Remember when Republicans called Democrats "commies" for 30-40 years, so all the Democrats nominated and elected President a watered down Stalin?
Me neither.
Must be a Republican thing, if you call them something they become it out of spite. Those sick, bed wetting, gun breaking, running-around-on-gravel-with-no-shoes-on, punching themselves in their own testicles if they're male, Democrat-voting, Republicans.
Same as muslims calling for the execution of atheists and gays? Shut them down too?
Why on Earth would you think that's even a question? Oh wait, you're probably one of those moronic right wing nutjobs who thinks "Not all Muslims are terrorists" = "We love Islam and agree with ISIS's interpretation of it!"
How about BLM saying there are "too many white people"?
BLM has never said anything of the sort. BLM is a diverse coalition of people who are concerned that black people keep getting killed by the police for ridiculous reasons, and that there's too much apologism for such killings. You can probably find an individual member who has said something ridiculous, but the movement as a whole would disagree with it.
A business that is open to the general public must serve the general public. A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.
In general, no. Businesses can pick and choose who they serve as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes of people - essentially minorities who are historically and institutionally discriminated against for things beyond their reasonable control. You can implement policies banning libertarians, Marvel fans, Bronies, and people who like Hawaiian Pizza from your wedding cake store, you just can't ban gays for being gay.
If you actually listened to people who aren't RWNJs, you'd know all this. But you choose not to. Here's a thought though: last year, Hillary Clinton warned you that Donald Trump was attracting a large following among white supremacists. She said:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change.
Most Republicans didn't merely refuse to heed her warning, but they lied about what she said and pretended she'd claimed all Republicans are racists, despite the fact she said nothing remotely similar to that, and even recognized that the other half of Trump's supporters were desperate people with legitimate grievances.
Clinton was right then, and HAD CONSERVATIVES HEEDED HER WARNING we'd not be in the horrific situation of having a President who panders to, and gives power, to Neo-Nazis, and who is in probability one himself.
Maybe, just maybe, you should start listening to what liberals, Democrats, and the left in general actually say, rather than pretending they're saying stupid things, inventing whole stupid opinions for them to have, just so you can feel better about yourself?
Nobody's being crucified for economic anxiety. The media is being crucified for pretending a bunch of racists voted for Trump because they weren't really racist, nah, they just had "economic anxiety".
Maybe, but for those rare free speech absolutists who really are arguing Nazis should have a neutral DNS registrar available on free speech grounds (as opposed to the alt-right nuts we see here), there are, actually, rather a lot of DNS registrars, even if you remove the duplicates. The idea Stormfront cannot get someone to register their website is ludicrous. And frankly, if an organization is so terrible that they can't get one of the literally thousands of registrars to talk to them...
Possibly, but it'd be a cold day in hell before the majority of Internet users decide to reconfigure their DNS servers because they can't access websites that tell them blacks are subhuman and Jews are secretly running the world.
Trump won because a significant number of people on the right refused to listen to liberals who were trying to warn them that he was far right, not because they supported neo-nazism. Even on Slashdot, which has become a bit of an alt-right support group lately, discussing issues like immigration regularly devolves into Trump supporters asserting they didn't think he was opposed to immigrants in general, just those who {broke the rules}/{were taking jobs away from HWAs}/etc.
So don't take Trump's election as evidence that suddenly the entire country is marching in Virginia waving swastikas. Nazism and its offshoots are still considered by the vast majority of Americans as utterly evil, and they're certainly not going to go out of their way to hear Nazi voices.
If they get rid of the search bar there's not much left that'll keep me on Firefox. Firefox has better tab handling than Chrome, but that'll be pretty much the only feature left.
Mozilla seems to be completely unable to comprehend the notion that removing differences between it and faster, better supported browsers will drive people to the faster, better supported browsers.
Honestly, I think it depends on the company. There's an obsession with "young" in start-ups because (a) they think "Won't be boxed in by existing orthodoxy" and (b) (most important) cheap. Move to a mature business with a better handle on its long term IT requirements, and experience is a bonus, not a handicap.
Most start-ups go bankrupt, and only a few companies get to continue being run after 20 years the way they were run after 2. Google is... well, people have a habit of not wanting to criticize a company that's making money hand over fist, and so any criticism of Google will have the "Well, how come they're successful and you're stuck in Florida if you know so much" replies, but the reality is Google could be better run, and they've made a lot of errors and misjudgements lately that wouldn't have been made by people with a more mature outlook.
It's a dumb move to reject experience, a decent company thrives on diversity in every sphere. Google has problems with women, and now it apparently has problems with experienced developers. It's too entrenched and in control of its defacto monopolies to be circling the drain because of that, but it does make it more vulnerable.
Chrome shrinks to below the size of the favicons, meaning you just see tab outlines. It can't restrict it to the size of the favicons without introducing scrolling.
I think, as the sibling post points out, there's a massive usability problem when you can no longer distinguish one tab from another (and would be even if the favicons are visible.) No solution is perfect, but Firefox's default behavior makes sense and means that having a lot of tabs open is viable.
[Cuba is] an important partner of the US. Or at least that's what our last President said.
I too make up shit about Obama, unprovoked, and for no apparent reason.
(I'm assuming you're not Iranian because while the Iranian government has, unlike Obama, described Cuba as "an important partner", it's not their diplomats who have been injured.)
Can we please not say this too loudly, otherwise Mozilla will realize there's an aspect of Chrome they're not copying, and copy it.
Firefox has a minimum size for all tabs. If there are too many tabs open, it'll just change the tab bar so it scrolls. This works perfectly. Combined with using Favicons, it means it's very easy to find open tabs.
Chrome... doesn't. I've seen it get to the point that it doesn't even have room to show the Favicons yet.
Both Apple and Google need to look at Firefox here. Tabs are not perfect, but Firefox is doing it the right way.
The tracking stuff is already built into the phone. This "feature" is purely the idea that if you call 112 in Europe the phone will use the tracking technology already in the phone to send the emergency services your location.
It's hard for me to understand your complaint here: "someone" in your sentence here is "the emergency services". If MI5 wants to use your phone's tracking features, enabling this feature won't help them unless you're in the habit of calling 112 every time you and some other political dissidents meet up.
E911 was a bigger threat to privacy because it forced phone manufacturers to add tracking technologies to phones. Even that complaint, however, became meaningless the day smartphone manufacturers, with Apple taking the lead here, decided to put GPS in their phones voluntarily.
demanding investigations and jail time for those that rigged the primary against Bernie as well as jail time
Hate to break it to you but the people who put together the primary system died a century or two ago.
As for your comments about Hillary, she's been investigated up the wazoo, even by Republican dominated congressional committees. Give it up: you know full well she and her husband have been the target of a smear campaign for 25 years now. We're at the point that unless you literally see her doing something terrible right in front of you, you can safely believe that any allegation of law breaking against her is a lie.
Is there a back-up option? Because I can tell you I wouldn't in a BILLION YEARS trust my smartphone (or any smartphone) to ensure I can go home at night.
Because C is awful? It always was pretty bad but we used it because when you're trying to manually render a 16 color 2.5D image on a bitplaned VGA screen using a 6MHz 80286 then you pretty much have to forget array bounds checking, be willing to assume endianess, and have an easy way to translate integers into pointers.
These days there's pretty much no reason to do any of this, which means that the only times you're going to do it is by accident. ie when you put a bug in your application.
I doubt it, producing a cellphone regardless of whether you use an open source or proprietary model still requires conforming to patent encumbered standards, so they'd get their slice of the pie regardless.
There are many projects that fail because they can't get momentum, and this was one of them.
He just explained the need to know - the US Ambassador needs to know who is listening in on their private, confidential, diplomatic discussions with other countries. Did you miss that?
It's not about intelligence. It's about not letting hostile powers know what the US is doing with our allies.
Let me guess, if they didn't have a job you'd be complaining they're scrounging welfare recipients.
I think it's entirely legitimate to criticize companies for paying shit wages. If you want people to stop complaining about it:
- Increase minimum wage to $20/hour or introduce a universal basic income equivalent to $20/hour
- Abolish low and mid-density and non-mixed-use zoning and local approval bureaucracy that allows NIMBYs to prevent the building of new housing stock, so housing can be affordable.
- Improve public transport, so nobody has to spend $5,000 a year just on transporting themselves to where they can earn money and buy food.
- Provide tax-payer funded universal healthcare.
When we have those in place, then companies can pay whatever they want, as nobody will feel obliged to take any job, no matter how poorly paid, to survive. Until then, expect people to complain that they can't live on the income from the only jobs available to them.
Well the key thing is that the Earth was, according to current theories, an ocean of various liquids, from molten rock to the things that make up the core today. So it's not really a matter of things moving around, there's no area of any reasonable size you can presumably point to 47 million years ago that would be identifiably part of the "Pacific Ocean" today.
So, just to be clear, you're against Trump experimenting with a trans-free military? I ask because the language you're using is usually used by anti-progressive people to justify discrimination, but the status quo right now is that the military has trans people in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when Republicans called Democrats "commies" for 30-40 years, so all the Democrats nominated and elected President a watered down Stalin?
Me neither.
Must be a Republican thing, if you call them something they become it out of spite. Those sick, bed wetting, gun breaking, running-around-on-gravel-with-no-shoes-on, punching themselves in their own testicles if they're male, Democrat-voting, Republicans.
Why on Earth would you think that's even a question? Oh wait, you're probably one of those moronic right wing nutjobs who thinks "Not all Muslims are terrorists" = "We love Islam and agree with ISIS's interpretation of it!"
BLM has never said anything of the sort. BLM is a diverse coalition of people who are concerned that black people keep getting killed by the police for ridiculous reasons, and that there's too much apologism for such killings. You can probably find an individual member who has said something ridiculous, but the movement as a whole would disagree with it.
In general, no. Businesses can pick and choose who they serve as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes of people - essentially minorities who are historically and institutionally discriminated against for things beyond their reasonable control. You can implement policies banning libertarians, Marvel fans, Bronies, and people who like Hawaiian Pizza from your wedding cake store, you just can't ban gays for being gay.
If you actually listened to people who aren't RWNJs, you'd know all this. But you choose not to. Here's a thought though: last year, Hillary Clinton warned you that Donald Trump was attracting a large following among white supremacists. She said:
Most Republicans didn't merely refuse to heed her warning, but they lied about what she said and pretended she'd claimed all Republicans are racists, despite the fact she said nothing remotely similar to that, and even recognized that the other half of Trump's supporters were desperate people with legitimate grievances.
Clinton was right then, and HAD CONSERVATIVES HEEDED HER WARNING we'd not be in the horrific situation of having a President who panders to, and gives power, to Neo-Nazis, and who is in probability one himself.
Maybe, just maybe, you should start listening to what liberals, Democrats, and the left in general actually say, rather than pretending they're saying stupid things, inventing whole stupid opinions for them to have, just so you can feel better about yourself?
Nobody's being crucified for economic anxiety. The media is being crucified for pretending a bunch of racists voted for Trump because they weren't really racist, nah, they just had "economic anxiety".
I thought the politically correct phrase was "economic anxiety"? ;-)
Maybe, but for those rare free speech absolutists who really are arguing Nazis should have a neutral DNS registrar available on free speech grounds (as opposed to the alt-right nuts we see here), there are, actually, rather a lot of DNS registrars, even if you remove the duplicates. The idea Stormfront cannot get someone to register their website is ludicrous. And frankly, if an organization is so terrible that they can't get one of the literally thousands of registrars to talk to them...
Possibly, but it'd be a cold day in hell before the majority of Internet users decide to reconfigure their DNS servers because they can't access websites that tell them blacks are subhuman and Jews are secretly running the world.
Trump won because a significant number of people on the right refused to listen to liberals who were trying to warn them that he was far right, not because they supported neo-nazism. Even on Slashdot, which has become a bit of an alt-right support group lately, discussing issues like immigration regularly devolves into Trump supporters asserting they didn't think he was opposed to immigrants in general, just those who {broke the rules}/{were taking jobs away from HWAs}/etc.
So don't take Trump's election as evidence that suddenly the entire country is marching in Virginia waving swastikas. Nazism and its offshoots are still considered by the vast majority of Americans as utterly evil, and they're certainly not going to go out of their way to hear Nazi voices.
What he means is far right hates blacks, mexicans, and jews, while left hates far right, therefore Both Sides!
If they get rid of the search bar there's not much left that'll keep me on Firefox. Firefox has better tab handling than Chrome, but that'll be pretty much the only feature left.
Mozilla seems to be completely unable to comprehend the notion that removing differences between it and faster, better supported browsers will drive people to the faster, better supported browsers.
Honestly, I think it depends on the company. There's an obsession with "young" in start-ups because (a) they think "Won't be boxed in by existing orthodoxy" and (b) (most important) cheap. Move to a mature business with a better handle on its long term IT requirements, and experience is a bonus, not a handicap.
Most start-ups go bankrupt, and only a few companies get to continue being run after 20 years the way they were run after 2. Google is... well, people have a habit of not wanting to criticize a company that's making money hand over fist, and so any criticism of Google will have the "Well, how come they're successful and you're stuck in Florida if you know so much" replies, but the reality is Google could be better run, and they've made a lot of errors and misjudgements lately that wouldn't have been made by people with a more mature outlook.
It's a dumb move to reject experience, a decent company thrives on diversity in every sphere. Google has problems with women, and now it apparently has problems with experienced developers. It's too entrenched and in control of its defacto monopolies to be circling the drain because of that, but it does make it more vulnerable.
This guy has a stack of books on his desk labelled "World Targets in Megadeaths".
Chrome shrinks to below the size of the favicons, meaning you just see tab outlines. It can't restrict it to the size of the favicons without introducing scrolling.
I think, as the sibling post points out, there's a massive usability problem when you can no longer distinguish one tab from another (and would be even if the favicons are visible.) No solution is perfect, but Firefox's default behavior makes sense and means that having a lot of tabs open is viable.
I too make up shit about Obama, unprovoked, and for no apparent reason.
(I'm assuming you're not Iranian because while the Iranian government has, unlike Obama, described Cuba as "an important partner", it's not their diplomats who have been injured.)
Can we please not say this too loudly, otherwise Mozilla will realize there's an aspect of Chrome they're not copying, and copy it.
Firefox has a minimum size for all tabs. If there are too many tabs open, it'll just change the tab bar so it scrolls. This works perfectly. Combined with using Favicons, it means it's very easy to find open tabs.
Chrome... doesn't. I've seen it get to the point that it doesn't even have room to show the Favicons yet.
Both Apple and Google need to look at Firefox here. Tabs are not perfect, but Firefox is doing it the right way.
The tracking stuff is already built into the phone. This "feature" is purely the idea that if you call 112 in Europe the phone will use the tracking technology already in the phone to send the emergency services your location.
It's hard for me to understand your complaint here: "someone" in your sentence here is "the emergency services". If MI5 wants to use your phone's tracking features, enabling this feature won't help them unless you're in the habit of calling 112 every time you and some other political dissidents meet up.
E911 was a bigger threat to privacy because it forced phone manufacturers to add tracking technologies to phones. Even that complaint, however, became meaningless the day smartphone manufacturers, with Apple taking the lead here, decided to put GPS in their phones voluntarily.
Hate to break it to you but the people who put together the primary system died a century or two ago.
As for your comments about Hillary, she's been investigated up the wazoo, even by Republican dominated congressional committees. Give it up: you know full well she and her husband have been the target of a smear campaign for 25 years now. We're at the point that unless you literally see her doing something terrible right in front of you, you can safely believe that any allegation of law breaking against her is a lie.
Is there a back-up option? Because I can tell you I wouldn't in a BILLION YEARS trust my smartphone (or any smartphone) to ensure I can go home at night.
To be fair, I was addressing the notion we shouldn't switch from C. I have no opinion on Rust itself.
Because C is awful? It always was pretty bad but we used it because when you're trying to manually render a 16 color 2.5D image on a bitplaned VGA screen using a 6MHz 80286 then you pretty much have to forget array bounds checking, be willing to assume endianess, and have an easy way to translate integers into pointers.
These days there's pretty much no reason to do any of this, which means that the only times you're going to do it is by accident. ie when you put a bug in your application.
We need to ditch C.
I doubt it, producing a cellphone regardless of whether you use an open source or proprietary model still requires conforming to patent encumbered standards, so they'd get their slice of the pie regardless.
There are many projects that fail because they can't get momentum, and this was one of them.
He just explained the need to know - the US Ambassador needs to know who is listening in on their private, confidential, diplomatic discussions with other countries. Did you miss that?
It's not about intelligence. It's about not letting hostile powers know what the US is doing with our allies.
Let me guess, if they didn't have a job you'd be complaining they're scrounging welfare recipients.
I think it's entirely legitimate to criticize companies for paying shit wages. If you want people to stop complaining about it:
- Increase minimum wage to $20/hour or introduce a universal basic income equivalent to $20/hour
- Abolish low and mid-density and non-mixed-use zoning and local approval bureaucracy that allows NIMBYs to prevent the building of new housing stock, so housing can be affordable.
- Improve public transport, so nobody has to spend $5,000 a year just on transporting themselves to where they can earn money and buy food.
- Provide tax-payer funded universal healthcare.
When we have those in place, then companies can pay whatever they want, as nobody will feel obliged to take any job, no matter how poorly paid, to survive. Until then, expect people to complain that they can't live on the income from the only jobs available to them.
Even allowing for the begging the question here, why, exactly, should all mental illnesses no matter what they are disqualify you from serving?
Well the key thing is that the Earth was, according to current theories, an ocean of various liquids, from molten rock to the things that make up the core today. So it's not really a matter of things moving around, there's no area of any reasonable size you can presumably point to 47 million years ago that would be identifiably part of the "Pacific Ocean" today.
So, just to be clear, you're against Trump experimenting with a trans-free military? I ask because the language you're using is usually used by anti-progressive people to justify discrimination, but the status quo right now is that the military has trans people in it.
So giving someone the same rights as everyone else is making special considerations for them that normally would not apply?
Wow, we should totally up the number of people we discriminate against, for the sake of equality, yeah, that's it.