Really, all that hardware support is easy in Linux for an older computer, particularly a Mac. And for the most part people who get themselves into package management hell are tinkerers who wouldn't be satisfied by a curated environment like an app store.
I'm totally with you on the idea of consistently-designed applications, but a lot of that went out the window even on MacOS years ago. They days of the all-powerful Mac HCI snob were over by the early 90s, killed by cross-platform apps. Yeah, Microsoft tweaks office to follow Mac conventions, but in the end is it more important for them to deliver a consistent Mac experience or a consistent Office experience?
Sure, there are still people who use iWork rather than LibreOffice or MSOffice, but talk about a minority. In general big name Gnome apps are just as well thought out and consistent as what people by-in-large use on the Mac -- which is probably damning with faint praise. And then there are apps which are laws unto themselves, like GIMP. Even if you *could* fix the problems with GIMP, it's not clear that you *should*.
San Francisco used to be one of my favorite places before the tech boom. And yes, it was a very different kind of place in the 70s and 80s. It's a lot like Key West, or Waikiki. Rich people are attracted to a place because of the funky character, then the money they bring in turns it into an EPCOT version of itself.
that's bound to be a more compatible and pleasant desktop experience than putting anything Linux on it.
That's a bold statement. It's bound to be a more pleasant desktop experience for someone whose preferred desktop experience is MacOS, but fundamentally it's a matter of personal preference. I, for example, would immediately (regardless of distro) would but the i3 tiling window manager on the thing, because that's what I like, and it happens to fit well with the way I work. Generally I install Linux with i3 and XFCE for the desktop-style utilities in the situations where I want them. There is simply no way way that MacOS could ever beat i3 for me by adding features, because I really like minimalism.
I wouldn't install i3 in a corporate environment, where I need to come up with a common standard that works well enough for everyone for the full range of tasks, but for a personal machine by all means let's make an apples to oranges comparison. They're both fruit, and some people just like one better than the other.
The Steele dossier is raw intelligence; it's not the kind evidence you could use to convict anyone, although it certainly merits further investigation.
The big issue are well-documented attempts to obtain intelligence from Russian state sources. Mueller has been very careful to obtain that in the guilty pleas he's got. That's what prompted the appointment of the special prosecutor, not the Steele dossier, which got a lot of media attention because of the pee pee tape thing.
When they put this to a plebiscite last year, 97% of the people who voted were for statehood, albeit with a low turnout. Statehood was also the most popular choice in the 2012 referendum, although that was worded in what some felt was a confusing way.
In 1819 the Massachusetts legislature voted to enable Maine to become an independent state. However is this would have changed the balance in the Senate between slave and free states, Congress wouldn't admit Maine without admitting an additional slave state, which is what you probably learned in school was called the "Missouri Compromise".
However... since Republicans currently control Congress, a different limitation comes into play, From Article IV Section 3 Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Since California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, it's highly unlikely that the legislature will consent to increasing Republican power in the US Senate.
TL;DR: It can be done, but it won't happen unless another, Democratic-leaning state is admitted (e.g. Puerto Rico).
I'd say you're mostly right, except there are three factional poles: establishment conservatives, tea party conservatives, and libertarians. While they freely borrow from each others rhetoric they have substantive policy differences, and with the slim advantage Republicans have in the Senate they need all hands on deck.
For reasons you can see by looking at the tree of life entry for Eukaryotes: fungi it turns out are much more closely related to animals than plants are, and of course plants are vastly more closely related to animals than bacteria or viruses. That makes it hard to find antifungals that have a high therapeutic index: the ratio of the quantity needed to produce toxicity over the quantity needed for therapeutic effect.
I've had bad luck with Harbor Freight, and I think it has to do with the Chinese model for selling stuff to the US.
Chinese factories can turn out stuff that is as good as anything made anywhere, but if the middleman thinks he can get away with selling Americans junk they'll gladly supply him -- because he's their customer, not you. It'd be different if the manufacturers owned the brands under which they sell. Then their reputation would be on the line with every tool you bought. But it's not; they stamp whatever name the middleman is selling under.
Well, we'll see whether your first amendment interpretation stands up, but your understanding of first amendment law conflicts with case law.
Sure you can publish illegally obtained information that's thrown over the transom, but you can't solicit an illegal act, and US news organizations have been successfully convicted despite their right to publish the illegally obtained information.
OK, so you're hung up an issue of terminology. Solicitation of an illegal activity, which is itself illegal, doesn't fit your definition of "collusion", but it's still illegal.
I refer you to the Campaign Act of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", which forbids any foreign entity from providing "any thing of value" to a campaign, and
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution
or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph
(1) from a foreign national.
This is a good response. Just to be clear, something can be wrong or unpatriotic without being criminal. However your assertion that "collusion" is not a crime isn't correct. Collusion with foreign entities attempting to influence the outcome of US elections is against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There are a number of other federal statutes under which people could be charged, but that law was written specifically to address this kind of thing.
It's still early in the investigation. The way a criminal investigation works is that you find the most vulnerable people, often small fry, and squeeze them for evidence until you've got the biggest fish you can find. We have a number of small to medium fish who have pled guilty to various infractions, the one that's actually most indicative of campaign wrongdoing is George Papadopolous's guilty plea to obstruction. You can read that pleading online, and in it he admits to doing things which are clearly illegal under the Campaign Reform Act, and informing the campaign. We know from other sources Paul Manafort, the campaign director at the time, was aware of these activities and approved of them as long as they didn't involve senior officials.
Given that, you've got at least probable cause to suspect a conspiracy to break a specific US law, which should meet your standard.
Collusion is cooperation with foreign entities which a reasonable person would expect to be breaking US law or otherwise attempting to influence the outcome of the US election.
Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.
Because then he'd be seen as backing down on the border wall. That's the real sticking point. DACA isn't really politically controversial -- the overwhelming majority of Americans want a deal for the Dreamers, including a majority of Republican voters. But the Freedom Caucus wants to couple that with funding Trump's border wall.
People engage in Bayesian reasoning all the time, even if they don't know what that is. Everyone does this. If you actually believe anyone in the Trump organization would never collude with Russians, then Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin appears entirely innocent to you, even though Trump Jr. has openly admitted he was seeking Russian government supplied dirt on Clinton.
Likewise the meeting between George Papadopolous and Joseph Mifsud in which Mifsud offered a Russian government trove of emails from the Clinton campaign was perfectly innocent. Papadoploous lying about that meeting to the FBI was also a perfectly innocent mistake.
And when in response to Papadopolous's attempt to set up a meeting involving Trump Paul Manafort complained "It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal," he really meant that nobody in the campaign should be doing it.
So given that people who believe there isn't a shred of evidence of collusion aren't impressed by these fairly well-established facts attested to by the participants, I think it's perfectly legitimate to what level of evidence in your opinion constitutes "a shred"?
Part of the difficulty here is what you would consider "collusion".
Would meetings by people in the campaign with what they believe to be people working for the Russian Government for purposes of obtaining favors rise to the level of collusion for you? Or does there have to be a specific quid pro quo?
That doesn't work because what convinces me won't necessarily convince you. That's because of differences in Bayesian prior beliefs.
Some people also like to waste your time demanding you marshal information they have no intention of looking at. It's like playing a game where they don't tell you the rules, or are free to change the rules to suit themselves.
Clearly you haven't been following this in detail.
The reason the Republicans need a supermajority is that they have not been able to keep enough of their own party together to get a regular appropriations bill passed. So they turned to a stop-gap parliamentary procedure called a "continuing resolution" in which both sides (a supermajority) agree to allow spending to continue while they work out their differences.
So this is all about making a deal with Democrats because they can't keep their own party together. In your system that would trigger an election.
Now as for immigration, a deal on the DACA program, which literally nine out of ten Americans favor, would bring enough Democrats over to pass the continuing resolution. But the Republicans added another condition to that: funding for the President's border wall, which if you recall Mexico was supposed to pay for.
So the Republican leadership has reached an impasse in which they can neither muster enough votes from their own party to pass a regular appropriations bill, nor enough votes from the opposition party to pass a continuing resolution.
I'm not in principle against using the data port for analog audio out too; the problem is the inability of manufacturers to make an adapter that can last more than a few days without breaking.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, all that hardware support is easy in Linux for an older computer, particularly a Mac. And for the most part people who get themselves into package management hell are tinkerers who wouldn't be satisfied by a curated environment like an app store.
I'm totally with you on the idea of consistently-designed applications, but a lot of that went out the window even on MacOS years ago. They days of the all-powerful Mac HCI snob were over by the early 90s, killed by cross-platform apps. Yeah, Microsoft tweaks office to follow Mac conventions, but in the end is it more important for them to deliver a consistent Mac experience or a consistent Office experience?
Sure, there are still people who use iWork rather than LibreOffice or MSOffice, but talk about a minority. In general big name Gnome apps are just as well thought out and consistent as what people by-in-large use on the Mac -- which is probably damning with faint praise. And then there are apps which are laws unto themselves, like GIMP. Even if you *could* fix the problems with GIMP, it's not clear that you *should*.
San Francisco used to be one of my favorite places before the tech boom. And yes, it was a very different kind of place in the 70s and 80s. It's a lot like Key West, or Waikiki. Rich people are attracted to a place because of the funky character, then the money they bring in turns it into an EPCOT version of itself.
that's bound to be a more compatible and pleasant desktop experience than putting anything Linux on it.
That's a bold statement. It's bound to be a more pleasant desktop experience for someone whose preferred desktop experience is MacOS, but fundamentally it's a matter of personal preference. I, for example, would immediately (regardless of distro) would but the i3 tiling window manager on the thing, because that's what I like, and it happens to fit well with the way I work. Generally I install Linux with i3 and XFCE for the desktop-style utilities in the situations where I want them. There is simply no way way that MacOS could ever beat i3 for me by adding features, because I really like minimalism.
I wouldn't install i3 in a corporate environment, where I need to come up with a common standard that works well enough for everyone for the full range of tasks, but for a personal machine by all means let's make an apples to oranges comparison. They're both fruit, and some people just like one better than the other.
The Steele dossier is raw intelligence; it's not the kind evidence you could use to convict anyone, although it certainly merits further investigation.
The big issue are well-documented attempts to obtain intelligence from Russian state sources. Mueller has been very careful to obtain that in the guilty pleas he's got. That's what prompted the appointment of the special prosecutor, not the Steele dossier, which got a lot of media attention because of the pee pee tape thing.
When they put this to a plebiscite last year, 97% of the people who voted were for statehood, albeit with a low turnout. Statehood was also the most popular choice in the 2012 referendum, although that was worded in what some felt was a confusing way.
In 1819 the Massachusetts legislature voted to enable Maine to become an independent state. However is this would have changed the balance in the Senate between slave and free states, Congress wouldn't admit Maine without admitting an additional slave state, which is what you probably learned in school was called the "Missouri Compromise".
However ... since Republicans currently control Congress, a different limitation comes into play, From Article IV Section 3 Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Since California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, it's highly unlikely that the legislature will consent to increasing Republican power in the US Senate.
TL;DR: It can be done, but it won't happen unless another, Democratic-leaning state is admitted (e.g. Puerto Rico).
I'd say you're mostly right, except there are three factional poles: establishment conservatives, tea party conservatives, and libertarians. While they freely borrow from each others rhetoric they have substantive policy differences, and with the slim advantage Republicans have in the Senate they need all hands on deck.
For reasons you can see by looking at the tree of life entry for Eukaryotes: fungi it turns out are much more closely related to animals than plants are, and of course plants are vastly more closely related to animals than bacteria or viruses. That makes it hard to find antifungals that have a high therapeutic index: the ratio of the quantity needed to produce toxicity over the quantity needed for therapeutic effect.
I've had bad luck with Harbor Freight, and I think it has to do with the Chinese model for selling stuff to the US.
Chinese factories can turn out stuff that is as good as anything made anywhere, but if the middleman thinks he can get away with selling Americans junk they'll gladly supply him -- because he's their customer, not you. It'd be different if the manufacturers owned the brands under which they sell. Then their reputation would be on the line with every tool you bought. But it's not; they stamp whatever name the middleman is selling under.
Nobody is claiming that proprietary information is "tangible".
Well, we'll see whether your first amendment interpretation stands up, but your understanding of first amendment law conflicts with case law.
Sure you can publish illegally obtained information that's thrown over the transom, but you can't solicit an illegal act, and US news organizations have been successfully convicted despite their right to publish the illegally obtained information.
OK, so you're hung up an issue of terminology. Solicitation of an illegal activity, which is itself illegal, doesn't fit your definition of "collusion", but it's still illegal.
I'm offering to give you anything you ask for, as long as you're specific.
I refer you to the Campaign Act of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", which forbids any foreign entity from providing "any thing of value" to a campaign, and
This is a good response. Just to be clear, something can be wrong or unpatriotic without being criminal. However your assertion that "collusion" is not a crime isn't correct. Collusion with foreign entities attempting to influence the outcome of US elections is against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There are a number of other federal statutes under which people could be charged, but that law was written specifically to address this kind of thing.
It's still early in the investigation. The way a criminal investigation works is that you find the most vulnerable people, often small fry, and squeeze them for evidence until you've got the biggest fish you can find. We have a number of small to medium fish who have pled guilty to various infractions, the one that's actually most indicative of campaign wrongdoing is George Papadopolous's guilty plea to obstruction. You can read that pleading online, and in it he admits to doing things which are clearly illegal under the Campaign Reform Act, and informing the campaign. We know from other sources Paul Manafort, the campaign director at the time, was aware of these activities and approved of them as long as they didn't involve senior officials.
Given that, you've got at least probable cause to suspect a conspiracy to break a specific US law, which should meet your standard.
Collusion is cooperation with foreign entities which a reasonable person would expect to be breaking US law or otherwise attempting to influence the outcome of the US election.
Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.
Because then he'd be seen as backing down on the border wall. That's the real sticking point. DACA isn't really politically controversial -- the overwhelming majority of Americans want a deal for the Dreamers, including a majority of Republican voters. But the Freedom Caucus wants to couple that with funding Trump's border wall.
OK, so your standard of proof is an admission of guilt by the Russian government?
Then I'd say by that standard there is not ever going to be any proof.
People engage in Bayesian reasoning all the time, even if they don't know what that is. Everyone does this. If you actually believe anyone in the Trump organization would never collude with Russians, then Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin appears entirely innocent to you, even though Trump Jr. has openly admitted he was seeking Russian government supplied dirt on Clinton.
Likewise the meeting between George Papadopolous and Joseph Mifsud in which Mifsud offered a Russian government trove of emails from the Clinton campaign was perfectly innocent. Papadoploous lying about that meeting to the FBI was also a perfectly innocent mistake.
And when in response to Papadopolous's attempt to set up a meeting involving Trump Paul Manafort complained "It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal," he really meant that nobody in the campaign should be doing it.
So given that people who believe there isn't a shred of evidence of collusion aren't impressed by these fairly well-established facts attested to by the participants, I think it's perfectly legitimate to what level of evidence in your opinion constitutes "a shred"?
Part of the difficulty here is what you would consider "collusion".
Would meetings by people in the campaign with what they believe to be people working for the Russian Government for purposes of obtaining favors rise to the level of collusion for you? Or does there have to be a specific quid pro quo?
That doesn't work because what convinces me won't necessarily convince you. That's because of differences in Bayesian prior beliefs.
Some people also like to waste your time demanding you marshal information they have no intention of looking at. It's like playing a game where they don't tell you the rules, or are free to change the rules to suit themselves.
Clearly you haven't been following this in detail.
The reason the Republicans need a supermajority is that they have not been able to keep enough of their own party together to get a regular appropriations bill passed. So they turned to a stop-gap parliamentary procedure called a "continuing resolution" in which both sides (a supermajority) agree to allow spending to continue while they work out their differences.
So this is all about making a deal with Democrats because they can't keep their own party together. In your system that would trigger an election.
Now as for immigration, a deal on the DACA program, which literally nine out of ten Americans favor, would bring enough Democrats over to pass the continuing resolution. But the Republicans added another condition to that: funding for the President's border wall, which if you recall Mexico was supposed to pay for.
So the Republican leadership has reached an impasse in which they can neither muster enough votes from their own party to pass a regular appropriations bill, nor enough votes from the opposition party to pass a continuing resolution.
It should work that way because the poster is demanding evidence. It's perfectly reasonable to ask what they would accept as evidence.
If you can't even say what your standards of evidence are, you are arguing about belief, not facts.
Before anybody can answer your question, you have say what you would accept as evidence.
I'm not in principle against using the data port for analog audio out too; the problem is the inability of manufacturers to make an adapter that can last more than a few days without breaking.