Actually, that's not always the case, although I would agree that reverse-compatibility is generally better than on console systems.
Technically you are right, but this is an entirely unenlightening "clarification". Practically, my version is truer. I've been PC gaming since 1995, and the only old games of mine that I've ever wanted to play but couldn't any more in the intervening 20 decades are Master of Magic and MMO's that have had their servers shut down. I have a whole closet full of obsolete PC games, and probably are lot of them are even still playable. But really, who cares?
20 years ago, $2000 would be my rough budget for a homebrew gaming rig from scratch, including monitors. 10 years ago, it was down to about $1000 (reusing monitors, case, and power-supply). For the last 5 years, its more like $500: $300 for RAM/CPU/MB, $200 for a 2-generation back video card. If you need peripherals, case, and power supply, probably around $1000. But once you've bought all that stuff once, you don't have to replace it until it breaks (5+ years, or sooner if you have kids). So every hardware generation you need to spend about $500 for a PC, vs. about the same as for a game console. But you'll be able to play all your old games on that new PC like nothing happened. Better oftentimes.
Building your own PC is like tinkering with cars back in the 60's: If you know what you're doing, or are willing to learn, you can trade your time for money and it isn't all that expensive. Eventually it won't take much of your time either. Replacing a Video card when yours goes obsolete will run you no more than $200 for a passable one, and replacing your CPU/Motherboard/RAM when the CPU goes obsolete (sadly, I almost always have to do all 3 at once) will be about $300. Anything else you just replace when it breaks, and it won't be more than $100 unless you really wanna geek out on it.
But the most important difference they don't mention is backward-compatibility. I've been doing this since the OS2-Warp days, and can still play nearly my entire games library if I feel like it. Certainly every game I bought in the last 10 years (excepting MMO's that no longer have servers) I can still install and play on my PC.
Compare this with the "gaming console". That's the same $300-500 ($250 if you are cheap and don't mind waiting a year or so) when your old one goes obsolete, but you have to throw out your entire game library as well. Software is king in this world, so that's a defining difference in my book.
does what I need it to do. Only thing I'd switch to is probably assembly, since that would make the code run faster.
This suffers under the misapprehension that you, as a human being, will be able to optimize for your processor (likely a pipelined architecture, perhaps with decades of inherited nits in it) better than your C compiler. You could be one of those handful of assembly gods for which that is true (or you could have a compiler with a freakishly shitty optimizer), but that's highly unlikely.
Of course there will be specific small cases where you might catch it doing something that can be improved, but in the general case assembly-level optimization these days is a problem best left to the compiler. This is why most C compilers have ignored low-level crap like the "register" keyword for years. ("Oh look! The human thinks he can optimize register allocation better than me. How adorable!")
C++ has recently replaced a lot of scripting language usage for me. C++14 has most of what I want from a scripting language:
Early on in my career, after much experimentation, I found that the following hierarchy suffices for pretty much all my programming needs. The basic idea is that you start at the left, and then move to the right when the problem grows past what the language can easily support:
grep < sed < awk < full-blown compiled language of your choice (C/C++/Ada/Java, etc).
Notice there's no intermediary "scripting language" between awk and a compiled language. Arguably, awk is sort of a junior-league scripting language. If your task grows past that, no sense splitting hairs any further. Time to use a full-blown compiler.
Again, something is by definition not "revisionist" if that's how people viewed it at the time (rightly or wrongly). I'm sorry, but I can't really hold a conversation with someone who insists on using their own personal definitions of words, like the Mad Hatter. Its just not physically possible.
The kind of "gullible fool" that doesn't swallow every narrative about a politician that their opponents create. I can even tell your age by the vintage of the propaganda you DIDN'T parrot up there.
It truly amazes me to live in an era so rife with projection that being skeptical about political propaganda is now considered being "gullible". Someone must have dropped me Bizzaro world while I was sleeping a few years back.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
...because that is what Republicans have moved heaven and earth to try to get you to think. Run around creating enough smoke around a person for three decades, and its tough not to believe there's at least a little fire there. I understand really, but its sad that they get away with doing this.
Interesting that you'd use the word "revisionist". You see, I was a voter back when this happened. I used the exact same logic then I'm using now, and I was far from alone. Back then, there were still a lot of people that felt that a man's sexual peccadillos should be off-limits in a political discussion. It was a different age.
I will admit that this argument you are making I've heard before, but only within the last few years. There may be merits to it, and there may be problems with the traditional argument, but one thing you can not call the traditional argument is "revisionist". That word simply cannot logically be applied to a contemporaneous viewpoint. A contemporary view of an event might be wrong, but it physically cannot be revisionist because the event isn't entirely done occurring yet. I find the meer fact that you want to call it that anyway quite suspicious.
Psychological projection seems to be the logical tool of this decade. Just look at Trump calling everyone else "the real racist". So at a guess, I'd say that's what you're doing here; desperately trying to cover your revisionist argument by calling any other argument "revisionist.", whether that makes any logical sense or not.
And don't tell me they don't have any. If you buy a smart watch you'll buy any old crap.
This kind of mystifies me. You do realize I have those #'s on the top of my head because I own one myself, right? So I'm really curious what kind of weird dystopian inspector gadget world you picture me living in. It probably doesn't much resemble my place, as the vast majority of my functioning electronic equipment was bought back in the 90's before my kids were born. I probably have about the oldest functioning DAK Catalog cheap standup speakers in existence. Wires I made myself from the highest-guage stereo wire Radio Shack sold by the yard (hillbilly Monster Cable ftw). I think the newest bit is the flatscreen TV I got for xmas from my dad back in the 2000's.
I've always owned a watch, since 1974 at least, and having one that tells me at a glance who's calling so I don't have to pull over to check, for barely more (inflation-adjusted) than the $25 Sears watches I used to buy with my allowance money in the early 80's, that's a no-brainer. Even better, I don't have to set the time ever.
FACT: its NOT clear that she broke any law. If it were "clear" there would be charges, and thereafter most likely a conviction. Our litmus test for such things is the court system, and the fact that nobody has even bothered to submit all this to it tells you unequivocally that there's no good case for an illegal action on her part here.
Now that I've been proven right, I'll be waiting here in this lonely empty room for everyone posting on this thread to come admit it. Fortunately, I have lots of books to occupy my time while waiting...
They can force their ISPs to comply, but there's no reason why non-Russian services like Google, twitter, and Facebook have to go along with this. Morally, they shouldn't.
Yeah, competitors might swoop in, but let them. Let Russia build its own totalitarian-friendly internet if it likes. They can have fun talking to North Koreans and Egyptians and Chinese to their heart's content, and let the rest of us get on with the persuits of free people.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her. I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying. Those are two different things. Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
OMG. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and they got modded up. My heart! Ethel, I'm coming to meet you!
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying, or in Manning's case, whistleblowing. In other words, PURPOSELY mishandling the information in a deliberate effort to spill the secret. The only other case I know of was also one of a Democrat in the Clinton camp that Republicans wanted to go after politically.
So there are basically 2 ways that this kind of thing can become a criminal issue:
1) You are actually trying to deliberately leak classified information.
2) You are standing within the blast radius of a Clinton while Republicans control Congress.
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment
I got you beat, since I knew this was coming they day the Republicans started up this latest Clinton witchunt/fishing expedition back in 2012, before the bodies were even cold. I lived through the 90's, and saw it all happen multiple times before. Nothing ever comes of it. Real crimes are no good for them, because they'd actually get prosecuted, with would do nothing to feed the Republican Conspiracy/Victimization narrative. Once the dust settles on this one, they'll start digging up/making up a new one. Its what they do.
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
Now, to be clear, I certainly hear what you're saying. The Clinton's have been aggressively targeted for decades but how much of that is their own fault?
...pretty much zero, unless you are the kind of person who considers it "their own fault" for daring to be opposition politicians while Republicans are controlling things.
Bill lied under oath for heaven's sake. Is that a line you would cross?
He lied under oath about having an affair. Something that by all rights should not have been asked of him in the first place (outside of a divorce proceeding), and the true answer to which would hurt his family. Dudes lying about affairs was such an everyday occurrence, nobody would have even given a crap if the details (which we really have no right to demand) hadn't been so salacious.
As someone mentioned to me, this current election is between a grandma that can't figure out her email, and a grandpa that believes everything he reads on Facebook.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the...
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't. The machines don't stop working.
It does if you disconnect it from everything so you can hook up your new one.
Actually, that's not always the case, although I would agree that reverse-compatibility is generally better than on console systems.
Technically you are right, but this is an entirely unenlightening "clarification". Practically, my version is truer. I've been PC gaming since 1995, and the only old games of mine that I've ever wanted to play but couldn't any more in the intervening 20 decades are Master of Magic and MMO's that have had their servers shut down. I have a whole closet full of obsolete PC games, and probably are lot of them are even still playable. But really, who cares?
I honestly feel like $1000 is going overboard
20 years ago, $2000 would be my rough budget for a homebrew gaming rig from scratch, including monitors. 10 years ago, it was down to about $1000 (reusing monitors, case, and power-supply). For the last 5 years, its more like $500: $300 for RAM/CPU/MB, $200 for a 2-generation back video card. If you need peripherals, case, and power supply, probably around $1000. But once you've bought all that stuff once, you don't have to replace it until it breaks (5+ years, or sooner if you have kids). So every hardware generation you need to spend about $500 for a PC, vs. about the same as for a game console. But you'll be able to play all your old games on that new PC like nothing happened. Better oftentimes.
Building your own PC is like tinkering with cars back in the 60's: If you know what you're doing, or are willing to learn, you can trade your time for money and it isn't all that expensive. Eventually it won't take much of your time either. Replacing a Video card when yours goes obsolete will run you no more than $200 for a passable one, and replacing your CPU/Motherboard/RAM when the CPU goes obsolete (sadly, I almost always have to do all 3 at once) will be about $300. Anything else you just replace when it breaks, and it won't be more than $100 unless you really wanna geek out on it.
But the most important difference they don't mention is backward-compatibility. I've been doing this since the OS2-Warp days, and can still play nearly my entire games library if I feel like it. Certainly every game I bought in the last 10 years (excepting MMO's that no longer have servers) I can still install and play on my PC.
Compare this with the "gaming console". That's the same $300-500 ($250 if you are cheap and don't mind waiting a year or so) when your old one goes obsolete, but you have to throw out your entire game library as well. Software is king in this world, so that's a defining difference in my book.
does what I need it to do. Only thing I'd switch to is probably assembly, since that would make the code run faster.
This suffers under the misapprehension that you, as a human being, will be able to optimize for your processor (likely a pipelined architecture, perhaps with decades of inherited nits in it) better than your C compiler. You could be one of those handful of assembly gods for which that is true (or you could have a compiler with a freakishly shitty optimizer), but that's highly unlikely.
Of course there will be specific small cases where you might catch it doing something that can be improved, but in the general case assembly-level optimization these days is a problem best left to the compiler. This is why most C compilers have ignored low-level crap like the "register" keyword for years. ("Oh look! The human thinks he can optimize register allocation better than me. How adorable!")
C++ has recently replaced a lot of scripting language usage for me. C++14 has most of what I want from a scripting language:
Early on in my career, after much experimentation, I found that the following hierarchy suffices for pretty much all my programming needs. The basic idea is that you start at the left, and then move to the right when the problem grows past what the language can easily support:
grep < sed < awk < full-blown compiled language of your choice (C/C++/Ada/Java, etc).
Notice there's no intermediary "scripting language" between awk and a compiled language. Arguably, awk is sort of a junior-league scripting language. If your task grows past that, no sense splitting hairs any further. Time to use a full-blown compiler.
Before Facebook, did they used to sue paper and pencil manufacturers for the same thing?
Again, something is by definition not "revisionist" if that's how people viewed it at the time (rightly or wrongly). I'm sorry, but I can't really hold a conversation with someone who insists on using their own personal definitions of words, like the Mad Hatter. Its just not physically possible.
Really, what kind of gullible fool are you?
The kind of "gullible fool" that doesn't swallow every narrative about a politician that their opponents create. I can even tell your age by the vintage of the propaganda you DIDN'T parrot up there.
It truly amazes me to live in an era so rife with projection that being skeptical about political propaganda is now considered being "gullible". Someone must have dropped me Bizzaro world while I was sleeping a few years back.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
...because that is what Republicans have moved heaven and earth to try to get you to think. Run around creating enough smoke around a person for three decades, and its tough not to believe there's at least a little fire there. I understand really, but its sad that they get away with doing this.
Interesting that you'd use the word "revisionist". You see, I was a voter back when this happened. I used the exact same logic then I'm using now, and I was far from alone. Back then, there were still a lot of people that felt that a man's sexual peccadillos should be off-limits in a political discussion. It was a different age.
I will admit that this argument you are making I've heard before, but only within the last few years. There may be merits to it, and there may be problems with the traditional argument, but one thing you can not call the traditional argument is "revisionist". That word simply cannot logically be applied to a contemporaneous viewpoint. A contemporary view of an event might be wrong, but it physically cannot be revisionist because the event isn't entirely done occurring yet. I find the meer fact that you want to call it that anyway quite suspicious.
Psychological projection seems to be the logical tool of this decade. Just look at Trump calling everyone else "the real racist". So at a guess, I'd say that's what you're doing here; desperately trying to cover your revisionist argument by calling any other argument "revisionist.", whether that makes any logical sense or not.
And don't tell me they don't have any. If you buy a smart watch you'll buy any old crap.
This kind of mystifies me. You do realize I have those #'s on the top of my head because I own one myself, right? So I'm really curious what kind of weird dystopian inspector gadget world you picture me living in. It probably doesn't much resemble my place, as the vast majority of my functioning electronic equipment was bought back in the 90's before my kids were born. I probably have about the oldest functioning DAK Catalog cheap standup speakers in existence. Wires I made myself from the highest-guage stereo wire Radio Shack sold by the yard (hillbilly Monster Cable ftw). I think the newest bit is the flatscreen TV I got for xmas from my dad back in the 2000's.
I've always owned a watch, since 1974 at least, and having one that tells me at a glance who's calling so I don't have to pull over to check, for barely more (inflation-adjusted) than the $25 Sears watches I used to buy with my allowance money in the early 80's, that's a no-brainer. Even better, I don't have to set the time ever.
For bathroom hygiene alone, wearing a watch on your dominant hand disgusts me.
Its all OK if you just remember to lick the crystal clean when you are done.
Sadly, unless you spring for the premium version, it will say every font is Comic Sans.
FACT: its NOT clear that she broke any law. If it were "clear" there would be charges, and thereafter most likely a conviction. Our litmus test for such things is the court system, and the fact that nobody has even bothered to submit all this to it tells you unequivocally that there's no good case for an illegal action on her part here.
Now that I've been proven right, I'll be waiting here in this lonely empty room for everyone posting on this thread to come admit it. Fortunately, I have lots of books to occupy my time while waiting...
They can force their ISPs to comply, but there's no reason why non-Russian services like Google, twitter, and Facebook have to go along with this. Morally, they shouldn't.
Yeah, competitors might swoop in, but let them. Let Russia build its own totalitarian-friendly internet if it likes. They can have fun talking to North Koreans and Egyptians and Chinese to their heart's content, and let the rest of us get on with the persuits of free people.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her. I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying. Those are two different things. Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
His career is over either way because of the affair. It's a very Victorian attitude, but that's how the US Army is with its officers.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
OMG. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and they got modded up. My heart! Ethel, I'm coming to meet you!
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying, or in Manning's case, whistleblowing. In other words, PURPOSELY mishandling the information in a deliberate effort to spill the secret. The only other case I know of was also one of a Democrat in the Clinton camp that Republicans wanted to go after politically.
So there are basically 2 ways that this kind of thing can become a criminal issue:
1) You are actually trying to deliberately leak classified information.
2) You are standing within the blast radius of a Clinton while Republicans control Congress.
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment
I got you beat, since I knew this was coming they day the Republicans started up this latest Clinton witchunt/fishing expedition back in 2012, before the bodies were even cold. I lived through the 90's, and saw it all happen multiple times before. Nothing ever comes of it. Real crimes are no good for them, because they'd actually get prosecuted, with would do nothing to feed the Republican Conspiracy/Victimization narrative. Once the dust settles on this one, they'll start digging up/making up a new one. Its what they do.
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
I like how it didn't even slow you down that those are (purposely) two completely different phrases.
Now, to be clear, I certainly hear what you're saying. The Clinton's have been aggressively targeted for decades but how much of that is their own fault?
...pretty much zero, unless you are the kind of person who considers it "their own fault" for daring to be opposition politicians while Republicans are controlling things.
Bill lied under oath for heaven's sake. Is that a line you would cross?
He lied under oath about having an affair. Something that by all rights should not have been asked of him in the first place (outside of a divorce proceeding), and the true answer to which would hurt his family. Dudes lying about affairs was such an everyday occurrence, nobody would have even given a crap if the details (which we really have no right to demand) hadn't been so salacious.
As someone mentioned to me, this current election is between a grandma that can't figure out her email, and a grandpa that believes everything he reads on Facebook.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the ...
Sanders is the grandpa that can't even get your name right.
Any idiot who spends money on smart watches isn't going to have any money in his account anyway.
Pebbles can be had for $100. The brand new top-of-the-line models are $250. If that drains your account, I think smartwatches aren't your problem.