The vast majority of people loved TLJ. It's consistently polled high, it had extremely high ratings when viewers were polled on opening day, and Blu-ray sales are through the roof.
There's a long standing myth it did badly, largely because a small but loud group of "fans" kept posting the same ten page essays on "Why I didn't like TLJ" because they were upset by.... I'm still unsure what by, I mean, they claim it's not the purple haired woman, but then they call her "Admiral SJW" so there's that. Interestingly there's at least some evidence the IRA (the Russian troll outfit, not the Catholic Terror organization) had a hand in early trolling on the subject.
Bottom line: TLJ did well and was well received. Solo did badly because... to be honest, it wasn't a movie I heard anyone say they were looking forward to, and I also watched it and thought it was awful and told my friends the same thing, but there are some people out there who liked it, which is fine, good for you I guess. But TLJ? Stop beating that dead horse. If BD sales had been terrible I'd have assumed people were right about it generating some kind of backlash despite huge audiences, but BD sales are great. Audience polling is great. It did well. Not surprised, it was a great movie.
but Netflix have to accept that the value of their service is diminished by the loss of several of their biggest and best titles
Nobody's saying otherwise. What I just pointed out is that Netflix can legitimately find other ways to fill the gap and thus preserve its value.
And to be honest, that's how it should be. If Netflix's response to the removal of Disney titles was to cut prices instead of replacing it with content of equal or better value, then it'd probably lose all of its subscribers.
Not sure why this is modded so highly. The only money Iran got in the recent Iran deal was money that already belonged to it that we owed them. The "Promise not to build Nuclear Weapons" thing is, you know, a part of any anti-Nuclear treaty, why would you expect it not to be in there? And "Attack and kill Americans" isn't a thing Iran is currently involved in in any serious way, if it were we'd be at war already.
The truth right now is that Iran is the one county in the Middle East (other than Israel, which we're already friends with) that's close (albeit still a way from) having a proper democracy and popular government. It's a country we were, until the mid-seventies, friends with, and it's a country that was, until the revolution, extremely Westernized.
And here's the kicker: anything that promotes friendly relationships with the West undermines the religious government of Iran and strengthens the secular government. You feed into the "Great Satan" narrative by promoting treating Iran as lepers. You want to undermine Islamic fundamentalism? Make friends. Get Iran on good terms with the US. There's a lot of work to be done, some of the antagonism has legitimate roots (Iran suffered from terrible interference in its political affairs throughout most of the 20th Century until the revolution thanks to Britain and America) and has to be taken into account. But this whole "We're just enemies and we need to keep it that way" shit needs to end.
Shame on those who would prefer war and would prefer it remain unstable and hostile.
That's a Disney thing, not a Netflix thing. Disney announced over a year ago they're going to withdraw from Netflix and run their own streaming service (with Blackjack and Hookers I assume.) One assumes Netflix is already out looking for similar sources of content. In fact, I know they are, because they've picked up all DC Universe's original content for streaming outside of the US (they can't get rights in the US, because DC Universe doesn't want Netflix as a competitor, for obvious reasons), and they also co-fund the Arrowverse shows now.
So, couple that with the additional original content they themselves are making, and I doubt you'll get a net reduction in stuff. Me? I'm just disappointed the original vision of "A place where every movie except the latest stuff is online" has gone. But it's not bad as an HBO alternative.
Not having played the game, a historical representation of "Operation Gunnerside" would have been a poor match for Battlefield. No shots fired, no Germans killed. Just patience, a bit of stealth and coming in and leaving over the mountains in wintertime. Women being part of it is the least of the problems in a BF V representation... so why so much hate on that point?
I'd make a guess he hates women, so that's the only thing he cares about?
Ensuring there is noticeable female representation in games is something most games companies have been doing for a while now, as it pretty much doubles the number of people who'd be interested in buying those games. But there's a certain "type" that's attracted to, for example, political movements whose entire founding point is that a feeeeeeeeeeeeemale video game maker had one night of sex with a journalist who wasn't covering her games at the time when she was already "claimed" by some jerk who was annoyed that a woman he wasn't sleeping with but was exchanging lovely IMs with on Facebook had slept with someone else... where was I? Oh yeah, there's a certain type attracted to such movements who gets all bent out of shape if someone dares to include women in some place they deem inappropriate.
Usually they're under 14 years old, or they're over 60, or they're just socially inept but blame women for this somehow. And if they're not blaming women, they're blaming "SJWs", a set of demons that hides behind every door secretly helping out women and black people and other minorities supposedly at their expense... a group of people who do not, based upon the definitions I've seen, actually exist.
The long term solution is to remove the incentives that brings illegals here in the first place.
eg. a history of Western governments using everything from the War on Drugs to Communism as excuses to interfere with and cripple the governments, and as a result the economies, of various South American countries, resulting in economic and social conditions that would make people so desperate they'd be willing to trek thousands of miles and risk arrest just to improve their conditions.
FTFY. Birthright citizenship? Are you nuts? What proportion of illegal immigrants do you seriously think are coming here as part of a long term strategy to get pregnant and give birth?
Another alternative interestingly is to stop worrying about it. Make visas easier to get. Make residency easier to get (and hence citizenship.) Result? Probably fewer employers encouraging immigrants, because they wouldn't be able to rely upon its illegal status to pay shit wages under the table. But that would, you know, actually help the same blue collar workers that anti-immigrant assholes pretend to be helping with their rhetoric, whereas the entire point of the wall isn't to stop illegal immigrants from driving blue collar workers out of their jobs, the entire point is to make sure it continues to happen while looking like the people who are trying to prevent it.
Found the scriptwriter for NCIS. Did you also write this bit too?;-)
(At best Motorola might be able to identify the distributor of the hardware in question, after that it's unlikely anyone was tracking MAC addresses to their ultimate buyer.)
It's worse than that in many ways. Part of the issue here is that Unity and Improbable apparently remember everything completely differently, which means anyone "taking sides" here to the extent of saying "XXXX is in the wrong here!" is being premature. Not that I'm saying you can't take sides, but it's probably a case of "The blame and bigger error was committed by X for not taking into account Y" rather than "X are poopyheads who tried to rip off Z"
Here's what it boils down to:
Unity had some T&Cs set at the time Improbable started up which were... ambiguous. Improbable interpreted them initially as banning what Improbable wants to do, but felt it was unlikely this was intentional (ie it was just Unity hadn't thought people would be doing what Improbable was doing.) They contacted Unity and apparently got what they thought was a green light from them.
Unity remembers things differently. It's pretty sure it told Improbable that Improbable's use case wasn't covered by the license and what's more it didn't want it to be.
So the recent "change" was more of a "clarification" from Unity's PoV. Meanwhile the "clarification" was a wholesale change from Improbable's point of view.
Does either side have anything to back this up? Unity may or may not do, but Improbable doesn't. Improbable says its confirmation it could go ahead and everything was fine was communicated verbally. So they have no paper or email trail to speak of.
If both sides are telling the truth, then I'd say Improbable made the critical error here. I know that a sizable amount of business involves verbal OKs and handshakes, but if it ever comes to a licensing issue, writing is the way to go. Don't rely on something until you have it in writing. It's not just a matter of proof, it's also a matter of knowing that the person you're communicating with is making and communicating the actual policy, not merely giving his or her opinion on it. Written communications never exist in a vacuum, copies are given to other internal people who can immediately respond to errors and will know going forward what has been said.
Does that mean Unity are blameless? Probably not, but it sounds like standard corporate disconnects than anything dishonest. Someone told Improbable something, and apparently didn't tell others within the company what was said. That's not good. But it's not the critical mistake here.
Now it's become "they brushed against me, and I can find advantage in claiming sexual assault".
No, it hasn't, you'd be hard pressed to find a single case of that happening, and there are almost certainly no cases where that's the only thing alleged where anyone was disciplined or suffered consequences except the accuser.
Let's be honest here: you're a paranoid nerd. Most of us are. We hear "horror stories" and we believe them because... we're frightened of the unknown and the guy telling them seems up and up. We nod sympathetically to the guy who's a registered sex offender who explains that it's because he had a one night stand when he was 20 with someone who told him she was 18, but was actually 15. Because that kinda sounds like it might happen, I mean, the law sounds like it's that strict.
...and only afterwards do we find the guy was a straight up rapist and his explanation doesn't have any truth to it.
I mention that because it's common. Abusers always pretend what they were caught doing was lesser than it actually was. Sometimes they're helped by a lack of context, and always they're helped by a gaggle of apologists, people who feel they know the guy and want to believe the best of him and so spread the ludicrous smear around.
When I was a teenager a kid threatened me with a Stanley Knife. I was terrified. I told my mother. She told the school head. The school more or less ignored the whole thing as a "He said/he said" thing, and then the taunting started. You see, the kid hadn't just threatened me with a knife, a very real knife he put against my cheek (but thankfully didn't press), but he also pretended to have a gun and stuck his fingers under his jacket. I didn't tell anyone about that, because that was very obviously fake and not what I was afraid of.
But he told the kids I'd gone to the school head frightened of the joke gun. He didn't mention the knife. So everyone at school got it into their heads I'd complained about a very obvious joke.
Women are not throwing accusations of men brushing against them. They'd be laughed at if they tried to, and no woman in their right mind wants the hassle associated with making serious sexual harassment/assault claims anyway. It's not happening. The people who told you they heard a guy who knew a guy who had been fired over something like this are repeating a lie. A lie almost certainly made by the person who was fired. Who was fired over a pattern of behavior that was driving women out of the company. Maybe he was groping people, maybe worse, or maybe he was just handsy, but he wouldn't have been fired if all he'd done was accidentally brush against someone. It's silly. Stop believing this ridiculous myth.
Of course there have been bugs. But software with a much smaller and well-defined scope (like only being an init system) tend to have less bugs
While this is technically true, all that means is that to get a true picture of which is more secure, you have to measure both the bugs in init and the bugs in those daemons systemd replaces when comparing these "smaller and well defined scope" tools to systemd.
Knowing the quality of 90% of the init scripts I've had to review, I'd be very surprised if there's any overall security advantage to init+the daemons systemd replaced compared with systemd itself.
Don't know about the first bit, but the second doesn't seem insurmountable - monitors generally switch to standby if they don't have an input, and switch back on if they do. Connect your monitor to a receiver with a remote (you'll need something to handle audio and switch between multiple inputs anyway) and you'll be able to do everything from 3-10 feet away using the receiver's remote.
But yeah, I haven't seen a 60" monitor and doubt they'd be cheap, they'd probably refuse to make them in a TV resolution to begin with.
American cheese isn't really "a" cheese, it's multiple cheese mixed together. Some stories I've read suggest it literally started out as left overs from cheese mass production that were swept into a pot and melted together, but the more common origin story has Kraft actually trying to produce something with this taste and texture as an end product to a mass production process. Either way you would only find it economical to produce in countries that mass produce cheeses broadly similar to those in America, mostly mild cheddar and swiss.
To give an example of a country I'm familiar with: While Britain produces a lot of cheddar, that's really the only cheese it produces in massive quantities that America does too, others like Red Leicester, Double Gloucester, et al, don't really have tastes resembling common American mass produced cheeses. Additionally until relatively recently in British cheesemaking history you wouldn't have seen a sizable number of multiple cheeses "manufactured" in the same "factory", so there wouldn't have been a similar composition of left overs, unlike America where Kraft and Land O'Lakes produce broadly similar stuff.
OK, but what about the market American cheese servers? Well, even then it's not as if American cheese is "necessary": if you need a bland cheese without a strong taste which goes with everything, most countries have it already. At the very least, Holland's Edam cheese is popular throughout Europe.
So while it's supremely economical to make American cheese in America, even an "equivalent" that tastes different but exists for broadly the same reason wouldn't really take off in many markets in the old world. It'd be difficult to standardize due to historic reasons, and wouldn't fill a market niche like American does.
Nope. Most people under 30 during the Vietnam war supported it. Most people 50 and over opposed it. (30-49 generally supported it but the margin wasn't as high as it was for under 30s)
Bear in mind that a huge proportion of men over 35 and even some women had fought in WW-II, so this shouldn't surprise anyone. But people under 30 didn't start opposing Vietnam until sometime around 1968-1969.
If you can only use a product by agreeing to shitty terms and conditions that prevent you from using it the way you wanted to, it's a second tier technology. No ifs, buts, or anything else.
He probably is. This is a common Libertarian variant of the slippery slope argument - "We need to get rid of all government because ultimately if you have a government then the things you're complaining about happen therefore it isn't worth having even for the things you agree with." As evidence, look at the thread, his response and the changed subject is to someone literally just arguing that Trump is the issue.
There is a mentality among many in the US that it's just not possible to have a decent government. The origin of this mentality is long, not worth explaining here, and goes to some pretty dark forces in the America's history. At some point though we've got to recognize that we want something out of government other than tax cuts.
1. It's bullshit and mostly a scam.
2. It's a glibitarian "answer" for something that really should be done via taxes but the people funding it are against taxes.
3. It's actually supported by someone who ideologically opposes higher education anyway.
I was under the impression they'd always seen their content selling side as a means to get people to buy Apple hardware. If they're now worried about their content selling side losing business to more open alternatives, that tells me they see hardware as a dead end. That's... interesting.
If it's not a background app, then yes, there's a button to bring up a task manager on every Android phone, the boxy on. Good Android phones have this as one of three off screen buttons, shitty Android phones cost three times as much and have these on screen but hidden in full screen mode - you have to swipe from the side to get the buttons to appear.
Never buy a phone with on screen buttons.
Anywho, for background tasks you need to go to Settings -> Apps -> Whatever app it is, and hit Force Stop. The same screen also has an Uninstall button to kill the process permanently.
So yes, either way, Android does have relatively easy to find tools to kill misbehaving processes.
Again, never buy an Android phone with on screen buttons.
That seems to be the case with moderators whenever someone says "Yes, but gender and sex are two related concepts that mean different things", or "There's no such thing in practice as an SJW, at least, not in terms of how you define it", or "Feminism is merely the concept that women shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against, and no it's not accurate to describe someone as a man hater just because they're a feminist", or...
...you get the gist, but I'm guessing you ignore those cases and focus on the small number of cases where it's applied to right wingers. Which is odd, because with the exception of Russian trolls, the minority of right wingers (minority meaning not majority, it's sad I should have to point that out) who promote evil (again, not the majority of right wingers, because nobody's saying all right wingers promote evil) aren't called trolls, they're called shitheads or something similar. We generally take them at their word that they're the people they say they are.
Wall protection != building a new wall. Nobody is opposed to protecting our borders, or shoring up the existing walls. What's pointless is spending $5B on starting a completely new wall that'll be built in places where it'll have virtually no effect.
The "Dance" thing I see denied by many conservatives now, but I saw it unfold in real time, including the original attempt by RWNJ conservative @realdanjordan (which was subsequently copied, and lazily at that, by @AnonymousQ1776) It was clearly an attempt to poke fun at her, that backfired hugely. The fact conservatives walked it back (in some cases legitimately and with honor, but only in some cases) doesn't change what it was and what it attempted to do.
Trump has done enough things for the usual mistakes made by the media (which oddly seem to mostly be anti-Democrat, not anti-Republican) to not be an issue with anyone trying to determine his trustworthiness or human decency. If you've decided to support him because you saw Anderson Cooper say a mean thing about him, well, there's no helping you.
You deduced all that because I observed that we overspend on rural roads and that cities don't get their transportation needs met, huh?
Want to explain the logic? Oh, you can't? Because you're projecting so far you've disappeared up your asshole? It's kinda weird, I've never seen a city advocate complain about people who live outside of cities, but I'm always coming across suburban idiots, like you, who think they're "rural", despite the fact they've never been within one mile of a cow they weren't passing at 70mph.
I've lived in two countries, in both rural and non-rural areas. Policies that run down cities and force people to live outside of them are fucking stupid. People who demonize those who live in urban areas, such as the original poster, are part of the problem. You're part of the problem. YOU ARE WHY THE COST OF LIVING IS SKY HIGH IN THE UNITED STATES. Go fuck yourself you stupid scumbag.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of people loved TLJ. It's consistently polled high, it had extremely high ratings when viewers were polled on opening day, and Blu-ray sales are through the roof.
There's a long standing myth it did badly, largely because a small but loud group of "fans" kept posting the same ten page essays on "Why I didn't like TLJ" because they were upset by.... I'm still unsure what by, I mean, they claim it's not the purple haired woman, but then they call her "Admiral SJW" so there's that. Interestingly there's at least some evidence the IRA (the Russian troll outfit, not the Catholic Terror organization) had a hand in early trolling on the subject.
Bottom line: TLJ did well and was well received. Solo did badly because... to be honest, it wasn't a movie I heard anyone say they were looking forward to, and I also watched it and thought it was awful and told my friends the same thing, but there are some people out there who liked it, which is fine, good for you I guess. But TLJ? Stop beating that dead horse. If BD sales had been terrible I'd have assumed people were right about it generating some kind of backlash despite huge audiences, but BD sales are great. Audience polling is great. It did well. Not surprised, it was a great movie.
Nobody's saying otherwise. What I just pointed out is that Netflix can legitimately find other ways to fill the gap and thus preserve its value.
And to be honest, that's how it should be. If Netflix's response to the removal of Disney titles was to cut prices instead of replacing it with content of equal or better value, then it'd probably lose all of its subscribers.
Not sure why this is modded so highly. The only money Iran got in the recent Iran deal was money that already belonged to it that we owed them. The "Promise not to build Nuclear Weapons" thing is, you know, a part of any anti-Nuclear treaty, why would you expect it not to be in there? And "Attack and kill Americans" isn't a thing Iran is currently involved in in any serious way, if it were we'd be at war already.
The truth right now is that Iran is the one county in the Middle East (other than Israel, which we're already friends with) that's close (albeit still a way from) having a proper democracy and popular government. It's a country we were, until the mid-seventies, friends with, and it's a country that was, until the revolution, extremely Westernized.
And here's the kicker: anything that promotes friendly relationships with the West undermines the religious government of Iran and strengthens the secular government. You feed into the "Great Satan" narrative by promoting treating Iran as lepers. You want to undermine Islamic fundamentalism? Make friends. Get Iran on good terms with the US. There's a lot of work to be done, some of the antagonism has legitimate roots (Iran suffered from terrible interference in its political affairs throughout most of the 20th Century until the revolution thanks to Britain and America) and has to be taken into account. But this whole "We're just enemies and we need to keep it that way" shit needs to end.
Shame on those who would prefer war and would prefer it remain unstable and hostile.
That's a Disney thing, not a Netflix thing. Disney announced over a year ago they're going to withdraw from Netflix and run their own streaming service (with Blackjack and Hookers I assume.) One assumes Netflix is already out looking for similar sources of content. In fact, I know they are, because they've picked up all DC Universe's original content for streaming outside of the US (they can't get rights in the US, because DC Universe doesn't want Netflix as a competitor, for obvious reasons), and they also co-fund the Arrowverse shows now.
So, couple that with the additional original content they themselves are making, and I doubt you'll get a net reduction in stuff. Me? I'm just disappointed the original vision of "A place where every movie except the latest stuff is online" has gone. But it's not bad as an HBO alternative.
I'd make a guess he hates women, so that's the only thing he cares about?
Ensuring there is noticeable female representation in games is something most games companies have been doing for a while now, as it pretty much doubles the number of people who'd be interested in buying those games. But there's a certain "type" that's attracted to, for example, political movements whose entire founding point is that a feeeeeeeeeeeeemale video game maker had one night of sex with a journalist who wasn't covering her games at the time when she was already "claimed" by some jerk who was annoyed that a woman he wasn't sleeping with but was exchanging lovely IMs with on Facebook had slept with someone else... where was I? Oh yeah, there's a certain type attracted to such movements who gets all bent out of shape if someone dares to include women in some place they deem inappropriate.
Usually they're under 14 years old, or they're over 60, or they're just socially inept but blame women for this somehow. And if they're not blaming women, they're blaming "SJWs", a set of demons that hides behind every door secretly helping out women and black people and other minorities supposedly at their expense... a group of people who do not, based upon the definitions I've seen, actually exist.
FTFY. Birthright citizenship? Are you nuts? What proportion of illegal immigrants do you seriously think are coming here as part of a long term strategy to get pregnant and give birth?
Another alternative interestingly is to stop worrying about it. Make visas easier to get. Make residency easier to get (and hence citizenship.) Result? Probably fewer employers encouraging immigrants, because they wouldn't be able to rely upon its illegal status to pay shit wages under the table. But that would, you know, actually help the same blue collar workers that anti-immigrant assholes pretend to be helping with their rhetoric, whereas the entire point of the wall isn't to stop illegal immigrants from driving blue collar workers out of their jobs, the entire point is to make sure it continues to happen while looking like the people who are trying to prevent it.
Found the scriptwriter for NCIS. Did you also write this bit too? ;-)
(At best Motorola might be able to identify the distributor of the hardware in question, after that it's unlikely anyone was tracking MAC addresses to their ultimate buyer.)
You're saying the police should ignore a potential lead because it might lead nowhere?
It's worse than that in many ways. Part of the issue here is that Unity and Improbable apparently remember everything completely differently, which means anyone "taking sides" here to the extent of saying "XXXX is in the wrong here!" is being premature. Not that I'm saying you can't take sides, but it's probably a case of "The blame and bigger error was committed by X for not taking into account Y" rather than "X are poopyheads who tried to rip off Z"
Here's what it boils down to:
Unity had some T&Cs set at the time Improbable started up which were... ambiguous. Improbable interpreted them initially as banning what Improbable wants to do, but felt it was unlikely this was intentional (ie it was just Unity hadn't thought people would be doing what Improbable was doing.) They contacted Unity and apparently got what they thought was a green light from them.
Unity remembers things differently. It's pretty sure it told Improbable that Improbable's use case wasn't covered by the license and what's more it didn't want it to be.
So the recent "change" was more of a "clarification" from Unity's PoV. Meanwhile the "clarification" was a wholesale change from Improbable's point of view.
Does either side have anything to back this up? Unity may or may not do, but Improbable doesn't. Improbable says its confirmation it could go ahead and everything was fine was communicated verbally. So they have no paper or email trail to speak of.
If both sides are telling the truth, then I'd say Improbable made the critical error here. I know that a sizable amount of business involves verbal OKs and handshakes, but if it ever comes to a licensing issue, writing is the way to go. Don't rely on something until you have it in writing. It's not just a matter of proof, it's also a matter of knowing that the person you're communicating with is making and communicating the actual policy, not merely giving his or her opinion on it. Written communications never exist in a vacuum, copies are given to other internal people who can immediately respond to errors and will know going forward what has been said.
Does that mean Unity are blameless? Probably not, but it sounds like standard corporate disconnects than anything dishonest. Someone told Improbable something, and apparently didn't tell others within the company what was said. That's not good. But it's not the critical mistake here.
No, it hasn't, you'd be hard pressed to find a single case of that happening, and there are almost certainly no cases where that's the only thing alleged where anyone was disciplined or suffered consequences except the accuser.
Let's be honest here: you're a paranoid nerd. Most of us are. We hear "horror stories" and we believe them because... we're frightened of the unknown and the guy telling them seems up and up. We nod sympathetically to the guy who's a registered sex offender who explains that it's because he had a one night stand when he was 20 with someone who told him she was 18, but was actually 15. Because that kinda sounds like it might happen, I mean, the law sounds like it's that strict.
I mention that because it's common. Abusers always pretend what they were caught doing was lesser than it actually was. Sometimes they're helped by a lack of context, and always they're helped by a gaggle of apologists, people who feel they know the guy and want to believe the best of him and so spread the ludicrous smear around.
When I was a teenager a kid threatened me with a Stanley Knife. I was terrified. I told my mother. She told the school head. The school more or less ignored the whole thing as a "He said/he said" thing, and then the taunting started. You see, the kid hadn't just threatened me with a knife, a very real knife he put against my cheek (but thankfully didn't press), but he also pretended to have a gun and stuck his fingers under his jacket. I didn't tell anyone about that, because that was very obviously fake and not what I was afraid of.
But he told the kids I'd gone to the school head frightened of the joke gun. He didn't mention the knife. So everyone at school got it into their heads I'd complained about a very obvious joke.
Women are not throwing accusations of men brushing against them. They'd be laughed at if they tried to, and no woman in their right mind wants the hassle associated with making serious sexual harassment/assault claims anyway. It's not happening. The people who told you they heard a guy who knew a guy who had been fired over something like this are repeating a lie. A lie almost certainly made by the person who was fired. Who was fired over a pattern of behavior that was driving women out of the company. Maybe he was groping people, maybe worse, or maybe he was just handsy, but he wouldn't have been fired if all he'd done was accidentally brush against someone. It's silly. Stop believing this ridiculous myth.
While this is technically true, all that means is that to get a true picture of which is more secure, you have to measure both the bugs in init and the bugs in those daemons systemd replaces when comparing these "smaller and well defined scope" tools to systemd.
Knowing the quality of 90% of the init scripts I've had to review, I'd be very surprised if there's any overall security advantage to init+the daemons systemd replaced compared with systemd itself.
Something that exists to find bugs only present in C would have found these, so it's got nothing to do with C? WTF?
Yeah pointing guns at police and bail bondsmen always goes well in the US.
Don't know about the first bit, but the second doesn't seem insurmountable - monitors generally switch to standby if they don't have an input, and switch back on if they do. Connect your monitor to a receiver with a remote (you'll need something to handle audio and switch between multiple inputs anyway) and you'll be able to do everything from 3-10 feet away using the receiver's remote.
But yeah, I haven't seen a 60" monitor and doubt they'd be cheap, they'd probably refuse to make them in a TV resolution to begin with.
American cheese isn't really "a" cheese, it's multiple cheese mixed together. Some stories I've read suggest it literally started out as left overs from cheese mass production that were swept into a pot and melted together, but the more common origin story has Kraft actually trying to produce something with this taste and texture as an end product to a mass production process. Either way you would only find it economical to produce in countries that mass produce cheeses broadly similar to those in America, mostly mild cheddar and swiss.
To give an example of a country I'm familiar with: While Britain produces a lot of cheddar, that's really the only cheese it produces in massive quantities that America does too, others like Red Leicester, Double Gloucester, et al, don't really have tastes resembling common American mass produced cheeses. Additionally until relatively recently in British cheesemaking history you wouldn't have seen a sizable number of multiple cheeses "manufactured" in the same "factory", so there wouldn't have been a similar composition of left overs, unlike America where Kraft and Land O'Lakes produce broadly similar stuff.
OK, but what about the market American cheese servers? Well, even then it's not as if American cheese is "necessary": if you need a bland cheese without a strong taste which goes with everything, most countries have it already. At the very least, Holland's Edam cheese is popular throughout Europe.
So while it's supremely economical to make American cheese in America, even an "equivalent" that tastes different but exists for broadly the same reason wouldn't really take off in many markets in the old world. It'd be difficult to standardize due to historic reasons, and wouldn't fill a market niche like American does.
Nope. Most people under 30 during the Vietnam war supported it. Most people 50 and over opposed it. (30-49 generally supported it but the margin wasn't as high as it was for under 30s)
Bear in mind that a huge proportion of men over 35 and even some women had fought in WW-II, so this shouldn't surprise anyone. But people under 30 didn't start opposing Vietnam until sometime around 1968-1969.
If you can only use a product by agreeing to shitty terms and conditions that prevent you from using it the way you wanted to, it's a second tier technology. No ifs, buts, or anything else.
He probably is. This is a common Libertarian variant of the slippery slope argument - "We need to get rid of all government because ultimately if you have a government then the things you're complaining about happen therefore it isn't worth having even for the things you agree with." As evidence, look at the thread, his response and the changed subject is to someone literally just arguing that Trump is the issue.
There is a mentality among many in the US that it's just not possible to have a decent government. The origin of this mentality is long, not worth explaining here, and goes to some pretty dark forces in the America's history. At some point though we've got to recognize that we want something out of government other than tax cuts.
1. It's bullshit and mostly a scam.
2. It's a glibitarian "answer" for something that really should be done via taxes but the people funding it are against taxes.
3. It's actually supported by someone who ideologically opposes higher education anyway.
Good to know!
If you earn a lot of money, chances are you benefited from an educated society in some way. So pay your fucking taxes you cheap bastard.
I was under the impression they'd always seen their content selling side as a means to get people to buy Apple hardware. If they're now worried about their content selling side losing business to more open alternatives, that tells me they see hardware as a dead end. That's... interesting.
Maybe "Mac OS W" is on the way after all...
If it's not a background app, then yes, there's a button to bring up a task manager on every Android phone, the boxy on. Good Android phones have this as one of three off screen buttons, shitty Android phones cost three times as much and have these on screen but hidden in full screen mode - you have to swipe from the side to get the buttons to appear.
Never buy a phone with on screen buttons.
Anywho, for background tasks you need to go to Settings -> Apps -> Whatever app it is, and hit Force Stop. The same screen also has an Uninstall button to kill the process permanently.
So yes, either way, Android does have relatively easy to find tools to kill misbehaving processes.
Again, never buy an Android phone with on screen buttons.
That seems to be the case with moderators whenever someone says "Yes, but gender and sex are two related concepts that mean different things", or "There's no such thing in practice as an SJW, at least, not in terms of how you define it", or "Feminism is merely the concept that women shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against, and no it's not accurate to describe someone as a man hater just because they're a feminist", or...
Wall protection != building a new wall. Nobody is opposed to protecting our borders, or shoring up the existing walls. What's pointless is spending $5B on starting a completely new wall that'll be built in places where it'll have virtually no effect.
The "Dance" thing I see denied by many conservatives now, but I saw it unfold in real time, including the original attempt by RWNJ conservative @realdanjordan (which was subsequently copied, and lazily at that, by @AnonymousQ1776) It was clearly an attempt to poke fun at her, that backfired hugely. The fact conservatives walked it back (in some cases legitimately and with honor, but only in some cases) doesn't change what it was and what it attempted to do.
Trump has done enough things for the usual mistakes made by the media (which oddly seem to mostly be anti-Democrat, not anti-Republican) to not be an issue with anyone trying to determine his trustworthiness or human decency. If you've decided to support him because you saw Anderson Cooper say a mean thing about him, well, there's no helping you.
(Jesus Christ the mods are fucked up today)
You deduced all that because I observed that we overspend on rural roads and that cities don't get their transportation needs met, huh?
Want to explain the logic? Oh, you can't? Because you're projecting so far you've disappeared up your asshole? It's kinda weird, I've never seen a city advocate complain about people who live outside of cities, but I'm always coming across suburban idiots, like you, who think they're "rural", despite the fact they've never been within one mile of a cow they weren't passing at 70mph.
I've lived in two countries, in both rural and non-rural areas. Policies that run down cities and force people to live outside of them are fucking stupid. People who demonize those who live in urban areas, such as the original poster, are part of the problem. You're part of the problem. YOU ARE WHY THE COST OF LIVING IS SKY HIGH IN THE UNITED STATES. Go fuck yourself you stupid scumbag.