Companies the size of Facebook that really get into trouble whine at governments to bail them out.
So a government bail out is the reason that MySpace is the vibrant, innovative company that it is today?
Perhaps my memory is slipping, but while I remember banks and manufacturing (especially car and plane manufacturing) getting bail outs, I don't remember any tech companies ever getting a government bail out...
Oh, that's simple, you see, Apple doesn't slow down phones to intentionally make people upgrade, people wanting to upgrade because their phones are slow is merely a profitable side effect of slowing down their phones for completely valid technical reasons that they can't recite right now because of trade secrets. Furthermore, I'm sure that Apple's spokespeople and Apple's lawyers have had many, many meetings where it was made absolutely clear that Apple has a totally valid technical reason for slowing people's phones down.
And what part, exactly, of "regulate" do you not understand?
What part of this regulation do you actually understand?
The Title II regulation (or common carrier) gives the ISPs immunity to prosecution for carrying your communications in exchange for restricting them from interfering with your communications. So, in actual fact, the regulation does the opposite of what you think it does. Since the company isn't allowed to interfere with your communications, the government is actually less able to order them to interfere with your communications (because there is no legal reason for the company to even have the ability to interfere).
If you don't believe me, ask yourself, how many times has a government censor interrupted your phone call by buzzing out words they didn't think you should be able to say? Because according to your ignorant reasoning, that should already be happening.
Now, kindly stop writing about things you know nothing about.
For all the doomsaying, he hasn't actually done or tried to do anything out of the ordinary.
Personally, I think directly taunting Kim Jong Un on Twitter is definitely out of the ordinary.
But listening to one side of the debate, you'd think he's hatching a plan to enslave half the globe and roast the other half in nuclear fire to feed it.
I think his side of the debate is worried both about what Trump might do and what Trump might provoke someone else into doing.
You should remember that World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It's not always obvious what will trigger a global conflict.
No, they think the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is criticizing a Republican, so of course, it must have no credibility. There's no deeper thought than that assigned to this exercise in dismissal.
It's not only about the lack of net neutrality creating paid high speed lanes, it's also harming consumers who might not want to watch Comcast Xfinity content but are more interested in Netflix.
They actually covered that: it was only whoppers (Netflix) that were tiered, if you wanted a chicken sandwich (Comcast Xfinity) then you didn't have to wait or pay extra. The even mentioned it was because they wanted to sell more chicken sandwiches.
To make matters worse, the old "neutrality" wasn't really neutral. The actual policy was more like BK could only sell burgers that the government let them sell.
Ever heard the aphorism "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"?
Maybe you should consider it, because in no way, shape, or form does Title II regulation allow the government to dictate what ISPs are allowed to deliver to their customers. If you want to claim otherwise, you had better be ready to prove it.
Frankly, the main reason I'm challenging you to prove it so that when you realize that you can't, you might actually learn something. I'm getting pretty sick of this ignorant twaddle being posted to Slashdot. You should already know better than that.
Finding my posts from 2003 on Slashdot is going to take more time than I'm willing to waste on your irrational skepticism, believe me or don't. I don't care enough to waste any more of my time on this.
Did you read the Down Street Memo? People knew, at the time, that the case was flimsy. I knew, at the time, that the case for invading Iraq was mostly smoke and mirrors. They were giant flame wars on Slashdot, at the time, over whether or not the the Iraq war justifications were bullshit.
I repeat I am not a Democrat and have nothing to do with American politics, however, according to you anyone critical of anything Republican must be a Democrat.
Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?
AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....
No, from the evidence, I conclude that Bush either knew that the reasons given for invading Iraq were flimsy (if not completely false) or he was manipulated by Cheney. There is plenty of evidence that that the Bush White House put pressure on American intelligence agencies to provide a justification for the invasion, rather than the other way around.
Even Repbulicans in the house, like Republican Porter Goss have said that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was "fragmentary and sporadic".
The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.
That's pretty simple, they were told the answer and pressured to invent the question. Mistakes like this always happen when you are trying to justify an already made decision. Even the Downing Street Memo indicates that British were aware that the White House had made the decision to invade Iraq before any evidence that it was necessary had been collected: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beating around Bush for nothing?
You brought it up. It's not my problem that you're actually wrong, however, you might want to try and be less partisan in the future. I've found that being partisan always leads to being wrong about a lot of things. Personally, I try to avoid it.
You're crazy and this is crazy talk. Microsoft started working on Windows 1.0 in 1981, before the Mac ever shipped.
Honestly, I have no idea when work on Windows 1.0 started, but 1981 seems too early. Microsoft didn't even acquire the rights to QDOS utill July 1981, and didn't announce Windows 1.0 until November, 1983 and didn't release it until November, 1985
Microsoft fearing Apple was not in any way a factor. In 1981 the standard Apple computer was an Apple II with Microsoft BASIC and there was no adversarial relationship between the two companies, let alone fear.
You're right, it wasn't fear, but greed that motivated Bill Gates in 1982, at least according to Jeff Raikes. That doesn't really change the point that without Microsoft working on software development for the new MacOS, they might not have developed Windows, in the above article Jeff Raikes attributes Bill Gates' conversion to believing in GUIs specifically to exposure to the MacOS. Interestingly, in 1985, Bill Gates encouraged Apple to license the MacOS so it could be run on IBM PCs, but Apple refused. So six months later, Microsoft released Windows 1.0. Which is another interesting what-if scenario... What if Apple had done what Bill Gates asked and built and released a MacOS for PCs in 1985? Would there be no Windows?
The MacOS code wouldn't run on standard x86 hardware, and was a mix of Pascal and 68000 assembler. The MacOS code didn't have support for the crazy graphics cards people were running on x86 hardware in the late 80's. Windows 1.x was able to run on an 8088 chip, on top of DOS, so it was full of hacks to deal with the insane memory architecture needed for that. In short, even if Microsoft had stolen the code somehow, it wouldn't have done them any good; and I flatly don't believe that Microsoft stole any code.
Frankly, those seem like problems that can be solved, and the point wasn't that they stole the entire code base and ran it as is.
Apple never accused them of stealing code, and Apple was never shy.
Microsoft pre-empted the lawsuit, they told then CEO John Scully if he tried to sue they would stop development of Word and Excel for the Mac. Apple needed both of those applications because they were losing market share already. Then, to permanently stop any lawsuits over it, Microsoft offered to licence some of the Mac technologies.
Microsoft management decided to run with the product that the customers liked. They negotiated a "divorce" with IBM where IBM kept OS/2. The only "sabotage" Microsoft committed was to stop working on OS/2. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide some proof.
Microsoft helped write the OS/2 code. I'm sure they had plenty of copies of it. IBM never accused them of doing anything improper with their access to the code. And we have the same problem as with your idea that Microsoft stole Mac OS code: the OS/2 code is nothing like the Windows code.
I'm not seeing your point. At this point in the hypothetical situation, there is no Windows, so the amount of similarity between code that Microsoft doesn't have and OS/2 is hardly a concern. I'm not saying that Microsoft did try to steal OS/2, I'm saying they might have tried, if things were different.
Apple's niche now is to sell products that look nice and work well together, and lately they have been forgetting to make them work well together.
I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.
No, actually you don't and that's why you're running away with your tail between your legs. I commend you for putting on a brave show, during your retreat, though. Very convincing, but everyone who's not blinded by partisanship knows the pretence for the invasion of Iraq was false.
My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....
I don't have a side here, I don't have a stake in your politics (petty or otherwise). The things you claim are partisanship are merely true, and you might want to ask yourself why you can't acknowledge obvious truths.
Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist...
Sorry buddy, but they aren't tricks. Bush lied (or was duped by Cheney) and Trump lies are both truthful statements.
On the other hand, while Trump is certainly racist, it's the ignorant racism of an ignorant man, rather than the deliberately malicious racism of an angry skinhead. As for Bush, I don't remember any credible claims that he was racist, and the majority of the claims of racism that were made came from people who were angry over the handling of Hurricane Katrina.
I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children.
Well that's certainly a strawman argument. I pointed out that the any directly appointed by Trump is unlikely to value honesty, and I think that's an accurate assessment. With the exception of John Kelly, most of the people Trump appoints are sycophants who had to at least pretend to like the president. So if they genuinely like the President, they don't value honesty and playing by the rules, because he doesn't. And if they are pretending to like the president to get some power, then they can't value honesty that much, because they aren't. The rest of Republicans, obviously, have varying attitudes, but those who voted for Trump are either not wise enough to realize he's a narcissist who lies whenever it suits him, or are ok with Trump's lies as long as they hope he will advance their political agendas.
As for the rest of your comment, it's off topic.
You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.
Sometimes those goals may be the same, but it certainly seems like a growing portion of the Republican party and Republican voters have only one goal: winning a culture war. As we've seen, for example with CHIP, the Repbulicans are willing to hold anyone and anything hostage to their ambitions, while the Democrats consistently cave when innocents are threatened by Republican politicians.
Draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but I see a marked difference between the parties.
It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?
Rice has already testified about why she unmasked those people who turned out to be Trump associates. Before they were unmasked she wouldn't have known who they were, and unmasking isn't the same as publishing their identities. They were unmasked because they met with an important foreign dignitary who had chosen not to notify the American government that he was travelling to New York. The U.S. Government does have a legitimate interest in knowing what a foreign dignitary who is making an unannounced visit is up to. But you don't have to take my word for that, you can take reported words of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee:
"I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Republican Florida Rep. Tom Rooney told CNN of Rice's testimony.
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is one of the lawmakers spearheading the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she made inappropriate unmasking requests.
"She was a good witness, answered all our questions," Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who took over leading the House Russia investigation after Nunes stepped down, told CNN. "I'm not aware of any reason to bring her back."
That's three Republicans, who are in a better position than you to judge the matter, who seem to think their is nothing to your accusations.
I'm seriously expecting them to target Amazon or Netflix's business plan next.
Arguable, they've already kind of done both of those. I'm pretty sure they built in some kind of shopping interface into Google search a long time ago, and YouTube is a streaming service and you can buy access to TV Shows and Movies on it. They're nowhere near as good as Amazon or Netflix, but they're probably as close to those markets as they can get without investing heavily into warehouses and a streaming library.
Without Jobs, computers would be ugly and unpleasant things to use.
Now, I didn't think OS/2 was that bad...
For explanation, without Jobs working on MacOS, Gates and Microsoft wouldn't have been scared enough (or able to) steal the MacOS code to create Windows 1.0. It also means that OS/2 might actually have been finished earlier instead of being sabotaged by Microsoft. Presuming that Microsoft sabotage OS/2 because they didn't need it once they had Windows. Now, Microsoft might have just stolen the OS/2 code, but that might have more difficult to do. In any case, it's conceivable that we might have had two decades of IBM's OS/2 operating system instead of Windows.
I'm not sure how Smartphones would have turned out without Apple, though. Maybe they'd all be Blackberry clones, or maybe the iPhone touch screen design is so obvious that someone else would have created an equivalent at around the same time.
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.
That's a good argument, except for one small detail: History, Linguistics, and Economics do not have the word "Science" in their title either, unless you group them into the "Social Sciences".
Does that mean that computer science, isn't science but phrenology is? I suppose we could rename it computeristics or computerology and then it would be real science? Overall, there's only a few individual fields that have the world science in their title, so I'm not sure that rule of thumb helps much.
Whether a child is violent or not has one overwhelming factor: The parents, or lack thereof.
I'm not sure about that, according to actual research, it seems to be that the overwhelming factor is actually the number of different risk factors that a child is exposed to (for example being exposed to 6 different risk factors increases the likelihood of violent behaviour 10 times over exposure to any individual risk factor). Now, poor parenting can contribute several different factors so you're not entirely wrong. However, according to the risk factor chart (4-1) on that page, the largest individual factors seem to be previous criminal behaviour, weak social ties, substance use, antisocial peers and gang membership.
I think you're pretty much correct here, it seems like we haven't heard very much about video games and violence since Jack Thompson was disbarred in 2008. I suspect that's not a coincidence.
But aren't all scientists untrusworthy bastards part of a global conspiracy of evil to suck always more grant money from not-at-all-evil governements ?
No, no, no. Only the scientists that tell us things that we don't want to hear are part of the Evil Global Grant Suckers (EGGS). The scientists who tell us what we want to hear are Champions of Harmonious Instruction Carrying Knowledge and Enlightened News (CHICKEN). It's the eternal battle between the EGGS and the CHICKEN that must be fought so vigorously.
If you don't trust scientists when they tell you that global warming is caused by human activity, or that diversity of life on earth is the product of evolution through natural selection, or that the universe is 15 billion years old and not six thousand, or that vaccines don't cause autism, then why would you trust them when they tell you that there is no link between violent video games and violent behavior ?
Well clearly, what you do is listen to find out what each scientist is saying and then choose the scientists who say the things you like the most and then believe them, and that's how science works!
Or at least, that seems to be the way that a loud minority of the posters on Slashdot do it...
Slashdot Mirror
Companies the size of Facebook that really get into trouble whine at governments to bail them out.
So a government bail out is the reason that MySpace is the vibrant, innovative company that it is today?
Perhaps my memory is slipping, but while I remember banks and manufacturing (especially car and plane manufacturing) getting bail outs, I don't remember any tech companies ever getting a government bail out...
Oh, that's simple, you see, Apple doesn't slow down phones to intentionally make people upgrade, people wanting to upgrade because their phones are slow is merely a profitable side effect of slowing down their phones for completely valid technical reasons that they can't recite right now because of trade secrets. Furthermore, I'm sure that Apple's spokespeople and Apple's lawyers have had many, many meetings where it was made absolutely clear that Apple has a totally valid technical reason for slowing people's phones down.
Out of curiosity, do you consider someone who is patriotic and takes pride in their country, to be stupid or are they lazy?
And what part, exactly, of "regulate" do you not understand?
What part of this regulation do you actually understand?
The Title II regulation (or common carrier) gives the ISPs immunity to prosecution for carrying your communications in exchange for restricting them from interfering with your communications. So, in actual fact, the regulation does the opposite of what you think it does. Since the company isn't allowed to interfere with your communications, the government is actually less able to order them to interfere with your communications (because there is no legal reason for the company to even have the ability to interfere).
If you don't believe me, ask yourself, how many times has a government censor interrupted your phone call by buzzing out words they didn't think you should be able to say? Because according to your ignorant reasoning, that should already be happening.
Now, kindly stop writing about things you know nothing about.
For all the doomsaying, he hasn't actually done or tried to do anything out of the ordinary.
Personally, I think directly taunting Kim Jong Un on Twitter is definitely out of the ordinary.
But listening to one side of the debate, you'd think he's hatching a plan to enslave half the globe and roast the other half in nuclear fire to feed it.
I think his side of the debate is worried both about what Trump might do and what Trump might provoke someone else into doing.
You should remember that World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It's not always obvious what will trigger a global conflict.
No, they think the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is criticizing a Republican, so of course, it must have no credibility. There's no deeper thought than that assigned to this exercise in dismissal.
It's not only about the lack of net neutrality creating paid high speed lanes, it's also harming consumers who might not want to watch Comcast Xfinity content but are more interested in Netflix.
They actually covered that: it was only whoppers (Netflix) that were tiered, if you wanted a chicken sandwich (Comcast Xfinity) then you didn't have to wait or pay extra. The even mentioned it was because they wanted to sell more chicken sandwiches.
To make matters worse, the old "neutrality" wasn't really neutral. The actual policy was more like BK could only sell burgers that the government let them sell.
Ever heard the aphorism "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"?
Maybe you should consider it, because in no way, shape, or form does Title II regulation allow the government to dictate what ISPs are allowed to deliver to their customers. If you want to claim otherwise, you had better be ready to prove it.
Frankly, the main reason I'm challenging you to prove it so that when you realize that you can't, you might actually learn something. I'm getting pretty sick of this ignorant twaddle being posted to Slashdot. You should already know better than that.
You're just wrong.
Finding my posts from 2003 on Slashdot is going to take more time than I'm willing to waste on your irrational skepticism, believe me or don't. I don't care enough to waste any more of my time on this.
Did you read the Down Street Memo? People knew, at the time, that the case was flimsy. I knew, at the time, that the case for invading Iraq was mostly smoke and mirrors. They were giant flame wars on Slashdot, at the time, over whether or not the the Iraq war justifications were bullshit.
I repeat I am not a Democrat and have nothing to do with American politics, however, according to you anyone critical of anything Republican must be a Democrat.
Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?
How hypocritical.
AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....
No, from the evidence, I conclude that Bush either knew that the reasons given for invading Iraq were flimsy (if not completely false) or he was manipulated by Cheney. There is plenty of evidence that that the Bush White House put pressure on American intelligence agencies to provide a justification for the invasion, rather than the other way around.
Even Repbulicans in the house, like Republican Porter Goss have said that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was "fragmentary and sporadic".
The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.
That's pretty simple, they were told the answer and pressured to invent the question. Mistakes like this always happen when you are trying to justify an already made decision. Even the Downing Street Memo indicates that British were aware that the White House had made the decision to invade Iraq before any evidence that it was necessary had been collected: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beating around Bush for nothing?
You brought it up. It's not my problem that you're actually wrong, however, you might want to try and be less partisan in the future. I've found that being partisan always leads to being wrong about a lot of things. Personally, I try to avoid it.
You're crazy and this is crazy talk. Microsoft started working on Windows 1.0 in 1981, before the Mac ever shipped.
Honestly, I have no idea when work on Windows 1.0 started, but 1981 seems too early. Microsoft didn't even acquire the rights to QDOS utill July 1981, and didn't announce Windows 1.0 until November, 1983 and didn't release it until November, 1985
Microsoft fearing Apple was not in any way a factor. In 1981 the standard Apple computer was an Apple II with Microsoft BASIC and there was no adversarial relationship between the two companies, let alone fear.
You're right, it wasn't fear, but greed that motivated Bill Gates in 1982, at least according to Jeff Raikes. That doesn't really change the point that without Microsoft working on software development for the new MacOS, they might not have developed Windows, in the above article Jeff Raikes attributes Bill Gates' conversion to believing in GUIs specifically to exposure to the MacOS. Interestingly, in 1985, Bill Gates encouraged Apple to license the MacOS so it could be run on IBM PCs, but Apple refused. So six months later, Microsoft released Windows 1.0. Which is another interesting what-if scenario... What if Apple had done what Bill Gates asked and built and released a MacOS for PCs in 1985? Would there be no Windows?
The MacOS code wouldn't run on standard x86 hardware, and was a mix of Pascal and 68000 assembler. The MacOS code didn't have support for the crazy graphics cards people were running on x86 hardware in the late 80's. Windows 1.x was able to run on an 8088 chip, on top of DOS, so it was full of hacks to deal with the insane memory architecture needed for that. In short, even if Microsoft had stolen the code somehow, it wouldn't have done them any good; and I flatly don't believe that Microsoft stole any code.
Frankly, those seem like problems that can be solved, and the point wasn't that they stole the entire code base and ran it as is.
Apple never accused them of stealing code, and Apple was never shy.
Microsoft pre-empted the lawsuit, they told then CEO John Scully if he tried to sue they would stop development of Word and Excel for the Mac. Apple needed both of those applications because they were losing market share already. Then, to permanently stop any lawsuits over it, Microsoft offered to licence some of the Mac technologies.
Microsoft management decided to run with the product that the customers liked. They negotiated a "divorce" with IBM where IBM kept OS/2. The only "sabotage" Microsoft committed was to stop working on OS/2. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide some proof.
Here's one, I'm sure I could find others.
Microsoft helped write the OS/2 code. I'm sure they had plenty of copies of it. IBM never accused them of doing anything improper with their access to the code. And we have the same problem as with your idea that Microsoft stole Mac OS code: the OS/2 code is nothing like the Windows code.
I'm not seeing your point. At this point in the hypothetical situation, there is no Windows, so the amount of similarity between code that Microsoft doesn't have and OS/2 is hardly a concern. I'm not saying that Microsoft did try to steal OS/2, I'm saying they might have tried, if things were different.
Apple's niche now is to sell products that look nice and work well together, and lately they have been forgetting to make them work well together.
You have my total agreement on the rest of this.
Thanks for the input.
I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.
No, actually you don't and that's why you're running away with your tail between your legs. I commend you for putting on a brave show, during your retreat, though. Very convincing, but everyone who's not blinded by partisanship knows the pretence for the invasion of Iraq was false.
My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....
I don't have a side here, I don't have a stake in your politics (petty or otherwise). The things you claim are partisanship are merely true, and you might want to ask yourself why you can't acknowledge obvious truths.
Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist...
Sorry buddy, but they aren't tricks. Bush lied (or was duped by Cheney) and Trump lies are both truthful statements.
On the other hand, while Trump is certainly racist, it's the ignorant racism of an ignorant man, rather than the deliberately malicious racism of an angry skinhead. As for Bush, I don't remember any credible claims that he was racist, and the majority of the claims of racism that were made came from people who were angry over the handling of Hurricane Katrina.
I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children.
Well that's certainly a strawman argument. I pointed out that the any directly appointed by Trump is unlikely to value honesty, and I think that's an accurate assessment. With the exception of John Kelly, most of the people Trump appoints are sycophants who had to at least pretend to like the president. So if they genuinely like the President, they don't value honesty and playing by the rules, because he doesn't. And if they are pretending to like the president to get some power, then they can't value honesty that much, because they aren't. The rest of Republicans, obviously, have varying attitudes, but those who voted for Trump are either not wise enough to realize he's a narcissist who lies whenever it suits him, or are ok with Trump's lies as long as they hope he will advance their political agendas.
As for the rest of your comment, it's off topic.
You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.
Sometimes those goals may be the same, but it certainly seems like a growing portion of the Republican party and Republican voters have only one goal: winning a culture war. As we've seen, for example with CHIP, the Repbulicans are willing to hold anyone and anything hostage to their ambitions, while the Democrats consistently cave when innocents are threatened by Republican politicians.
Draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but I see a marked difference between the parties.
It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?
Rice has already testified about why she unmasked those people who turned out to be Trump associates. Before they were unmasked she wouldn't have known who they were, and unmasking isn't the same as publishing their identities. They were unmasked because they met with an important foreign dignitary who had chosen not to notify the American government that he was travelling to New York. The U.S. Government does have a legitimate interest in knowing what a foreign dignitary who is making an unannounced visit is up to. But you don't have to take my word for that, you can take reported words of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee:
That's three Republicans, who are in a better position than you to judge the matter, who seem to think their is nothing to your accusations.
I'm seriously expecting them to target Amazon or Netflix's business plan next.
Arguable, they've already kind of done both of those. I'm pretty sure they built in some kind of shopping interface into Google search a long time ago, and YouTube is a streaming service and you can buy access to TV Shows and Movies on it. They're nowhere near as good as Amazon or Netflix, but they're probably as close to those markets as they can get without investing heavily into warehouses and a streaming library.
Without Jobs, computers would be ugly and unpleasant things to use.
Now, I didn't think OS/2 was that bad...
For explanation, without Jobs working on MacOS, Gates and Microsoft wouldn't have been scared enough (or able to) steal the MacOS code to create Windows 1.0. It also means that OS/2 might actually have been finished earlier instead of being sabotaged by Microsoft. Presuming that Microsoft sabotage OS/2 because they didn't need it once they had Windows. Now, Microsoft might have just stolen the OS/2 code, but that might have more difficult to do. In any case, it's conceivable that we might have had two decades of IBM's OS/2 operating system instead of Windows.
I'm not sure how Smartphones would have turned out without Apple, though. Maybe they'd all be Blackberry clones, or maybe the iPhone touch screen design is so obvious that someone else would have created an equivalent at around the same time.
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.
Yeah, you were and are still a jackass, none of those links actually go the videos that you claimed they went too.
That's a good argument, except for one small detail: History, Linguistics, and Economics do not have the word "Science" in their title either, unless you group them into the "Social Sciences".
Does that mean that computer science, isn't science but phrenology is? I suppose we could rename it computeristics or computerology and then it would be real science? Overall, there's only a few individual fields that have the world science in their title, so I'm not sure that rule of thumb helps much.
Compuristry?
I know I'm ruining a joke, but this amuses me.
Computology!
Maybe.
Whether a child is violent or not has one overwhelming factor: The parents, or lack thereof.
I'm not sure about that, according to actual research, it seems to be that the overwhelming factor is actually the number of different risk factors that a child is exposed to (for example being exposed to 6 different risk factors increases the likelihood of violent behaviour 10 times over exposure to any individual risk factor). Now, poor parenting can contribute several different factors so you're not entirely wrong. However, according to the risk factor chart (4-1) on that page, the largest individual factors seem to be previous criminal behaviour, weak social ties, substance use, antisocial peers and gang membership.
I think you're pretty much correct here, it seems like we haven't heard very much about video games and violence since Jack Thompson was disbarred in 2008. I suspect that's not a coincidence.
But aren't all scientists untrusworthy bastards part of a global conspiracy of evil to suck always more grant money from not-at-all-evil governements ?
No, no, no. Only the scientists that tell us things that we don't want to hear are part of the Evil Global Grant Suckers (EGGS). The scientists who tell us what we want to hear are Champions of Harmonious Instruction Carrying Knowledge and Enlightened News (CHICKEN). It's the eternal battle between the EGGS and the CHICKEN that must be fought so vigorously.
If you don't trust scientists when they tell you that global warming is caused by human activity, or that diversity of life on earth is the product of evolution through natural selection, or that the universe is 15 billion years old and not six thousand, or that vaccines don't cause autism, then why would you trust them when they tell you that there is no link between violent video games and violent behavior ?
Well clearly, what you do is listen to find out what each scientist is saying and then choose the scientists who say the things you like the most and then believe them, and that's how science works!
Or at least, that seems to be the way that a loud minority of the posters on Slashdot do it...
Rule of thumb: If a field has the word "science" in it, it isn't.
So, according to your rule, physics and chemistry, which are the "hard sciences" aren't actually science. Good to know.
Except for global warming, err climate change, err increased extreme weather, which is Settled Science.
Sigh, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you just had to prove that you are an idiot...