1. Apricot did the "Small display integrated with keyboard" thing with a bunch of their MS DOS machines in the 1980s. You could use it as a calculator, and apps could address it directly. It was a good idea, but the lack of it on the PC meant they quietly dropped the feature when they switched to making PC clones.
2. So they're losing Esc, but they're keeping the Caps Lock key? Even Google has the design sense to lose that.
Maybe the "tech community that come on Slashdot" is more literate than you? I never once said the emails came from Russia. I said that the Russian media took the emails Wikileaks released and posted false stories based upon garbled versions of them. That's a matter of public record.
It's also not Facebook, it's a few top people at Facebook. And there are at least two top people at FB who are very publicly associated with Trump (albeit one has the self awareness and sense of decency to at least be embarrassed and ashamed about it.)
This is a non-story, and like certain other non-stories (OMG! A low level Clinton staffer was caught spitballing ideas about how to demonstrate Trump supporters are violent!) it's an attempt to muddy the waters and get people to forget wide truths (Facebook has pro-Trump [1][2] people on its board, Trump has actually supported violence against opponents.)
Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.
Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.
If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.
I didn't predict it would fail, but I didn't predict it would succeed either. In my heart I couldn't think of many bigger wastes of money (maybe spending $1.5M on Trump's election campaign?) but frankly products from Apple I thought couldn't possibly gain traction have ended up leaping off the shelves.
The talk about the Apple Watch felt like the talk about the iPhone - which if you remember, when it finally came out, wasn't programmable, had a 7 hour battery, was stuck on EDGE, and in some ways was inferior to some of the better flip phones (which had apps, and SD cards, and you could Opera Mini on them, and the battery would last for days, etc.)
But it was a success, even in its crappy 1st generation form, and most of us who shrugged at the time feel like we probably shouldn't predict the impending doom of a new Apple product hyped at Daring Fireball, lest we be made to look stupid again.
I still don't see why you'd want a watch that requires you do more than glance at it to tell the time.
The easiest security is to not give access. People with baby monitors want to view the video stream. They really don't want to use the debugging back door to run a shell command to allow the devs to troubleshoot a problem.
The servers should limit themselves to "How should I connect to this? It's device ABC, with password hunter7" ("I see you're on IP 123.4.5.6, hey, so's the device, you can connect directly on 10.5.4.3!") vs ("I see you're on IP 12.3.4.56, the device isn't (and I'm not going to tell you where it is), so you'll have to use me. Want a video stream?") and proxying the absolute minimum only.
That would be a meaningful improvement in security that would reduce the ability of their devices to be hacked.
And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?
They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.
There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.
And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.
Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.
So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.
Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.
Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.
We have the means, we even have the standards (IPSec and DNSSEC, for starters) it's just 99% of people in the field have no idea how to use them, DNS providers have been slow to address the latter, and operating systems have been reluctant to turn them on by default.
Reading this is fairly eye opening as it explains the different methods attackers use to gain access to your NAT-"firewalled" IoT device. It was also a useful reminder that IoT items aren't just "IP cameras", but routers, printers, and other stuff that most people have had for years.
You can skip to page 34 for the most important problem with most of the headline devices though (which also explains why owned cameras is a big thing, but less so owned routers): insecure "cloud" servers that provide connectivity to your IoT devices when you're off network. For example, it provides the connectivity that allows an app on your phone to access your baby camera remotely.
The servers typically provide way too much information, and often provide access to the entire camera, not just the video stream. As a result, hackers can, by scanning a range of camera IDs using the server at minimum find out what the public and NAT IPs are. They may be able to send arbitrary packets, including those to backdoor debugging ports, depending on the server, without even needing passwords.
Outside of using that server, hackers become more dependent upon heavy, probably noticeable, scanning, making it increasingly difficult if you don't already have compromised hardware.
My takeaway? Go after the manufacturers. There's stuff they can do right now by patching just two things: the gateway servers they are running right now, and the apps that use them. Yes, in this case, it's worth doing - those here saying "Oh they're all fly by night, you can't reach them" forget that if that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a problem, because the gateways they're running wouldn't be up.
Someone is running the gateways. Those people can fix them right now, and need to.
It costs approximately $15,000 a year to support each PC user, while Mac users actually give their tech services departments $30,000 a year, for no reason whatsoever, and never call for support.
No it's not legitimate if he merely mentioned either. Merely mentioning a trademark doesn't mean you're in violation of trademark law, otherwise you wouldn't be able to talk about most commercial products. The precise restrictions on trademarked word use are best described by a lawyer, but remember the intent of trademark law is to prevent people from passing an item off as something associated with the trademark owner, not to restrict people's ability to talk about products they've seen or owned.
For more information, visit Bing and google "trademarks".
Medical professionals have a professional duty to state medical facts. If they refuse, they can and should be placed in a different career path.
An accountant or lawyer promoting a Sovereign Citizen view of the relationship between client and state would be struck off. A Bridge Engineer who rejects Newtonian (or better) mechanics would be struck off.
This isn't like banning a doctor from discussing gun safety because you lobbyists are worried it might lead to a decrease in household gun ownership. This is about nurses being required not to mislead people about medicine, abusing their positions as respected medical professionals to sow misinformation. It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's a professionalism issue, and critically it's a life and death issue.
Funny thing is after I lived with the flip phone for a year or so, about a year ago I bought the cheapest smartphone I could ($30, at Walmart!) and was stunned at how much better it was than the GN. OK, the screen was worse, as was the amount of storage -- though the fact it took SD cards mitigated that in part, but it really was faster, smoother, and the UI had less bugs. It resold me on Android.
I honestly don't think price has much to do with device "niceness" in the Android world. Sure, in the early days, you had a few "cheap" phones with sub-WVGA screens that were barely usable, and right until a couple of years ago even the slightly better ones seemed cobbled together, but right now I'm actually seeing low end hardware that's caught up with Android's needs, while critical features continue to get removed from phones as they get more expensive.
And some of those removed features do, actually, make the phone less frustrating. That cheap $30 Walmart special had dedicated navigation buttons for example - its replacement doesn't, meaning I have to swipe from the corners to get buttons that'll close a full screen app or just send that full screen app a "back" signal. How is that an improvement? It isn't. The buttons are removed because it interferes with the lines of the device and would make it fractionally bigger, aesthetic considerations that undermine usability and makes the device more annoying to use.
...maybe it's because people who buy $600 phones tend to have more money (and less worries) than people who buy $50 devices.
I'll be honest, the most expensive modern smartphone I bought was a Galaxy Nexus. It definitely didn't make me happier; the quirks and horrible UI actually made me switch to a flip phone in an effort to regain my sanity.
Bad news. I just invented time travel, and rather than do something worthwhile like kill Hitler (or, in some other way, ensure he never gains power) I've decided to cause minor annoyances for other Slashdotters.
I'm going to go back in time, suggest to Steve Jobs he adds a scroll wheel to the iPod, and change history so it becomes the most popular MP3 player of all time, and Creative becomes an also ran rather than the inventor of the cPhone!
That'll make the comment you just wrote look ridiculous!
This might be the next thing in portable gaming systems, but there is no way this will be 'console' class.
The latest Nvidia Tegra X series chips have excellent performance, in the same ballpark as previous generation of game consoles. Now, while you might say "Yeah, but not the current gen", Nintendo has lately prioritized price and flexibility over having CPUs and GPUs comparable to Microsoft and Sony's. If the Wii and Wii U were considered console class at the time, so is this. Except they couldn't cluster, while this one can.
I don't think it's reasonable to suggest it's a PS-vita with a dock either. The video is at pains to suggest the technology is designed for a more fluid playing experience, with the type of thing you want to do (play against friends, play a conventional game at home in comfort, play in a plane or train, etc) determining how you configure your console.
Will it work? No idea. If they can keep the price down, conceivably yes. I think the big problem with consoles right now is that they're expensive toys for a committed minority. Nintendo misfired with the WiiU, but the biggest, most glaring, fault wasn't the hardware, but the price and pricing.
They're not removing USB, they're removing the original, large, four dimensional USB socket for USB-C. It's a standard USB port, and about the only inconvenience is that you'll need adapters or new cables for your older USB gear. Right now, I'm seeing "USB sticks" as being the main loser.
You guys think this is bad, but I started computing in the 1980s, and I can tell you back then this kind of thing would have been considered a giant leap forward. Virtually every brand of computer had:
1. Its own idea of what a keyboard port should look like
2. Its own idea of what a monitor port should look like
3. Its own idea of what a serial port should look like (hell, that even varied from model to model in a computer makers own product line.)
4. Its own idea of what a printer port should look like
5. Its own idea of what a mouse port should look like
6. Its own idea of what a joystick port should look like
7. Its own idea of what a disk drive port should look like
USB-A switching to USB-C? Great! They're switching from one standard to another, but it's still a well supported standard, and there are good reasons to do so. Well done Apple. Now, if you could add USB to your iDevices...
He's not Hitler. He's a lightweight Mussolini. Scapegoats minorities, smears and dehumanizes same, promotes violence against his opponents, has a contempt for the democratic process, wants to jail his political opponents and restrict and punish journalists who publish stories he and his backers do not like, promotes simplistic solutions to complex problems, usually with an absence of detail that makes the solutions suspect even without further analysis.
He would have to have a raging hate-on for a racial or religious group beyond reason to be a Hitler. He's shown signs of that against Muslims, but he's yet to cross the line that would make me worry about a Muslim holocaust.
I recall the same people attacking Clinton for accepting donations from the Saudis now were going out of their way to buy bland, boring, breaded chicken a few years ago because the CEO of the company that sold it had been funding a group that promotes laws that mandate the death penalty for homosexuality in various African countries.
So: taking money from bad people who do bad things to gays and donating to worthy causes is bad to them. But giving money to bad people who lobby to get bad things done to gays is, apparently totally A-OK.
Just so you understand the mentality here. If Saudi Arabia was doing exactly what it is now, but under the sign of the cross, they'd be celebrating it.
Leaving aside the fact that you're confusing two entirely different countries, and that if the {Insert actual human rights abusing country} do not donate money, the human rights atrocities continue (it's not an either/or), I would totally take money from someone evil and spend it on something good. Why wouldn't you? Hell, I'd even steal it from them if I could get away from it.
Why would you do differently? Osama Bin Laden appears in your bedroom tonight. He says "Hoho, I'm not dead, I'm actually the October surprise, Clinton is going to be so screwed when it gets out I'm alive. Yeah, yeah, the Russians have been hiding me. Anywho, I just popped in because I heard you're great at picking charitable causes. Here's FIVE MILLION DOLLARS."
Do you say "Uh, thanks, but I'd rather you spend it on fertilizer, pressure cookers and airline tickets. Here, have your five million back", or do you say "I think I might just spend it on HIV prevention for Gay and Lesbian Jews?"
Pretty easy decision for me to make at any rate, but maybe I'm just not as moral as you.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Apricot did the "Small display integrated with keyboard" thing with a bunch of their MS DOS machines in the 1980s. You could use it as a calculator, and apps could address it directly. It was a good idea, but the lack of it on the PC meant they quietly dropped the feature when they switched to making PC clones.
2. So they're losing Esc, but they're keeping the Caps Lock key? Even Google has the design sense to lose that.
Maybe the "tech community that come on Slashdot" is more literate than you? I never once said the emails came from Russia. I said that the Russian media took the emails Wikileaks released and posted false stories based upon garbled versions of them. That's a matter of public record.
It's also not Facebook, it's a few top people at Facebook. And there are at least two top people at FB who are very publicly associated with Trump (albeit one has the self awareness and sense of decency to at least be embarrassed and ashamed about it.)
This is a non-story, and like certain other non-stories (OMG! A low level Clinton staffer was caught spitballing ideas about how to demonstrate Trump supporters are violent!) it's an attempt to muddy the waters and get people to forget wide truths (Facebook has pro-Trump [1][2] people on its board, Trump has actually supported violence against opponents.)
Both sides!!!1!?!!!
Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.
Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.
If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.
I didn't predict it would fail, but I didn't predict it would succeed either. In my heart I couldn't think of many bigger wastes of money (maybe spending $1.5M on Trump's election campaign?) but frankly products from Apple I thought couldn't possibly gain traction have ended up leaping off the shelves.
The talk about the Apple Watch felt like the talk about the iPhone - which if you remember, when it finally came out, wasn't programmable, had a 7 hour battery, was stuck on EDGE, and in some ways was inferior to some of the better flip phones (which had apps, and SD cards, and you could Opera Mini on them, and the battery would last for days, etc.)
But it was a success, even in its crappy 1st generation form, and most of us who shrugged at the time feel like we probably shouldn't predict the impending doom of a new Apple product hyped at Daring Fireball, lest we be made to look stupid again.
I still don't see why you'd want a watch that requires you do more than glance at it to tell the time.
The easiest security is to not give access. People with baby monitors want to view the video stream. They really don't want to use the debugging back door to run a shell command to allow the devs to troubleshoot a problem.
The servers should limit themselves to "How should I connect to this? It's device ABC, with password hunter7" ("I see you're on IP 123.4.5.6, hey, so's the device, you can connect directly on 10.5.4.3!") vs ("I see you're on IP 12.3.4.56, the device isn't (and I'm not going to tell you where it is), so you'll have to use me. Want a video stream?") and proxying the absolute minimum only.
That would be a meaningful improvement in security that would reduce the ability of their devices to be hacked.
They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.
There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.
And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.
Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.
So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.
Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.
Sure, here's a top official in the Trump campaign offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beats up protestors at a Trump rally:
Video
Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.
We have the means, we even have the standards (IPSec and DNSSEC, for starters) it's just 99% of people in the field have no idea how to use them, DNS providers have been slow to address the latter, and operating systems have been reluctant to turn them on by default.
Reading this is fairly eye opening as it explains the different methods attackers use to gain access to your NAT-"firewalled" IoT device. It was also a useful reminder that IoT items aren't just "IP cameras", but routers, printers, and other stuff that most people have had for years.
You can skip to page 34 for the most important problem with most of the headline devices though (which also explains why owned cameras is a big thing, but less so owned routers): insecure "cloud" servers that provide connectivity to your IoT devices when you're off network. For example, it provides the connectivity that allows an app on your phone to access your baby camera remotely.
The servers typically provide way too much information, and often provide access to the entire camera, not just the video stream. As a result, hackers can, by scanning a range of camera IDs using the server at minimum find out what the public and NAT IPs are. They may be able to send arbitrary packets, including those to backdoor debugging ports, depending on the server, without even needing passwords.
Outside of using that server, hackers become more dependent upon heavy, probably noticeable, scanning, making it increasingly difficult if you don't already have compromised hardware.
My takeaway? Go after the manufacturers. There's stuff they can do right now by patching just two things: the gateway servers they are running right now, and the apps that use them. Yes, in this case, it's worth doing - those here saying "Oh they're all fly by night, you can't reach them" forget that if that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a problem, because the gateways they're running wouldn't be up.
Someone is running the gateways. Those people can fix them right now, and need to.
It costs approximately $15,000 a year to support each PC user, while Mac users actually give their tech services departments $30,000 a year, for no reason whatsoever, and never call for support.
No it's not legitimate if he merely mentioned either. Merely mentioning a trademark doesn't mean you're in violation of trademark law, otherwise you wouldn't be able to talk about most commercial products. The precise restrictions on trademarked word use are best described by a lawyer, but remember the intent of trademark law is to prevent people from passing an item off as something associated with the trademark owner, not to restrict people's ability to talk about products they've seen or owned.
For more information, visit Bing and google "trademarks".
Medical professionals have a professional duty to state medical facts. If they refuse, they can and should be placed in a different career path.
An accountant or lawyer promoting a Sovereign Citizen view of the relationship between client and state would be struck off. A Bridge Engineer who rejects Newtonian (or better) mechanics would be struck off.
This isn't like banning a doctor from discussing gun safety because you lobbyists are worried it might lead to a decrease in household gun ownership. This is about nurses being required not to mislead people about medicine, abusing their positions as respected medical professionals to sow misinformation. It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's a professionalism issue, and critically it's a life and death issue.
Funny thing is after I lived with the flip phone for a year or so, about a year ago I bought the cheapest smartphone I could ($30, at Walmart!) and was stunned at how much better it was than the GN. OK, the screen was worse, as was the amount of storage -- though the fact it took SD cards mitigated that in part, but it really was faster, smoother, and the UI had less bugs. It resold me on Android.
I honestly don't think price has much to do with device "niceness" in the Android world. Sure, in the early days, you had a few "cheap" phones with sub-WVGA screens that were barely usable, and right until a couple of years ago even the slightly better ones seemed cobbled together, but right now I'm actually seeing low end hardware that's caught up with Android's needs, while critical features continue to get removed from phones as they get more expensive.
And some of those removed features do, actually, make the phone less frustrating. That cheap $30 Walmart special had dedicated navigation buttons for example - its replacement doesn't, meaning I have to swipe from the corners to get buttons that'll close a full screen app or just send that full screen app a "back" signal. How is that an improvement? It isn't. The buttons are removed because it interferes with the lines of the device and would make it fractionally bigger, aesthetic considerations that undermine usability and makes the device more annoying to use.
I'll be honest, the most expensive modern smartphone I bought was a Galaxy Nexus. It definitely didn't make me happier; the quirks and horrible UI actually made me switch to a flip phone in an effort to regain my sanity.
Bad news. I just invented time travel, and rather than do something worthwhile like kill Hitler (or, in some other way, ensure he never gains power) I've decided to cause minor annoyances for other Slashdotters.
I'm going to go back in time, suggest to Steve Jobs he adds a scroll wheel to the iPod, and change history so it becomes the most popular MP3 player of all time, and Creative becomes an also ran rather than the inventor of the cPhone!
That'll make the comment you just wrote look ridiculous!
Genuine question, but has Microsoft had any problems enforcing the Windows EULA? Because when I buy a computer, the software is already there too.
The latest Nvidia Tegra X series chips have excellent performance, in the same ballpark as previous generation of game consoles. Now, while you might say "Yeah, but not the current gen", Nintendo has lately prioritized price and flexibility over having CPUs and GPUs comparable to Microsoft and Sony's. If the Wii and Wii U were considered console class at the time, so is this. Except they couldn't cluster, while this one can.
I don't think it's reasonable to suggest it's a PS-vita with a dock either. The video is at pains to suggest the technology is designed for a more fluid playing experience, with the type of thing you want to do (play against friends, play a conventional game at home in comfort, play in a plane or train, etc) determining how you configure your console.
Will it work? No idea. If they can keep the price down, conceivably yes. I think the big problem with consoles right now is that they're expensive toys for a committed minority. Nintendo misfired with the WiiU, but the biggest, most glaring, fault wasn't the hardware, but the price and pricing.
They're not removing USB, they're removing the original, large, four dimensional USB socket for USB-C. It's a standard USB port, and about the only inconvenience is that you'll need adapters or new cables for your older USB gear. Right now, I'm seeing "USB sticks" as being the main loser.
You guys think this is bad, but I started computing in the 1980s, and I can tell you back then this kind of thing would have been considered a giant leap forward. Virtually every brand of computer had:
1. Its own idea of what a keyboard port should look like
2. Its own idea of what a monitor port should look like
3. Its own idea of what a serial port should look like (hell, that even varied from model to model in a computer makers own product line.)
4. Its own idea of what a printer port should look like
5. Its own idea of what a mouse port should look like
6. Its own idea of what a joystick port should look like
7. Its own idea of what a disk drive port should look like
USB-A switching to USB-C? Great! They're switching from one standard to another, but it's still a well supported standard, and there are good reasons to do so. Well done Apple. Now, if you could add USB to your iDevices...
In fairness, pretty much everyone already knows about the Note 7 fiasco.
But...
If the modder were to modify the mod to include references to other Samsung phones, other than the Note 7, which would be used in the same way, then Samsung can consider the merits of either leaving it be, or doing the same thing, resulting in a large amount of publicity for a story that suggests the Note 7 was not unusual, that Samsung might actually have an exploding phone problem in general.
He's not Hitler. He's a lightweight Mussolini. Scapegoats minorities, smears and dehumanizes same, promotes violence against his opponents, has a contempt for the democratic process, wants to jail his political opponents and restrict and punish journalists who publish stories he and his backers do not like, promotes simplistic solutions to complex problems, usually with an absence of detail that makes the solutions suspect even without further analysis.
He would have to have a raging hate-on for a racial or religious group beyond reason to be a Hitler. He's shown signs of that against Muslims, but he's yet to cross the line that would make me worry about a Muslim holocaust.
I recall the same people attacking Clinton for accepting donations from the Saudis now were going out of their way to buy bland, boring, breaded chicken a few years ago because the CEO of the company that sold it had been funding a group that promotes laws that mandate the death penalty for homosexuality in various African countries.
So: taking money from bad people who do bad things to gays and donating to worthy causes is bad to them. But giving money to bad people who lobby to get bad things done to gays is, apparently totally A-OK.
Just so you understand the mentality here. If Saudi Arabia was doing exactly what it is now, but under the sign of the cross, they'd be celebrating it.
Well, people who know about how charities work seem impressed by it, and it doesn't "lobby" for good causes, it provides grants for them.
Leaving aside the fact that you're confusing two entirely different countries, and that if the {Insert actual human rights abusing country} do not donate money, the human rights atrocities continue (it's not an either/or), I would totally take money from someone evil and spend it on something good. Why wouldn't you? Hell, I'd even steal it from them if I could get away from it.
Why would you do differently? Osama Bin Laden appears in your bedroom tonight. He says "Hoho, I'm not dead, I'm actually the October surprise, Clinton is going to be so screwed when it gets out I'm alive. Yeah, yeah, the Russians have been hiding me. Anywho, I just popped in because I heard you're great at picking charitable causes. Here's FIVE MILLION DOLLARS."
Do you say "Uh, thanks, but I'd rather you spend it on fertilizer, pressure cookers and airline tickets. Here, have your five million back", or do you say "I think I might just spend it on HIV prevention for Gay and Lesbian Jews?"
Pretty easy decision for me to make at any rate, but maybe I'm just not as moral as you.
Actually this post better states my position, FW(L)IW.