Obviously... What does that have to do with downloading drivers. Whatever drivers you want can be put onto a USB drive as easily as an optical disc. Why are you blaming wifi driver problems on USB boot?
It's a waste of time if you only care about being the deciding vote in who wins the election. Furthermore, each ballot has multiple races for local offices and referendums, and these are races in which your vote counts a lot more. It really doesn't take any extra effort to fill in one more bubble for a protest vote for president.
We have some Islamic groups that are dangerous (like ISIS), and some groups from other religions that are also dangerous (e.g. KKK). I won't disagree that Islam seems to have a bigger problem with violent radicals at the moment. SO what? The choice to slice up groups into Christianity and Islam is just that, a choice. You could go more granular and split religions up into finer detail to where ISIS can be separated from other non-violent Islamic groups, and the KKK can be separated from Christianity, or you could broader and say that Abrahamic family religions as a whole are the most violent.
If some Christian group in the middle east started killing lots of innocent people, would that imply that Christians in the United States were dangerous? What if some mass murderer in the US claimed allegiance to that group?
I think it is quite clear that peoples' biases are allowing them to see that extremist Christians do not represent all Christians, while preventing people from seeing the same thing in Muslims, because they are less familiar.
I think a parallel can be drawn with guns. Many people who don't own guns are scared of guns because they are unfamiliar with them. They are this scary thing that just seems to only cause death, and it seems like the best thing is to just get rid of them all.
Is this the world's shittiest judge? I think it will be pretty clear that at least some of the emails are real when it becomes insanely apparent that that no hacker could forge tens of thousands of emails that accurately reference numerous people, events, circumstances, etc in the state department. At that point the claim that all the emails are forgeries becomes something only a crazy person could believe.
And it's not like anybody could simply block this evidence so it is not public. It'll be out there for everyone to see, and any claim that the emails can't be vetted because they came from wikileaks will not be tolerated by the masses.
Yeah, and how many people are unsure of whether they actually wrote the spam to themselves? Forging an email is easy. Forging an email in a way that is convincing is very hard.
If it were possible to easily produce convincing forgeries of emails, we'd have email leaks from controversial figures all the time, and they would all be denounced as forgeries, and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. In reality, we do have some leaks of emails of controversial figures, and they are not denounced as forgeries, because they are clearly legitimate even without being signed by private keys.
In fact if there was a leaked email signed by Clinton's private key that said "I'm a dumb cunt", far from being evidence of a legitimate email, we would know conclusively that her private key had been hacked.
The emails would be admissible because the standard of evidence for emails is not that they need to be digitally signed. They just need to be vetted by experts and witnesses. Digital signatures can help the vetting process, but are neither sufficient nor necessary.
Maybe, but it's Assange claiming to have this data, and a Russian propaganda rag covering it. At the very least this a story about a claim Julian Assange is making that will turn out to be true or false.
Which is weird, because it appears the server wasn't actually wiped, and the official Clinton position is to avoid directly answering the question of whether the emails where wiped or simply deleted and/or claim not to know what "wiping" is.
So you are saying that we should only be tolerant of other Christians? Or are you saying that other religions are not operating in our framework? Or what?
Voting for a major party is also a mathematically poor choice for most people. If voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote, than surely voting for a major party in a solid red state or a solid blue state is also a wasted vote.
What is the point of nitpicking antonyms? Would it be productive if I jumped in with 'Actually "like" vs. "dislike" is a false dichotomy, and people actually fall onto a spectrum of likability for each candidate'?
Also, given that by all accounts I have seen, these 2 candidates are the #1 and #2 least favorable presidential candidates from major political parties in (recent?) history, I don't think it's a reach to suspect that the level of hate ("hate" being an verb strongly correlated to "dislike") is higher than normal.
If you read the first part of the sentence you quoted (or even the rest of the post), you will see the context in which the part of the sentence you did quote exists in, and it should at least be coherent, whether you agree with the claim or not.
Do you live in a swing state? If not, then it doesn't matter who you vote for. You can safely vote for whatever let's you sleep at night without worrying that your vote had any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election.
There are apparently all these Nader supporters from 2000 that feel complicit electing Bush, but if they didn't live in Florida, the reality is that the only thing they are complicit in is helping to foster the myth that every vote matters.
It seems like she did... I am not an expert or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if Obama didn't personally authorize every drone strike for the last 7.5 years.
There is going to be like 7 other names on the ballot depending on your state, and that's not even including write in possibilities. Your vote doesn't matter in terms of deciding the winner. If you need to pretend like it does and vote for Hillary or Trump go ahead. Unless you live in Florida, Ohio, or Virginia, etc, you can do whatever the fuck you want and your state will still just be blue or red.
Unless you live in a swing state, your vote already has no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. So for about 80% of people their vote really doesn't matter, in the sense that it has a nearly zero chance of deciding the Hillary vs. Trump race.
There are other goals besides winning the presidency. If you can get a 3rd party to 15% then they are eligible for the debates, which would really be a game changer. And while a vote to overthrow the 2 party system in America is not very likely to succeed, it's not less effective than a vote against Hillary or Trump.
Obviously any institution or person that serves food should be subject to appropriate food safety regulations, etc. I don't think "restaurant" is the official term for an institution that serves food. Or at the very least it probably varies by state.
I would say that a food truck is a type of restaurant, like how a truck is a type of car. I think a good logical argument could be made for this type of classification, but I don't think anyone I know would actually call a food truck a restaurant (myself included). I think of mcdonalds and subway as fast food restaurants, which makes them types of restaurants semantically. But I think colloquially, at least where I am from, a "restaurant" without any qualifications means a "sit down restaurant" which means you are seated by wait staff and served food at your table.
Well considering many people have been able to successfully accomplish exactly what it seems like is giving you so much trouble, maybe the problem is that there is something wrong on your end.
I get the impression that you are not grasping the point of my post. You seem quite fixated on definitions, despite the fact that my whole argument is that the definitions are arbitrary and meaningless.
I fail to see where the term 'car' is being used to refer to something that flies.
You literally posted a link to something that refers to something that flies being referred to as a car. (i.e. a "flying car" is semantically a type of "car")
I didn't say that those are our only choices. I said that that's those are the choices that people are pre-occupied with. And it's something is not a bug unless it causes behavior different than what the creator intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously... What does that have to do with downloading drivers. Whatever drivers you want can be put onto a USB drive as easily as an optical disc. Why are you blaming wifi driver problems on USB boot?
What I am asking is what this has to do with booting from a USB rather than an optical disc
It's a waste of time if you only care about being the deciding vote in who wins the election. Furthermore, each ballot has multiple races for local offices and referendums, and these are races in which your vote counts a lot more. It really doesn't take any extra effort to fill in one more bubble for a protest vote for president.
We have some Islamic groups that are dangerous (like ISIS), and some groups from other religions that are also dangerous (e.g. KKK). I won't disagree that Islam seems to have a bigger problem with violent radicals at the moment. SO what? The choice to slice up groups into Christianity and Islam is just that, a choice. You could go more granular and split religions up into finer detail to where ISIS can be separated from other non-violent Islamic groups, and the KKK can be separated from Christianity, or you could broader and say that Abrahamic family religions as a whole are the most violent.
If some Christian group in the middle east started killing lots of innocent people, would that imply that Christians in the United States were dangerous? What if some mass murderer in the US claimed allegiance to that group?
I think it is quite clear that peoples' biases are allowing them to see that extremist Christians do not represent all Christians, while preventing people from seeing the same thing in Muslims, because they are less familiar.
I think a parallel can be drawn with guns. Many people who don't own guns are scared of guns because they are unfamiliar with them. They are this scary thing that just seems to only cause death, and it seems like the best thing is to just get rid of them all.
People are scared of what they don't understand.
Is this the world's shittiest judge? I think it will be pretty clear that at least some of the emails are real when it becomes insanely apparent that that no hacker could forge tens of thousands of emails that accurately reference numerous people, events, circumstances, etc in the state department. At that point the claim that all the emails are forgeries becomes something only a crazy person could believe.
And it's not like anybody could simply block this evidence so it is not public. It'll be out there for everyone to see, and any claim that the emails can't be vetted because they came from wikileaks will not be tolerated by the masses.
Yeah, and how many people are unsure of whether they actually wrote the spam to themselves? Forging an email is easy. Forging an email in a way that is convincing is very hard.
If it were possible to easily produce convincing forgeries of emails, we'd have email leaks from controversial figures all the time, and they would all be denounced as forgeries, and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. In reality, we do have some leaks of emails of controversial figures, and they are not denounced as forgeries, because they are clearly legitimate even without being signed by private keys.
In fact if there was a leaked email signed by Clinton's private key that said "I'm a dumb cunt", far from being evidence of a legitimate email, we would know conclusively that her private key had been hacked.
The emails would be admissible because the standard of evidence for emails is not that they need to be digitally signed. They just need to be vetted by experts and witnesses. Digital signatures can help the vetting process, but are neither sufficient nor necessary.
Maybe, but it's Assange claiming to have this data, and a Russian propaganda rag covering it. At the very least this a story about a claim Julian Assange is making that will turn out to be true or false.
Which is weird, because it appears the server wasn't actually wiped, and the official Clinton position is to avoid directly answering the question of whether the emails where wiped or simply deleted and/or claim not to know what "wiping" is.
So it appears she didn't do that right either.
So you are saying that we should only be tolerant of other Christians? Or are you saying that other religions are not operating in our framework? Or what?
Voting for a major party is also a mathematically poor choice for most people. If voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote, than surely voting for a major party in a solid red state or a solid blue state is also a wasted vote.
What is the point of nitpicking antonyms? Would it be productive if I jumped in with 'Actually "like" vs. "dislike" is a false dichotomy, and people actually fall onto a spectrum of likability for each candidate'?
Also, given that by all accounts I have seen, these 2 candidates are the #1 and #2 least favorable presidential candidates from major political parties in (recent?) history, I don't think it's a reach to suspect that the level of hate ("hate" being an verb strongly correlated to "dislike") is higher than normal.
If you read the first part of the sentence you quoted (or even the rest of the post), you will see the context in which the part of the sentence you did quote exists in, and it should at least be coherent, whether you agree with the claim or not.
Do you live in a swing state? If not, then it doesn't matter who you vote for. You can safely vote for whatever let's you sleep at night without worrying that your vote had any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election.
There are apparently all these Nader supporters from 2000 that feel complicit electing Bush, but if they didn't live in Florida, the reality is that the only thing they are complicit in is helping to foster the myth that every vote matters.
It seems like she did... I am not an expert or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if Obama didn't personally authorize every drone strike for the last 7.5 years.
There is going to be like 7 other names on the ballot depending on your state, and that's not even including write in possibilities. Your vote doesn't matter in terms of deciding the winner. If you need to pretend like it does and vote for Hillary or Trump go ahead. Unless you live in Florida, Ohio, or Virginia, etc, you can do whatever the fuck you want and your state will still just be blue or red.
Unless you live in a swing state, your vote already has no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. So for about 80% of people their vote really doesn't matter, in the sense that it has a nearly zero chance of deciding the Hillary vs. Trump race.
There are other goals besides winning the presidency. If you can get a 3rd party to 15% then they are eligible for the debates, which would really be a game changer. And while a vote to overthrow the 2 party system in America is not very likely to succeed, it's not less effective than a vote against Hillary or Trump.
Oh heaven forbid intelligent robots with silicon brains start killing the intelligent robots with meat brains that were already killing each other.
So you think the reason the linux distro isn't downloading wifi drivers is because it was booted from USB?
Obviously any institution or person that serves food should be subject to appropriate food safety regulations, etc. I don't think "restaurant" is the official term for an institution that serves food. Or at the very least it probably varies by state.
I would say that a food truck is a type of restaurant, like how a truck is a type of car. I think a good logical argument could be made for this type of classification, but I don't think anyone I know would actually call a food truck a restaurant (myself included). I think of mcdonalds and subway as fast food restaurants, which makes them types of restaurants semantically. But I think colloquially, at least where I am from, a "restaurant" without any qualifications means a "sit down restaurant" which means you are seated by wait staff and served food at your table.
If I told my wife we were going to a restaurant, and I took her to a food truck, she would divorce me.
I don't think simply trying more distributions using whatever flawed setup you have is going to work.
So you went into a forum and you saw people running into problems? This changes everything.
Well considering many people have been able to successfully accomplish exactly what it seems like is giving you so much trouble, maybe the problem is that there is something wrong on your end.
I fail to see where the term 'car' is being used to refer to something that flies.
You literally posted a link to something that refers to something that flies being referred to as a car. (i.e. a "flying car" is semantically a type of "car")
I didn't say that those are our only choices. I said that that's those are the choices that people are pre-occupied with. And it's something is not a bug unless it causes behavior different than what the creator intended.