Aircraft carriers are nice toys whose main purpose is displaying flag and being a nice target for the subs. If you want to compare the British and Russian defense capabilities, try to count how many Russian cruise and ballistic missiles can strike the UK or UK Navy ships and what UK can do about it. The nuclear missile subs is what really matters, and the Russian Northern Fleet has dozens of them.
In case if you haven't been paying attention, that's exactly the attitude that Trump has been complaining about. America alone can't afford to pick up the tab for defending all of Europe and Asia any more.
Well, I don't ever recall Trump offering any other country the role of a world's policeman. He did suggest that USA should get out of conflicts and alliances that are costly to the USA with no real benefits.
I don't know which way the Pentagon spending will go, as Trump has given a bunch of contradicting statements. A massive boost in Pentagon spending does not seem to be consistent with cutting the government size or its deficits.
No wonder Trump has been incessantly complaining that America's allies do not spend enough on their own defense and rely on the American firepower. The situation is quite similar all over Europe.
The original idea of a very limited Federal government that was created by the States and works for the States died a long time ago, unfortunately.
I am sorry, but this statement is a bunch of rubbish. The States elect their own legislatures. They have their own governors. They have their constitutions. The electoral college still remains one of the few things that preserves the FEDERAL nature of the Union. If you want to get rid of the electoral college, then why not get rid of the states as well. Let's just have one big State of Americaland. Under such arrangement, the electing president with a popular vote would be appropriate. Of course, a lot of states would disagree and threaten to separate, because certainly none of them signed for such an arrangement originally.
The electoral college serves the important purpose of giving each STATE a fair voice in the only election into a federal executive office. Remember that USA is not unitary state. It's a federal union of quasi-sovereign states.
Indeed, people who argue that the current electoral system is unfair because Hillary would have certainly won by a popular vote don't seem to get that the popular vote is truly irrelevant to the presidential candidates' campaign. Their campaigns are designed to maximize the electoral vote count. If the election was by popular vote, then the electoral campaign would have been entirely different, and the battleground areas would have been entirely different, and the final popular vote count completely unpredictable.
A proportional split of state's electoral votes is not much different from direct popular election though. The candidates would be still forced to concentrate on campaigning only in the most populous states and urban areas. This would force all of politics to the left, which is what the coastal urban populations want, ignoring the rest of country.
I also wonder what either option do to the cost of the elections. It could be astronomical. Whereas now, the campaign takes place maybe in 10-15 states, under an alternative system, politicians would be compelled to campaign in far more areas.
One Person, One Vote is only fundamental in a unitary state. However, the USA is a union of fairly diverse quasi-sovereign states. That's why the Constitution was written in the way to give every state a fair voice and representation in the Federal government. At the state level elections, all states get to device how to conduct elections, and at the state level one person one vote is indeed the rule.
You need to recognize that we live not only in 21st century, but that we also live in a FEDERATION, a UNION of many diverse states. When the US constitution was created, it was explicitly written in a way to give a fair voice and representation to ALL states, big and small, in the federal government. This was a compromise that was meant to entice smaller or predominantly rural states to join the union without the fear of being overrun by the mob rule of just a few big population centers.
Don't also forget that this electoral system only applies to the election of the president and vice-president, which are a federal office. On the other hand, the states are free to conduct their elections into state offices any way they like, as long that doesn't conflict with the US constitution.
Why should the EC electoral vote fairly represent the voters? You need to recall that USA is not a unitary state. USA is a Federation of _many_ states. The electoral college system was created to give each STATE a fair voice in the elections and the rest of federal politics. It was created to entice the smaller states to join the union without the fear of being completely overrun by the mod rule of just a few big population centers.
The electoral college should remain in place because it preserves the FEDERAL nature of the United STATES of America. In a true federation, all states, big and small, should have some kind of a voice and a fair representation in the electoral system and the rest of politics. The electoral college was created to entice smaller states join the union on a voluntary basis, which they did. Without the electoral college, the country will be subjected to a mob rule of just a few big coastal urban centers that think they know better what's best for the rest of America.
Sadly, it's going to take a bit more to amuse me. In this age of ubiquitous wifi and smartphone tethering, I am not sure why I'd need to amuse myself with an off-line copy of a web site. Ok, maybe it could work out for a long flight or something.
First of all, the Debian Linux applications for the most part are not meant to be convenient replacements for true touch-oriented Android apps. So this is basically about replacing a native touch-GUI optimized by outdated Android app with a relatively clunky Linux equivalent.
Second, a whole lot of Android devices can get updates by the means of third party ROMs. First of all, the big ROM projects like Cyanogenmod or OmniROM, etc, can cover quite a bit of hardware. Another source of more recent ROMs is the XDA developers forums. Basically, when it comes to popular devices there is quite a bit of ROMs out there. For example, Nexus 5 updates ended at 6.x, but there are 7.x community ROMs. I have LG G2 smartphone whose last official ROM was Lollipop 5.0.x, but there are community supported 6.x ROMs for it, and even 7.x ROMs by now. Any of those alternative Android ROM routes is a better way to get access to more recent applications on outdated Android hardware, then running a Linux distribution.
Interestingly, based on the tutorial, it appears that this device is bootloader unlockable, which means that in theory, if someone built a TWRP recovery for this device, then rooting it would be a matter of flashing SuperSU from TWRP. The problem with this specific device appears not that it is locked down (it's not) but the lack of developer support for TWRP. Hence the need to root device via a "hard way".
Honestly, by now we mostly knows what skeletons Hillary keeps because her life was under scrutiny for a long time. Trump's bragging sex tape scandal is only a beginning. We haven't seen his tax return yet, and he is constantly being sued by someone as is (although no one seems to be troubled by this?).
I have an Android tablet for which root and TWRP are available as is without any trouble (thanks Samsung). The thing I am wondering about is why I'd need to install Debian chroot on it? Aren't Linux apps mostly optimized for computers with keyboards and all. What is its killer app?
This is a great post. Microsoft and its followers have created some kind of a cult following around the Surface Pro "tablets", and they actually claim it is a good "tablet", actually the best out there. But in reality the Surface Pro is basically an PC Ultrabook, with a detacheable keyboard. It's very lousy as a tablet, when used in tablet-mode without keyboard, and it's a lousy laptop too, because it's pretty awkward to use this thing as "LAPtop". Most Surface Pro users, use this device as a PC ultrabook, with a keyboard attached while telling everyone "what a great tablet, the best". In the end, their needs would have been served much better by a convertible ultrabook such as the Lenovo Yoga series.
The shocking thing about this whole story is that Microsoft has ruined its OS for the desktop and notebook users, which are like 99% of all Windows users, in order to promote Windows on these "mobile" devices. In reality, both microsoft tablet and phone are nearly dead, while the desktop users are stuck with an OS that is having an identity crisis.
That's why OS X and Ubuntu are poorly suited to be enterprise OSes. Enterprises want stability and predictability. They want to install a five year old OS and still get security updates and support, and they're willing to pay for it.
If you want to compare Windows 7 against something, compare it to Solaris 11 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 which came out at about the same time.
Auto-updates off does not mean "never install" updates. On my Windows 7 machines, I usually check "notify me when updates are available" or "download but do not install updates". When my computer is not doing any work, and it can be potentially rebooted, I might review those messages and see whether the updates need to be installed. Besides, there is a bunch of other means to control malware. For one, use adblockers, script blockers, and BRAINS on the web, and use good anti-virus of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Aircraft carriers are nice toys whose main purpose is displaying flag and being a nice target for the subs. If you want to compare the British and Russian defense capabilities, try to count how many Russian cruise and ballistic missiles can strike the UK or UK Navy ships and what UK can do about it. The nuclear missile subs is what really matters, and the Russian Northern Fleet has dozens of them.
In case if you haven't been paying attention, that's exactly the attitude that Trump has been complaining about. America alone can't afford to pick up the tab for defending all of Europe and Asia any more.
Well, I don't ever recall Trump offering any other country the role of a world's policeman. He did suggest that USA should get out of conflicts and alliances that are costly to the USA with no real benefits.
I don't know which way the Pentagon spending will go, as Trump has given a bunch of contradicting statements. A massive boost in Pentagon spending does not seem to be consistent with cutting the government size or its deficits.
No wonder Trump has been incessantly complaining that America's allies do not spend enough on their own defense and rely on the American firepower. The situation is quite similar all over Europe.
The original idea of a very limited Federal government that was created by the States and works for the States died a long time ago, unfortunately.
I am sorry, but this statement is a bunch of rubbish. The States elect their own legislatures. They have their own governors. They have their constitutions. The electoral college still remains one of the few things that preserves the FEDERAL nature of the Union. If you want to get rid of the electoral college, then why not get rid of the states as well. Let's just have one big State of Americaland. Under such arrangement, the electing president with a popular vote would be appropriate. Of course, a lot of states would disagree and threaten to separate, because certainly none of them signed for such an arrangement originally.
.. causes Christmas to arrive.
The electoral college serves the important purpose of giving each STATE a fair voice in the only election into a federal executive office. Remember that USA is not unitary state. It's a federal union of quasi-sovereign states.
Indeed, people who argue that the current electoral system is unfair because Hillary would have certainly won by a popular vote don't seem to get that the popular vote is truly irrelevant to the presidential candidates' campaign. Their campaigns are designed to maximize the electoral vote count. If the election was by popular vote, then the electoral campaign would have been entirely different, and the battleground areas would have been entirely different, and the final popular vote count completely unpredictable.
A proportional split of state's electoral votes is not much different from direct popular election though. The candidates would be still forced to concentrate on campaigning only in the most populous states and urban areas. This would force all of politics to the left, which is what the coastal urban populations want, ignoring the rest of country.
I also wonder what either option do to the cost of the elections. It could be astronomical. Whereas now, the campaign takes place maybe in 10-15 states, under an alternative system, politicians would be compelled to campaign in far more areas.
One Person, One Vote is only fundamental in a unitary state. However, the USA is a union of fairly diverse quasi-sovereign states. That's why the Constitution was written in the way to give every state a fair voice and representation in the Federal government. At the state level elections, all states get to device how to conduct elections, and at the state level one person one vote is indeed the rule.
You need to recognize that we live not only in 21st century, but that we also live in a FEDERATION, a UNION of many diverse states. When the US constitution was created, it was explicitly written in a way to give a fair voice and representation to ALL states, big and small, in the federal government. This was a compromise that was meant to entice smaller or predominantly rural states to join the union without the fear of being overrun by the mob rule of just a few big population centers.
Don't also forget that this electoral system only applies to the election of the president and vice-president, which are a federal office. On the other hand, the states are free to conduct their elections into state offices any way they like, as long that doesn't conflict with the US constitution.
Why should the EC electoral vote fairly represent the voters? You need to recall that USA is not a unitary state. USA is a Federation of _many_ states. The electoral college system was created to give each STATE a fair voice in the elections and the rest of federal politics. It was created to entice the smaller states to join the union without the fear of being completely overrun by the mod rule of just a few big population centers.
The electoral college should remain in place because it preserves the FEDERAL nature of the United STATES of America. In a true federation, all states, big and small, should have some kind of a voice and a fair representation in the electoral system and the rest of politics. The electoral college was created to entice smaller states join the union on a voluntary basis, which they did. Without the electoral college, the country will be subjected to a mob rule of just a few big coastal urban centers that think they know better what's best for the rest of America.
Sadly, it's going to take a bit more to amuse me. In this age of ubiquitous wifi and smartphone tethering, I am not sure why I'd need to amuse myself with an off-line copy of a web site. Ok, maybe it could work out for a long flight or something.
That's an argument with many flaws.
First of all, the Debian Linux applications for the most part are not meant to be convenient replacements for true touch-oriented Android apps. So this is basically about replacing a native touch-GUI optimized by outdated Android app with a relatively clunky Linux equivalent.
Second, a whole lot of Android devices can get updates by the means of third party ROMs. First of all, the big ROM projects like Cyanogenmod or OmniROM, etc, can cover quite a bit of hardware. Another source of more recent ROMs is the XDA developers forums. Basically, when it comes to popular devices there is quite a bit of ROMs out there. For example, Nexus 5 updates ended at 6.x, but there are 7.x community ROMs. I have LG G2 smartphone whose last official ROM was Lollipop 5.0.x, but there are community supported 6.x ROMs for it, and even 7.x ROMs by now. Any of those alternative Android ROM routes is a better way to get access to more recent applications on outdated Android hardware, then running a Linux distribution.
And? You see I am trying to understand what's the point of running those unix services on a tablet or smartphone.
And an Android tablet is hardly bought to be a headless server..
Interestingly, based on the tutorial, it appears that this device is bootloader unlockable, which means that in theory, if someone built a TWRP recovery for this device, then rooting it would be a matter of flashing SuperSU from TWRP. The problem with this specific device appears not that it is locked down (it's not) but the lack of developer support for TWRP. Hence the need to root device via a "hard way".
Because 99% of consumers do not even know the difference between locked and unlocked device, and most won't even care, sadly.
Honestly, by now we mostly knows what skeletons Hillary keeps because her life was under scrutiny for a long time. Trump's bragging sex tape scandal is only a beginning. We haven't seen his tax return yet, and he is constantly being sued by someone as is (although no one seems to be troubled by this?).
I have an Android tablet for which root and TWRP are available as is without any trouble (thanks Samsung). The thing I am wondering about is why I'd need to install Debian chroot on it? Aren't Linux apps mostly optimized for computers with keyboards and all. What is its killer app?
This is a great post. Microsoft and its followers have created some kind of a cult following around the Surface Pro "tablets", and they actually claim it is a good "tablet", actually the best out there. But in reality the Surface Pro is basically an PC Ultrabook, with a detacheable keyboard. It's very lousy as a tablet, when used in tablet-mode without keyboard, and it's a lousy laptop too, because it's pretty awkward to use this thing as "LAPtop". Most Surface Pro users, use this device as a PC ultrabook, with a keyboard attached while telling everyone "what a great tablet, the best". In the end, their needs would have been served much better by a convertible ultrabook such as the Lenovo Yoga series.
The shocking thing about this whole story is that Microsoft has ruined its OS for the desktop and notebook users, which are like 99% of all Windows users, in order to promote Windows on these "mobile" devices. In reality, both microsoft tablet and phone are nearly dead, while the desktop users are stuck with an OS that is having an identity crisis.
That's why OS X and Ubuntu are poorly suited to be enterprise OSes. Enterprises want stability and predictability. They want to install a five year old OS and still get security updates and support, and they're willing to pay for it.
If you want to compare Windows 7 against something, compare it to Solaris 11 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 which came out at about the same time.
I bet some vendors (Dell, HP, etc) still have a stock of new PCs with Windows 7.
Auto-updates off does not mean "never install" updates. On my Windows 7 machines, I usually check "notify me when updates are available" or "download but do not install updates". When my computer is not doing any work, and it can be potentially rebooted, I might review those messages and see whether the updates need to be installed. Besides, there is a bunch of other means to control malware. For one, use adblockers, script blockers, and BRAINS on the web, and use good anti-virus of course.