Shi'ites & Sunnites happen to be an issue in Iraq, as well as Syria & Yemen. It's hardly an issue in Egypt, which has been solidly Sunni since the end of the Fatimid dynasty and the advent of Saladin.
However, al Jazeera does have the track record of being al Qaeda TV, back from the 9/11 days when they used to broadcast those Osama tapes. So Cairo ain't far off in their assessment. While most of the Arab media is obedient towards their own rulers, like the al Thanis in Qatar, they happily work to undermine any regime they dislike. In this case, since they had sympathies w/ the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda), they decided to be to the al Sisi regime what CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS have been to Trump. Except that since they are doing it in support of an actual terrorist organization - the Muslim Brotherhood - they walked right into the trap of the Cairo regime and made themselves liable for such charges. As for fake news, that's par for the course for Middle Eastern news agencies - highlight (to the point of inventing) good things about those they support, and slam the bad things about those they loathe.
I'm no fan of al Sisi, but I'm certainly w/ him on this one.
President wouldn't likely know Salman Abedi's name that far ahead: it was probably shared to some US intelligence person who then dutifully leaked it to the NYT
Where's the evidence that he revealed the city, thereby compromising the source? Were you there in that meeting? Or was that another leak by the same intel that couldn't keep its mouth shut about Salman Abedi's identity?
I don't advocate for Muslims to be censored, but I do advocate them being banned from coming to non-Muslim countries. The issue is not how many of them are dangerous: the issue is that it's impossible to determine which ones will be 'radicalized', and when. Also, there is a whole mountain range of data about Muslims being incapable of religious tolerance, which one will see from Gambia to Brunei.
If it were possible to psychically determine which Muslims are tolerant, and which ones were potential Salman Abedis, then there would be a case for allowing a lot of them in. Since it's not, those who advocate bans in Muslim immigration are completely justified
There is no difference. In a democracy, only citizens get to vote. I don't get to vote in elections in Mexico, where I'm not a citizen.
Same thing w/ corporations. I own Cisco stock, I get to vote in their shareholder policies. Had I been an employee in Cisco, but w/ no stocks, I wouldn't have. If I have issues w/ that, I ought to work in employee owned companies - there are such companies, which design themselves to be owned by their employees. There, I'd certainly get a voice.
The votes go to people providing the money. In a democracy, it's the taxpayer, therefore all of us. In a corporation, it's the shareholder: employees draw money, unless they happen to be shareholders as well. One could make the argument about non-citizens who pay taxes, but even they get rights like free public school education, access to emergency services, et al, which is (theoretically) covered by their taxes
No, we don't. 'Bad' is a question of opinion. Like Cities that call themselves sanctuary cities think immigration laws are bad, but then, by the same token, 2nd Amendment advocates can consider all laws restricting gun rights as bad as well. We have to obey all laws. If a law is bad, we need to strive to change them via our elected reps
No. What he shared w/ Lavrov on the exploding laptops was already common knowledge - something that anybody could infer from the news abouut Middle Eastern airlines banning passengers from having them in carry-on, and keeping them in the checked in luggage. That's very different from a TLA leaking the name of the Libyan suicide bomber before MI5 was okay w/ it
The White House Staff wouldn't know the name of the Libyan suicide bomber: that had to come from one of the TLA agencies. The White House staff leaks have been about each other - Jared about Bannon, Priebus about Jared & so on
they were corrupt and lawless under Obama, and they are corrupt and lawless under Trump, i doubt much has changed
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
It's not that. They are a bureaucratic power unto themselves, completely unelected, but who believe that they have to do what's best for the country, elections be damned. Hence them accusing Russia of trying to influence the elections, despite there being no evidence to back that up.
A week ago, people were all over Trump for having 'leaked' something to the 2 Sergeis, except that Trump was just discussing w/ them something that was already common knowledge in the West: laptops rigged to be bombs. Israel had no issues w/ that, given that a ban on Middle Eastern (& later European) flights carrying laptops w/ carry-on luggage was bound to give that away anyway.
But now, the US intels - one of those 17 agencies that identified Russia - now happily goes about its merry leaky ways, and this time, UK is pissed, and actually does suspend intelligence sharing. People were all over the president on being leaky, but in fact, it was his enemies in the intelligence agencies that did that, and to the detriment of an ally.
Under that hack Comey, the FBI refused to investigate leaks of what was going on in the government. Now, maybe, under a new head, they'd investigate all leaks - starting from the ones from Jan 20th onwards to this day. That would be separate from the Special Counsel investigation into 'Russia', and hopefully, they'll get to the bottom of it. Oh, and while they're at it, they should also investigate the NSA surveillance that was ordered under Obama since almost 2008
I agree. People who hate us enough to resent it when we take safeguards, be it against foreign gangs like M13 via crackdown on illegal immigration, or against foreign terrorists via the attempted travel ban, can go fuck themselves. Or go to an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, or a Catholic Mass in Mindanao, or a scenic tour of Raqqa or Sirte, or hitchhiking across Yemen!!!
India was never a colony of America, Japan or Germany. Just of Britain. So it hardly makes sense to suggest that Indians want to copy the other 3 for reasons other than them actually being superior in their bureaucracies.
OS/2 was superior to Windows 3.1 & Workgroups 3.11, but not over Windows 95. The thing that OS/2 2.1 had over Windows 3.1 was pre-emptive multitasking, something that at the time neither Apple nor Microsoft had. The only other OSs that had that were all the Unixes and VMS, and neither Linux nor the 386BSD was out then.
So some people did have OS/2 2.1 running, but its resource requirements were way higher than Windows 3.1 and even its successor, OS/2 Warp. Probably b'cos Warp ended up w/ better memory management, schedulers & the like. Regardless, at the time, OS/2 2.1 had a major advantage over Windows 3.1, but that came at a major cost. Also, nobody seriously put any effort building quality applications for OS/2. On this front, I do blame ISVs who had Microsoft beating them up hard on the Windows side, but who didn't come up w/ a quality product for OS/2 that might have salvaged both themselves and OS/2.
The companies I'm thinking of here: Borland (for software development packages), Lotus (for SmartSuite), WordPerfect (for their Office), Intuit (for Quicken) and others. Had they made OS/2 offerings as good as or better than what they did for Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have eaten their lunch. Any of the 50 or so PC vendors that existed in the day could have preloaded computers w/ OS/2, Smartsuite and the like, and then sold that bundle in competition w/ the Gateways and the Compaqs of the world then. You wouldn't have had a Microsoft monopoly. Unfortunately, a combination of mistakes by both IBM, who were even then too big for their own good, and the ISVs, saw to it that that never materialized.
As I indicated above, there may be a window for that today, but that has to have a USP of its own unlike that of any of the current players in the market.
The last version of Netscape that existed was Netscape 9, which was some earlier version of FireFox (before that went the Chrome route). The closest thing to that might be to port Pale Moon & Fossamail to this platform. Maybe rebrand it so that it won't sound so weird.
While I can and do see the point behind the commercial version, the price of the personal version puts me off of even considering trying it, guess you really have to be a diehard OS/2 personal user.
I am not saying that it should be FREEEEEEE and all that, just 99$ is not appealing for something that is a refresh of something that hasn't existed on the personal market for a couple decades and tout's features like "usb support" and OSS that runs on any semi current OS
I do think it ought to be Open Source: its pricing is up to them. At this point in history, it would be like FreeDOS: something fascinating to try out on computers w/ several times more memory than what they had when these OSs were in their prime. Like OS/2 Warp had a recommended RAM of 4-8MB. Imagine what it could do if we took one of today's computers w/ 2GB of RAM, an Atom or Celeron, and all the rest?
In fact such a computer would be a good substitute for Windows XP, for people who can't or don't want to upgrade to a 64-bit PC, are threatened by malware and intimidated by Microsoft & others for not upgrading to Windows 10. And people who are nervous about trying either Linux or a BSD. You have the ultimate 32-bit PC - something w/ 2GB of RAM and whatever storage you want, and then add to the OS the things that it needs to be a success. Start by porting Firefox/Palemoon, Thunderbird/Fossamail and Chromium for starters. No need for this OS (unlike the OS/2 of the 90s) to support win32 applications. Have a port of Steam as well to this platform - it would be useful to work w/ Valve on this. And port as many of the Open Source games out there. Have a music player and a video player that support all public formats, and you'll be off to the races.
In fact, one more advantage it could have: don't hook it up to any advertizing setup, and tout respect of your privacy as a key feature, w/o being as complicated as any POSIX compatible OS. Instead, price it something reasonable - something b/w $20-$50, and include an installation fee so that it can be installed for newbies or baby boomers or anyone nervous about it, so that if it doesn't go off as planned, customer does not need to pay anything and gets back his original setup. I'm not sure what the underlying costs were under IBM's OS/2 - whether they had to pay anything to Microsoft for using win16 or FAT or any Windows specific technology, but in this OS/2, I recommend making it a clean & pure OS - just HPFS, REXX & the like. Add in things - not just USB support, but also all recent WiFi generations (say from b onwards), HDMI, et al. And make it possible for USB sticks to be formatted in HPFS, and have a file system that puts all user data in a place that makes it easy to retrieve/back-up in case a reinstallation is needed. It will have several selling points over the alternatives:
- Windows: For people still stuck on XP or w/ computers that they don't wish to leave behind, this would be a clean, nag-free substitute. Note that it wouldn't run Windows software: such people would probably already have moved on to 7 &/or 10.
- OS X: For people who either don't like the direction OS X has gone, such as becoming more iOS like, it would be an alternative. It's also an alternative for people considering Hackintosh b'cos they can't afford a Mac
- ChromeOS: For people not willing to put all their stuff on the cloud, or be online at all times, or be forced to use a skeletal configuration, this would be a handy alternative
- Linux/GNU or BSD: For people who are nervous about going into ash/bash/.../zsh to resolve something that may not have a widget under LXDE/XCFE/KDE/GNOME/..., this would be a better option, since OS/2 users, from what I understand, never had to really know REXX in order to push things
All that said, I do think this OS should at least be open source, so that even if their creators, $DEITY forbid, goes under, their users ain't left high & dry, like, say, OpenVMS saps who were forced to buy Itaniums.
Automation in places like the US, Canada or Europe will easily trounce manufacturing in places like China, India or Africa. Since those low wages won't offset the quality degradation that will necessarily happen when manufactured by cheap, rather than automated labor.
If you can copyright rounded corners, or particular chip designs or methods, what's so sacred about a joke that would prevent it from being copyrighted? I'd argue it should be easier to copyright art than copyright engineering
Of all the above, Apple is the only company that actually manufactures, and can bring jobs back to the US. The others - Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook & Twitter, don't make squat (okay, Alphabet does a bit w/ the Pixel). And it's just as easy for them to offshore work as it is to hire within the US, since most software jobs now are remote jobs that can be done on 'the cloud'.
You could try shorting Snap, Inc stocks: those are definitely overvalued, and given that their main selling point is that kids love them, kids can just as easily do to them what they did to MySpace. But I thought that the value you'd lose to taxes would be more like 27% or thereabouts.
My question is different. Which CPU does it use? Xeon? Or does HP try to leverage what's left of the Itanium? And if it's Itanium, I doubt it'll be Linux: HP/UX would be the only game in town. Linux abandoned it long ago, and even FreeBSD didn't port their LLVM/Clang compiler to this platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Shi'ites & Sunnites happen to be an issue in Iraq, as well as Syria & Yemen. It's hardly an issue in Egypt, which has been solidly Sunni since the end of the Fatimid dynasty and the advent of Saladin.
However, al Jazeera does have the track record of being al Qaeda TV, back from the 9/11 days when they used to broadcast those Osama tapes. So Cairo ain't far off in their assessment. While most of the Arab media is obedient towards their own rulers, like the al Thanis in Qatar, they happily work to undermine any regime they dislike. In this case, since they had sympathies w/ the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda), they decided to be to the al Sisi regime what CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS have been to Trump. Except that since they are doing it in support of an actual terrorist organization - the Muslim Brotherhood - they walked right into the trap of the Cairo regime and made themselves liable for such charges. As for fake news, that's par for the course for Middle Eastern news agencies - highlight (to the point of inventing) good things about those they support, and slam the bad things about those they loathe.
I'm no fan of al Sisi, but I'm certainly w/ him on this one.
President wouldn't likely know Salman Abedi's name that far ahead: it was probably shared to some US intelligence person who then dutifully leaked it to the NYT
Where's the evidence that he revealed the city, thereby compromising the source? Were you there in that meeting? Or was that another leak by the same intel that couldn't keep its mouth shut about Salman Abedi's identity?
Evidence?
I don't advocate for Muslims to be censored, but I do advocate them being banned from coming to non-Muslim countries. The issue is not how many of them are dangerous: the issue is that it's impossible to determine which ones will be 'radicalized', and when. Also, there is a whole mountain range of data about Muslims being incapable of religious tolerance, which one will see from Gambia to Brunei.
If it were possible to psychically determine which Muslims are tolerant, and which ones were potential Salman Abedis, then there would be a case for allowing a lot of them in. Since it's not, those who advocate bans in Muslim immigration are completely justified
There is no difference. In a democracy, only citizens get to vote. I don't get to vote in elections in Mexico, where I'm not a citizen.
Same thing w/ corporations. I own Cisco stock, I get to vote in their shareholder policies. Had I been an employee in Cisco, but w/ no stocks, I wouldn't have. If I have issues w/ that, I ought to work in employee owned companies - there are such companies, which design themselves to be owned by their employees. There, I'd certainly get a voice.
The votes go to people providing the money. In a democracy, it's the taxpayer, therefore all of us. In a corporation, it's the shareholder: employees draw money, unless they happen to be shareholders as well. One could make the argument about non-citizens who pay taxes, but even they get rights like free public school education, access to emergency services, et al, which is (theoretically) covered by their taxes
No, we don't. 'Bad' is a question of opinion. Like Cities that call themselves sanctuary cities think immigration laws are bad, but then, by the same token, 2nd Amendment advocates can consider all laws restricting gun rights as bad as well. We have to obey all laws. If a law is bad, we need to strive to change them via our elected reps
Gandhi also slept w/ his nieces to demonstrate his self control. That was illegal as well, but he never got arrested for it
No. What he shared w/ Lavrov on the exploding laptops was already common knowledge - something that anybody could infer from the news abouut Middle Eastern airlines banning passengers from having them in carry-on, and keeping them in the checked in luggage. That's very different from a TLA leaking the name of the Libyan suicide bomber before MI5 was okay w/ it
The White House Staff wouldn't know the name of the Libyan suicide bomber: that had to come from one of the TLA agencies. The White House staff leaks have been about each other - Jared about Bannon, Priebus about Jared & so on
they were corrupt and lawless under Obama, and they are corrupt and lawless under Trump, i doubt much has changed "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
It's not that. They are a bureaucratic power unto themselves, completely unelected, but who believe that they have to do what's best for the country, elections be damned. Hence them accusing Russia of trying to influence the elections, despite there being no evidence to back that up.
A week ago, people were all over Trump for having 'leaked' something to the 2 Sergeis, except that Trump was just discussing w/ them something that was already common knowledge in the West: laptops rigged to be bombs. Israel had no issues w/ that, given that a ban on Middle Eastern (& later European) flights carrying laptops w/ carry-on luggage was bound to give that away anyway.
But now, the US intels - one of those 17 agencies that identified Russia - now happily goes about its merry leaky ways, and this time, UK is pissed, and actually does suspend intelligence sharing. People were all over the president on being leaky, but in fact, it was his enemies in the intelligence agencies that did that, and to the detriment of an ally.
Under that hack Comey, the FBI refused to investigate leaks of what was going on in the government. Now, maybe, under a new head, they'd investigate all leaks - starting from the ones from Jan 20th onwards to this day. That would be separate from the Special Counsel investigation into 'Russia', and hopefully, they'll get to the bottom of it. Oh, and while they're at it, they should also investigate the NSA surveillance that was ordered under Obama since almost 2008
Sure, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Gaza...
I agree. People who hate us enough to resent it when we take safeguards, be it against foreign gangs like M13 via crackdown on illegal immigration, or against foreign terrorists via the attempted travel ban, can go fuck themselves. Or go to an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, or a Catholic Mass in Mindanao, or a scenic tour of Raqqa or Sirte, or hitchhiking across Yemen!!!
Honestly, I don't give a fuck!
What about IPv6?
Question I have about JSON: will I be able to stage those feeds from my bookmarks bar under anything - FireFox, Chrome/Chromium or Edge?
India was never a colony of America, Japan or Germany. Just of Britain. So it hardly makes sense to suggest that Indians want to copy the other 3 for reasons other than them actually being superior in their bureaucracies.
OS/2 was superior to Windows 3.1 & Workgroups 3.11, but not over Windows 95. The thing that OS/2 2.1 had over Windows 3.1 was pre-emptive multitasking, something that at the time neither Apple nor Microsoft had. The only other OSs that had that were all the Unixes and VMS, and neither Linux nor the 386BSD was out then.
So some people did have OS/2 2.1 running, but its resource requirements were way higher than Windows 3.1 and even its successor, OS/2 Warp. Probably b'cos Warp ended up w/ better memory management, schedulers & the like. Regardless, at the time, OS/2 2.1 had a major advantage over Windows 3.1, but that came at a major cost. Also, nobody seriously put any effort building quality applications for OS/2. On this front, I do blame ISVs who had Microsoft beating them up hard on the Windows side, but who didn't come up w/ a quality product for OS/2 that might have salvaged both themselves and OS/2.
The companies I'm thinking of here: Borland (for software development packages), Lotus (for SmartSuite), WordPerfect (for their Office), Intuit (for Quicken) and others. Had they made OS/2 offerings as good as or better than what they did for Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have eaten their lunch. Any of the 50 or so PC vendors that existed in the day could have preloaded computers w/ OS/2, Smartsuite and the like, and then sold that bundle in competition w/ the Gateways and the Compaqs of the world then. You wouldn't have had a Microsoft monopoly. Unfortunately, a combination of mistakes by both IBM, who were even then too big for their own good, and the ISVs, saw to it that that never materialized.
As I indicated above, there may be a window for that today, but that has to have a USP of its own unlike that of any of the current players in the market.
The last version of Netscape that existed was Netscape 9, which was some earlier version of FireFox (before that went the Chrome route). The closest thing to that might be to port Pale Moon & Fossamail to this platform. Maybe rebrand it so that it won't sound so weird.
While I can and do see the point behind the commercial version, the price of the personal version puts me off of even considering trying it, guess you really have to be a diehard OS/2 personal user.
I am not saying that it should be FREEEEEEE and all that, just 99$ is not appealing for something that is a refresh of something that hasn't existed on the personal market for a couple decades and tout's features like "usb support" and OSS that runs on any semi current OS
I do think it ought to be Open Source: its pricing is up to them. At this point in history, it would be like FreeDOS: something fascinating to try out on computers w/ several times more memory than what they had when these OSs were in their prime. Like OS/2 Warp had a recommended RAM of 4-8MB. Imagine what it could do if we took one of today's computers w/ 2GB of RAM, an Atom or Celeron, and all the rest?
In fact such a computer would be a good substitute for Windows XP, for people who can't or don't want to upgrade to a 64-bit PC, are threatened by malware and intimidated by Microsoft & others for not upgrading to Windows 10. And people who are nervous about trying either Linux or a BSD. You have the ultimate 32-bit PC - something w/ 2GB of RAM and whatever storage you want, and then add to the OS the things that it needs to be a success. Start by porting Firefox/Palemoon, Thunderbird/Fossamail and Chromium for starters. No need for this OS (unlike the OS/2 of the 90s) to support win32 applications. Have a port of Steam as well to this platform - it would be useful to work w/ Valve on this. And port as many of the Open Source games out there. Have a music player and a video player that support all public formats, and you'll be off to the races.
In fact, one more advantage it could have: don't hook it up to any advertizing setup, and tout respect of your privacy as a key feature, w/o being as complicated as any POSIX compatible OS. Instead, price it something reasonable - something b/w $20-$50, and include an installation fee so that it can be installed for newbies or baby boomers or anyone nervous about it, so that if it doesn't go off as planned, customer does not need to pay anything and gets back his original setup. I'm not sure what the underlying costs were under IBM's OS/2 - whether they had to pay anything to Microsoft for using win16 or FAT or any Windows specific technology, but in this OS/2, I recommend making it a clean & pure OS - just HPFS, REXX & the like. Add in things - not just USB support, but also all recent WiFi generations (say from b onwards), HDMI, et al. And make it possible for USB sticks to be formatted in HPFS, and have a file system that puts all user data in a place that makes it easy to retrieve/back-up in case a reinstallation is needed. It will have several selling points over the alternatives:
- Windows: For people still stuck on XP or w/ computers that they don't wish to leave behind, this would be a clean, nag-free substitute. Note that it wouldn't run Windows software: such people would probably already have moved on to 7 &/or 10.
- OS X: For people who either don't like the direction OS X has gone, such as becoming more iOS like, it would be an alternative. It's also an alternative for people considering Hackintosh b'cos they can't afford a Mac
- ChromeOS: For people not willing to put all their stuff on the cloud, or be online at all times, or be forced to use a skeletal configuration, this would be a handy alternative
- Linux/GNU or BSD: For people who are nervous about going into ash/bash/.../zsh to resolve something that may not have a widget under LXDE/XCFE/KDE/GNOME/..., this would be a better option, since OS/2 users, from what I understand, never had to really know REXX in order to push things
All that said, I do think this OS should at least be open source, so that even if their creators, $DEITY forbid, goes under, their users ain't left high & dry, like, say, OpenVMS saps who were forced to buy Itaniums.
I thought their whole idea was as books. My Verizon Ellipsis 10 contains all my books
Automation in places like the US, Canada or Europe will easily trounce manufacturing in places like China, India or Africa. Since those low wages won't offset the quality degradation that will necessarily happen when manufactured by cheap, rather than automated labor.
You can't! Since there are fewer (species of) bugs
I attribute it to 80% of them having already been eaten by the birds. Note to the birds: You can't have your cake, & eat it too.
If you can copyright rounded corners, or particular chip designs or methods, what's so sacred about a joke that would prevent it from being copyrighted? I'd argue it should be easier to copyright art than copyright engineering
Of all the above, Apple is the only company that actually manufactures, and can bring jobs back to the US. The others - Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook & Twitter, don't make squat (okay, Alphabet does a bit w/ the Pixel). And it's just as easy for them to offshore work as it is to hire within the US, since most software jobs now are remote jobs that can be done on 'the cloud'.
You could try shorting Snap, Inc stocks: those are definitely overvalued, and given that their main selling point is that kids love them, kids can just as easily do to them what they did to MySpace. But I thought that the value you'd lose to taxes would be more like 27% or thereabouts.
My question is different. Which CPU does it use? Xeon? Or does HP try to leverage what's left of the Itanium? And if it's Itanium, I doubt it'll be Linux: HP/UX would be the only game in town. Linux abandoned it long ago, and even FreeBSD didn't port their LLVM/Clang compiler to this platform.