Can you buy it? AMD arguably made "ok" CPUs (talking within past 2-3 years), and even some mildly interesting ones. But could you buy them anywhere?
You are kidding right?
I have 4 retail establishments within 30 min of my home which have AMD CPU's available for immediate purchase, usually with motherboards and all the rest of the stuff you need to build a system. Then there is Google (assuming it's not broken where you are) where scads of mail order suppliers are easily found.
Now if you mean "available in pre-build solutions", then I suggest you take a closer look at what that means. Intel has huge power to strong arm system integrators into using it's products, both though economies of scale and their ability to market. AMD equipment IS available, just not as common in some kinds of systems. However, my last 2 laptops where AMD based, so they exist if you look for them.
No.. It means they still ARE good (tongue firmly in cheek)... Only now they are getting competitive on their power consumption vrs processing power numbers...
I can assure you that "double standards" are not uniquely American, nor uniquely political.
I'm pretty sure the American political system, though unique in it's current form, descended from a rich tradition of such activity in England and Europe, which itself descended from points east and south. The Americans may have perfected parts of it, but the "double standard" is alive and well outside our borders. We may have cornered the market on some things in our 241 years, but certainly not that.
BTW, going after Trump for playing golf is pretty sad... Most people didn't care about Obama's recreational outings, nor do they care about Trumps. And I'll let you in on a little secret, Trump was really dissing Obama for doing nothing BUT playing golf if you listen to the whole thing and not just the sound bite and pull quote. He was saying Obama didn't do anything, wasn't interested in working... Which I think is true.
No, the poster was pointing out that the liberal leftists are displaying a double standard. They didn't care about Obama's bald faced lies used to sell the fundamental parts of his political accomplishments, yet find Trump's campaign rhetoric and the "promises" he made there to be lies, even though he's been in office less than a year..
Citation please? Do you have any proof of your assumption?
Oh, wait, that's a personal opinion, you won't be able to make a provable case on this..
Remember, lying is intentionally leading people to believe something that you know is not true. So to prove a lie, you need to prove that the liar KNOWS what the truth is and is intentionally misleading others.
Listening to Rush makes me unreliable eh? LOL. Typical...
Seriously, Rush is a commentator who tells jokes and I know it. I find him amusing for the most part, but not very informative, except to keep me current with what's being discussed. It's like left leaning folks watching the Daily show because they find it entertaining.
I would have agreed with you about Fox except Fox has taken a turn to the left of late with a number of departures from their lineup. But the hard "news" portion is still generally fair though obviously a bit slanted right. MSNBC is anything but fair and I get amused sometimes with their obvious omissions and sound bite edits to favor the left. MSNBC is seriously pushing a leftist view. I guess, what I'm saying is the "middle" is closer to Fox than MSNBC, in fact I'd put it in-between CNN and FOX, which are more appropriate to be on the same coin. MSNBC is a travesty to news and I don't consider them even remotely reliable. I've caught them manufacturing facts to report, falsifying their pull quotes by taking them out of context and generally acting irresponsible when it comes to the truth. Fox generally attempts to keep the truth within reach, where MSNBC let the truth run off a long time ago.
I generally apply 3 standards to what I take as news....
1. Ignore those who are NOT journalists when it comes to news (I listen to Rush, but he's NOT a reporter so I don't get my "news" from him) . This rules out things like facebook, comedy shows, twitter and the like. It also rules out most of the pontificating done on the various cable news outlets.
2. Take any "news" story backed by anonymous sources as nothing more than rumor. It *might* be news, but likely it's not.
3. Research original sources when possible. I spend a lot of time researching "news" about congress' actions by looking at the official records. Read the original press releases, watch, listen to or read transcripts of actual things happening (CSPAN is good when covering actual events). For example, I listened to the 4 hours of Comey's latest congressional testimony, and I found myself shocked at some of the coverage of it from the major outlets.
The issue is that *you* need to decide for yourself what news outlets you find trustworthy by investigating what they are saying and see if it's true or are they cherry picking the facts.
Personally, I find Fox to be as honest as they come, However, that's not saying much. I find Fox has their slant on stuff. NPR isn't bad either, but I find that they have a significant bias issue and routinely ignore facts that don't further the case of their bias. I have a number or websites that I like to read, but again, none of them are perfect. Again, this is YOUR call... Investigate on your own and don't take anybody's word for it.
Obviously I prefer news organizations that attempt to be careful with the facts, which is why I don't watch MSMBC except their comedy shows hosted by Maddow.... All of them have their issues, so if you take what they say with the necessary amounts of salt and throw out all the editorial bias shows the news they report is generally all about the same. Consumer be wary, they are in business to sell advertising and don't make a penny reporting the news...
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day... NPR happens to get a worm now and then...
Actually, they do quite well with their "facts" the problem they have is their obviously liberal bias in their editorial decisions like "what stories we cover" "what facts they choose to use" "what conclusions are we drawing". However, they are worlds better than MSNBC and usually CNN so I do actually listen to them fairly regularly to see what the other side is actually thinking.... (This coming from what most would call a ultra right winger...)
unless the 'potentially offensive' trademark is anything even remotely liberal-leaning. Then the alt-right will scream bloody murder and lawsuits will ensue.
We're use to it bro; been catching your hate all our lives. Right now there is a twitter tag: #HuntRepublicans, created by a (D) operative named James Divine.
Nothing new; been going on forever. Hate filled liberals say whatever they want without consequence.
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
The right understands Tolerance is about my putting up with your wrong ideas regardless of how angry it makes me. The left thinks that tolerance is about me not saying anything that hurts their feelings... So who's going to sue? The left, of course.
Are you SURE you want to make this an issue? I believe that the Pro Life folks would have a few choice things to say using the same logic...
Actually, it could be argued that the ACA will kill more people than it "saves" because it will remove a lot of the profit driven innovation in healthcare and force a lot of people to spend a lot of money on insurance that they'd otherwise use on food, clothing and housing expenses....
The Japanese do not want to do this; in fact, several nearly identical laws have been stopped by popular protests. Large swathes of the ruling elite, however, want this.
The party currently in power also glorifies the Imperial military's conduct during the 1930s and 40s, much to the chagrin of China and Korea, whilst also trying to alter or reinterpret the current constitution to allow greater militarisation.
So.. Are you advocating that a foreigner should somehow get involved in the politics of another country? If the people of Japan don't like this, they have the constitutional right to petition their government and the obligation to elect representatives who will change it. I have not dog in this hunt.
Now if you are advocating that we *should* care and be involved in Japan's politics, I'm wondering what we've been discussing about the Russians and the last presidential election. I mean, if it's OK for us to do it, why do we complain when the Russians do it?
If the Japanese want to do this, why is it my business? I don't live there and I'm not planning to go there anytime soon. They are not out obviously committing violations of basic human rights... Let them argue their own laws and elect the politicians they wish to pass them, my opinion doesn't matter.
The language you choose in your rhetoric is important. Obama's choice of words are thus important, and using images of violence in a political debate is what I'm decrying and asking to stop. Plus....
I'm merely showing the long history here. There are plenty of recent examples of main stream democratic supporters and leaders who have engaged in vitriolic rhetoric which was couched in violent terms. It is the democratic way to make people angry, oh not with the democrats, but with the republicans or groups that can be grouped with the republicans. We get this in your gun control rhetoric all the time. Oh yes, Republicans want people to die because they don't support Obamacare.... See what I mean yet or do I need to keep coming up with examples?
Seriously? Republicans are now responsible for this foolishness? Come on, you are talking about some minor "not in the main stream" things and ascribing it to the whole party. It's a logical fallacy of "guilt by association"..
I can still hear Madonna talking about blowing up the White House because Trump is in it... I don't hear the democrats denouncing such talk... I saw the tweet from the democratic congressman (now deleted) that said "one down 217 to go" right after the shooting. I've seen the democrats of all kinds fanning the flames of hate. "Republicans want to kill people, they want dirty air and water" but I'm not hearing Republicans returning the favor even though one could argue that Democrats what to kill babies (Pro Choice anyone). (And why not? Because it's dangerous talk, it incites people who are nuts to do bad things, PLUS that's not what Democrats are really trying to do..)
Still, it doesn't matter to me, only to the python parser....
BTW.. Any language that puts requirements on white space (like python) are bad ideas... That stuff when out of style a LONG time before even I started this software engineering thing 25+ years ago and there are good reasons for this.
A need does not create a right. People need health care, but it is NOT government's job to give everybody what they need.
Fuck you for thinking that people don't have a right to receive health care..
Well, let's just stop right there and ask ourselves a few questions and perhaps you will see where I'm coming from.
What is a right? It is something an individual MUST get. Freedom of speech is a right, this means people MUST be allowed by the government to express themselves, it also means that government must prevent other's from infringing on my ability to speak my mind.
So if you say getting health care is a right, you are saying that doctors, nurses and hospitals must be forced by government to provide healthcare services to anybody who demands it. You have basically created a new class of slavery with your new right to healthcare because doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers CANNOT refuse you your rights. You also make it necessary for the government to FORCE the seizure of property (medical supplies) required to provide the health care right you claim. These two effects of your invented right are clearly unconstitutional, but follow logically.
Unless you are willing to accept that your invented "right to healthcare" creates a new class of slaves and the government must enforce this and the seizure of property then you can claim healthcare is a right.
I don't think you can claim this, nor do I think any reasonable person who actually thinks about the implications of what they are saying will claim a right to health care exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you buy it? AMD arguably made "ok" CPUs (talking within past 2-3 years), and even some mildly interesting ones. But could you buy them anywhere?
You are kidding right?
I have 4 retail establishments within 30 min of my home which have AMD CPU's available for immediate purchase, usually with motherboards and all the rest of the stuff you need to build a system. Then there is Google (assuming it's not broken where you are) where scads of mail order suppliers are easily found.
Now if you mean "available in pre-build solutions", then I suggest you take a closer look at what that means. Intel has huge power to strong arm system integrators into using it's products, both though economies of scale and their ability to market. AMD equipment IS available, just not as common in some kinds of systems. However, my last 2 laptops where AMD based, so they exist if you look for them.
So does this mean AMD are good again?
No.. It means they still ARE good (tongue firmly in cheek) ... Only now they are getting competitive on their power consumption vrs processing power numbers...
I can assure you that "double standards" are not uniquely American, nor uniquely political.
I'm pretty sure the American political system, though unique in it's current form, descended from a rich tradition of such activity in England and Europe, which itself descended from points east and south. The Americans may have perfected parts of it, but the "double standard" is alive and well outside our borders. We may have cornered the market on some things in our 241 years, but certainly not that.
Oh boy.. So a lie is a lie to you? Fine..
BTW, going after Trump for playing golf is pretty sad... Most people didn't care about Obama's recreational outings, nor do they care about Trumps. And I'll let you in on a little secret, Trump was really dissing Obama for doing nothing BUT playing golf if you listen to the whole thing and not just the sound bite and pull quote. He was saying Obama didn't do anything, wasn't interested in working... Which I think is true.
Where did I say the OP was a leftist? I was discussing the post ABOVE the one I responded to and pointing out what the original poster was showing.
But if you don't want to be called a leftist, I can understand..
No, the poster was pointing out that the liberal leftists are displaying a double standard. They didn't care about Obama's bald faced lies used to sell the fundamental parts of his political accomplishments, yet find Trump's campaign rhetoric and the "promises" he made there to be lies, even though he's been in office less than a year..
Trump lies constantly
Citation please? Do you have any proof of your assumption?
Oh, wait, that's a personal opinion, you won't be able to make a provable case on this..
Remember, lying is intentionally leading people to believe something that you know is not true. So to prove a lie, you need to prove that the liar KNOWS what the truth is and is intentionally misleading others.
Listening to Rush makes me unreliable eh? LOL. Typical...
Seriously, Rush is a commentator who tells jokes and I know it. I find him amusing for the most part, but not very informative, except to keep me current with what's being discussed. It's like left leaning folks watching the Daily show because they find it entertaining.
I would have agreed with you about Fox except Fox has taken a turn to the left of late with a number of departures from their lineup. But the hard "news" portion is still generally fair though obviously a bit slanted right. MSNBC is anything but fair and I get amused sometimes with their obvious omissions and sound bite edits to favor the left. MSNBC is seriously pushing a leftist view. I guess, what I'm saying is the "middle" is closer to Fox than MSNBC, in fact I'd put it in-between CNN and FOX, which are more appropriate to be on the same coin. MSNBC is a travesty to news and I don't consider them even remotely reliable. I've caught them manufacturing facts to report, falsifying their pull quotes by taking them out of context and generally acting irresponsible when it comes to the truth. Fox generally attempts to keep the truth within reach, where MSNBC let the truth run off a long time ago.
I generally apply 3 standards to what I take as news....
1. Ignore those who are NOT journalists when it comes to news (I listen to Rush, but he's NOT a reporter so I don't get my "news" from him) . This rules out things like facebook, comedy shows, twitter and the like. It also rules out most of the pontificating done on the various cable news outlets.
2. Take any "news" story backed by anonymous sources as nothing more than rumor. It *might* be news, but likely it's not.
3. Research original sources when possible. I spend a lot of time researching "news" about congress' actions by looking at the official records. Read the original press releases, watch, listen to or read transcripts of actual things happening (CSPAN is good when covering actual events). For example, I listened to the 4 hours of Comey's latest congressional testimony, and I found myself shocked at some of the coverage of it from the major outlets.
The issue is that *you* need to decide for yourself what news outlets you find trustworthy by investigating what they are saying and see if it's true or are they cherry picking the facts.
Personally, I find Fox to be as honest as they come, However, that's not saying much. I find Fox has their slant on stuff. NPR isn't bad either, but I find that they have a significant bias issue and routinely ignore facts that don't further the case of their bias. I have a number or websites that I like to read, but again, none of them are perfect. Again, this is YOUR call... Investigate on your own and don't take anybody's word for it.
Obviously I prefer news organizations that attempt to be careful with the facts, which is why I don't watch MSMBC except their comedy shows hosted by Maddow.... All of them have their issues, so if you take what they say with the necessary amounts of salt and throw out all the editorial bias shows the news they report is generally all about the same. Consumer be wary, they are in business to sell advertising and don't make a penny reporting the news...
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day... NPR happens to get a worm now and then...
Actually, they do quite well with their "facts" the problem they have is their obviously liberal bias in their editorial decisions like "what stories we cover" "what facts they choose to use" "what conclusions are we drawing". However, they are worlds better than MSNBC and usually CNN so I do actually listen to them fairly regularly to see what the other side is actually thinking.... (This coming from what most would call a ultra right winger...)
unless the 'potentially offensive' trademark is anything even remotely liberal-leaning. Then the alt-right will scream bloody murder and lawsuits will ensue.
We're use to it bro; been catching your hate all our lives. Right now there is a twitter tag: #HuntRepublicans, created by a (D) operative named James Divine. Nothing new; been going on forever. Hate filled liberals say whatever they want without consequence.
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
The right understands Tolerance is about my putting up with your wrong ideas regardless of how angry it makes me. The left thinks that tolerance is about me not saying anything that hurts their feelings... So who's going to sue? The left, of course.
Are you SURE you want to make this an issue? I believe that the Pro Life folks would have a few choice things to say using the same logic...
Actually, it could be argued that the ACA will kill more people than it "saves" because it will remove a lot of the profit driven innovation in healthcare and force a lot of people to spend a lot of money on insurance that they'd otherwise use on food, clothing and housing expenses....
Sure, but I don't have a vested interest in this one. Protesting where don't have dog in the hunt isn't a profitable use of my time..
The Japanese do not want to do this; in fact, several nearly identical laws have been stopped by popular protests. Large swathes of the ruling elite, however, want this. The party currently in power also glorifies the Imperial military's conduct during the 1930s and 40s, much to the chagrin of China and Korea, whilst also trying to alter or reinterpret the current constitution to allow greater militarisation.
So.. Are you advocating that a foreigner should somehow get involved in the politics of another country? If the people of Japan don't like this, they have the constitutional right to petition their government and the obligation to elect representatives who will change it. I have not dog in this hunt.
Now if you are advocating that we *should* care and be involved in Japan's politics, I'm wondering what we've been discussing about the Russians and the last presidential election. I mean, if it's OK for us to do it, why do we complain when the Russians do it?
If the Japanese want to do this, why is it my business? I don't live there and I'm not planning to go there anytime soon. They are not out obviously committing violations of basic human rights... Let them argue their own laws and elect the politicians they wish to pass them, my opinion doesn't matter.
Recent Citation please?
Hello Mr. Pot, it's Kettle.
It's still out of style these days....
The language you choose in your rhetoric is important. Obama's choice of words are thus important, and using images of violence in a political debate is what I'm decrying and asking to stop. Plus....
I'm merely showing the long history here. There are plenty of recent examples of main stream democratic supporters and leaders who have engaged in vitriolic rhetoric which was couched in violent terms. It is the democratic way to make people angry, oh not with the democrats, but with the republicans or groups that can be grouped with the republicans. We get this in your gun control rhetoric all the time. Oh yes, Republicans want people to die because they don't support Obamacare.... See what I mean yet or do I need to keep coming up with examples?
Seriously? Republicans are now responsible for this foolishness? Come on, you are talking about some minor "not in the main stream" things and ascribing it to the whole party. It's a logical fallacy of "guilt by association"..
I can still hear Madonna talking about blowing up the White House because Trump is in it... I don't hear the democrats denouncing such talk... I saw the tweet from the democratic congressman (now deleted) that said "one down 217 to go" right after the shooting. I've seen the democrats of all kinds fanning the flames of hate. "Republicans want to kill people, they want dirty air and water" but I'm not hearing Republicans returning the favor even though one could argue that Democrats what to kill babies (Pro Choice anyone). (And why not? Because it's dangerous talk, it incites people who are nuts to do bad things, PLUS that's not what Democrats are really trying to do..)
At least not in this country...
Median household income in the US is $57,616 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
We are discussing programmers, which, if you bother to check median salaries for you'd find is well above the national median.
Computer techs and programmers are NOT interchangeable... I would imagine their salary requirements are not the same either.
Still, it doesn't matter to me, only to the python parser....
BTW.. Any language that puts requirements on white space (like python) are bad ideas... That stuff when out of style a LONG time before even I started this software engineering thing 25+ years ago and there are good reasons for this.
A need does not create a right. People need health care, but it is NOT government's job to give everybody what they need.
Fuck you for thinking that people don't have a right to receive health care. .
Well, let's just stop right there and ask ourselves a few questions and perhaps you will see where I'm coming from.
What is a right? It is something an individual MUST get. Freedom of speech is a right, this means people MUST be allowed by the government to express themselves, it also means that government must prevent other's from infringing on my ability to speak my mind.
So if you say getting health care is a right, you are saying that doctors, nurses and hospitals must be forced by government to provide healthcare services to anybody who demands it. You have basically created a new class of slavery with your new right to healthcare because doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers CANNOT refuse you your rights. You also make it necessary for the government to FORCE the seizure of property (medical supplies) required to provide the health care right you claim. These two effects of your invented right are clearly unconstitutional, but follow logically.
Unless you are willing to accept that your invented "right to healthcare" creates a new class of slaves and the government must enforce this and the seizure of property then you can claim healthcare is a right.
I don't think you can claim this, nor do I think any reasonable person who actually thinks about the implications of what they are saying will claim a right to health care exists.