessarily officially representing the company.
I'll readily admit that in general it is a crappy survey, btw.
This survey is obviously not meant for consumers, but for organisations that could actually benefit from 5G.
3.5G (at 21 mbit/s) has been sufficient for consumer purposes for a long time now and this line from the summary is just bullshit:
"The EU is asking the public to share their feedback on the manifesto."
Obligatory Lenny reference:
http://www.independent.co.uk/l...
We should really be using machine learning to create the ultimate anti telemarketeer chatbot. On the other hand, if there is one set of interactions that would drive AI to want to destroy humanity, it is this one.
From TFA: "The prototype recognizes seven different font families [...]"
Yeah, that's much better than WhatTheFont.
Maybe there is something subtle and I (and many others) just can't see it...
Robots are much cheaper and much easier to deal with than humans.
Exactly. The writer somehow assumes that 'turn out' is the appropriate verb here, as if (the societies in) these universes somehow evolved into what they are instead of just being conjured up.
It synced against the radio signal from the Navel Observatory, which was perfect but also perfectly useless.
Was it always questioning whether it was telling the right time?
I had it for approximately 24 hours
You're an idiot if you think that is enough to properly gauge battery life. The battery sensors are not even calibrated at that point.
There are hundreds of screenshots by people easily lasting 3 days with their privs (and that is my personal experience as well). Screen on-time is less and varies, obviously, but it is perfectly reasonable compared to the competition.
1. BBOS is EOL, so that would be a no go on the 'decent phone' front (with security and regular updates being pretty much inexistent).
2. The Passport does not have a slide out physical keyboard.