That's not how any software anywhere works, and if someone's telling you otherwise they're lying to you. Flaws are discovered after-the-fact, and they need to be fixed.
You misunderstand the OP. The others wouldn't be admitting defeat to Nintendo, they'd be admitting defeat to PCs. Nintendo consoles are fundamentally *different* (from both other consoles and PCs) and in a lot of ways are playing in a different competition altogether.
The issue with the cake bakers was that they were in Colorado, and Colorado law does include Sexual Orientation as a legally protected class (state's rights, hooray!).
Now they're going to the Supreme Court, which plausibly may find that the Cake Baker's First Amendment rights were in fact violated and therefore the Colorado law is unconstitutional. But that's completely apples-to-oranges to violating a web hosting company's terms of service and being booted out because of it.
Sorry, that's just silly. No matter how much we screw up the atmosphere, the Earth will never be as inhospitable as Mars is. Any terraforming we could possibly apply to Mars could be applied to Earth easier.
It could possibly save mankind from total annihilation from nuclear war, but nothing short of that.
The situation he is describing, which he states explicitly more than once, is a Citizen voting with non-citizen / illegal immigrant family / friends. That is the inescapable conclusion if you are honestly trying to listen to what he says as a whole instead of latching on to part of a sentence fragment in an answer to a confused question.
Also Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in history. If you have to cherry-pick facts to support your narrative, you're probably wrong. Immigration is a complex issue and Obama's response to it is not a simple "sure come in and vote!!!!".
You have an entire website of people telling you that you and Mashiki understood the video wrong.
You have a perfectly plausible explanation of why the question / answer are confusing and / or being taken out of context.
If you choose to interpret Obama's statement slightly differently (in what I argue is the intended way) then what he says is perfectly reasonable, Legal, and repeated later in the interview.
And instead you choose to believe that the only possible explanation for this fragment of a sentence is that Obama is instructing Illegals to vote. Okay dude, believe what you want. Even if he was doing that they are still unable to vote because they can't get on the voter roles.
Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.
Oh piss off. Questions like this aren't even unscripted, that was as scripted of an interview as you can get. Not only did Obama know the questions beforehand, the people surrounding him did as well.
Even if it was scripted, the host clearly fumbled the question. Like, I don't see how there could possibly be any dispute about that. So if it was scripted then that explains it even better, as Obama was answering the slightly different (scripted) version of the question instead of what was actually asked.
And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.
Sure explains those cases of illegals voting multiple times doesn't it? Sure explains all those times the democrats are against voter ID laws doesn't it. "Only citizens can vote" and the only way you can tell who's a citizen is with voter ID laws, and ensuring that those voter rolls are accurate. Keep in mind that multiple elections have been lost with a hundred votes or less.
The only form of voter fraud that voter ID laws could possibly prevent, is to prevent someone from showing up and giving a false name and address. That's the whole idea, because your picture and name and address would be on the ID. The ID does not tell you who is a citizen and who is not any more than the voter role does, it merely confirms that you are who you say you are. So to commit that fraud right now a non-citizen would have to walk up and give the name and address of a citizen, and vote under that name. Not only would that already be doubly-illegal, but it's also easily detectable, as when the actual real citizen goes to vote they'll be flagged for voting twice and an investigation will ensue.
Democrats tend to oppose Voter ID first of all because if you're charging for the IDs then that is essentially a poll tax, which is blatantly unconstitutional (24th Amendment). No one should have to pay to vote; the right extends to all citizens, regardless of how poor. They also tend to oppose Voter ID because it's typically a blatant attempt by Republicans to suppress the vote of people who don't already have Driver's Licences (usually poor and Democratic, typically also a minority), not to solve any actual real fraud problems.
I think you're right about the host's intent, but I think it was a confused and unclear question and that Obama misunderstood it. If you listen to his response (and the rest of the interview), he very clearly is talking about Citizens voting, only. There is no reason to believe that he didn't actually mean Citizens.
The question he was answering (which is actually the question that was asked) is "if I vote will immigration come for my family?" The answer is no, actually regardless of if the voter is a citizen or not (but non-citizens are still not able to vote). Mixed in to that answer is the complicating factors of the host's misuse of the word "citizen" and Obama's correct use of the word "citizen". So I get how you can read a transcript of those two lines and come away with a misunderstanding of what he was saying, but if you take the time to think about it and to listen to the rest of the interview I think it's completely clear. Obama was telling citizens to vote to provide a voice for their non-citizen family and friends, and not to believe the lie that immigration will track them down because of their (the citizen's) vote. That's it, nothing else.
"Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented -- undocumented citizens, I call them citizens because they contribute to this country. Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?"
There are three categories of people mentioned:
millennials - refers to an age group, generally assumed to be citizens
dreamers - non-citizens who were brought here at a young age and want to be citizens
"undocumented -- undocumented citizens, I call them citizens because they contribute to this country" - obviously explicitly not citizens, but the host kept repeating and emphasizing "citizen" so the mistake is understandable.
So we're mixing completely different categories of people, including citizens and non-citizens, in a confusing way.
The actual question is "Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?". The answer to that question is "no", actually regardless of it the voter is a citizen or not. Immigration will not know where you live because of your voter registration. That is what he explicitly says. He also tries to clarify that only citizens can vote in the same sentence, which in was a mistake.
Do you have any evidence that it's scripted, or that the host asked exactly the question that was in the script? Or is that just an assumption on your part so you can continue believing the narrative.
You haven't even bothered to try to explain the second quote or the rest of the speech. If you listen to what he says as a whole, he is very, very clearly talking about Citizens (only) voting. Yes I agree that if you take that one sentence out of context then it can be misconstrued to mean something else, but I think you are the one that does not understand English (or the voter registration process), not Obama.
Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.
"When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]."
He's answering the question (which is not quite what she asked) "If I vote will immigration come for my undocumented family members", and the answer is no.
"Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote."
He's very clearly saying that Citizens can and should vote in a way that supports their families and friends. He never says that Illegals can or should vote.
And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.
This is a lie.
The context is talking about voter suppression and a fear of people deporting the families of voters.
"When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]."
"Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote."
He's talking about Citizens voting, not ever anything else. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.
Superior in terms of raw horsepower sure, but that's not the market that Nintendo is trying to go for.
Nintendo caters to same-console multiplayer and exploration-game and platformer players, not competitive FPS and sports-game players. Their design goals are easy-to-pick-up, intuitive, and fun, not focused solely on dazzling the eyes with the extreme number of polygons. They explore wacky and different game mechanics like the motion-controller Wii remotes and the asymetric-gameplay Wii U tablet. Go into any nursing home. Odds are you'll find a Wii but won't find an Xbox or PS.
It would be stupid for Nintendo to exit the market, there's no one else that is even trying to cater to their player base. You may not be part of their target market, and that's completely okay. Other people are.
Red Hat made the decision to go with systemd for their own operating system. They didn't "force" it on anyone else. If you're unhappy with Debian / whoever else's decision to use systemd you'd better to talk to those maintainers. Obviously they see value in it or they wouldn't be using it.
The free version of RHEL is CentOS or Scientific Linux, not Fedora. Fedora is, as you note, a upstream, fast-moving, bleeding-edge, "test" OS. If that's not what you want then you're using the wrong thing.
His point was that if the 3rd party equipment is exceeding the tolerances in the spec that it's perfectly fair for Intel to say that it voids the warranty. Car manufacturers were trying to ban all 3rd party equipment, spec performing or not, and that's a completely different ballgame.
Sorry if I'm being a Nazi, I never know if someone just typo'd something or acutely used the wrong word, and if so if they would appreciate knowing the correct one or not.
Yes and no. The JVMs' ability to run Java are largely the same, but often times programs rely on being able to set particular options on the JVM which are not part of the language specification and therefore JVM-specific.
There can be problems.
Yes and no. It's about as private as an email address. Everyone can always see which email address send a message (or which account purchased something with which bitcoin), but it's not easily traceable back to a real person. Then again if you're actually buying physical things with bitcoin then you probably had to supply a shipping address, so that's pretty easily traceable right there. Or they'd have to trace your internet traffic back to your computer. If they really want to find you they can.
The big draws to bitcoin were that:
1) It's not controlled by a government (so they can't intentionally inflate it)
2) your 'account' is not controlled by a third party (like a bank) which makes it harder for governments to shut down illegal activities because instead of simply requiring that the banks freeze all payments to $website they actually have to track down and shut off the physical servers in question (and for the more paranoid, it's also impossible for the government to simply freeze / steal your money, a la Cyprus)
3) there are no chargebacks, a spent bitcoin stays spent, so you can't buy something, wait for it to be shipped, and then dispute the charge like you can for credit cards (making bitcoins safer for merchants)
4) bitcoin transactions don't require any secret information (like for example your credit card number), making them safer for customers because you don't have to worry about identity theft
5) nerds liked that you could mine it using your spare cpu cycles and make real money out of nothing more than electricity (not true anymore, the market's been flooded with mining rigs and you are extremely unlikely to make more bitcoin than you're paying in electricity unless you get free electricity).
Google: define disinterest
1) the state of not being influenced by personal involvement in something; impartiality.
2) lack of interest in something.
synonyms: indifference, lack of interest, unconcern,
It can mean both depending on context. You don't get to claim that the second definition doesn't exist just because you prefer the first.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? It's zero energy cost to the game developer regardless of if they had permission or not.
That's not how any software anywhere works, and if someone's telling you otherwise they're lying to you. Flaws are discovered after-the-fact, and they need to be fixed.
He's saying Google is the "newer evil", not Apple.
You misunderstand the OP. The others wouldn't be admitting defeat to Nintendo, they'd be admitting defeat to PCs. Nintendo consoles are fundamentally *different* (from both other consoles and PCs) and in a lot of ways are playing in a different competition altogether.
Hey good news, SQL Server /is/ available on RHEL.
https://blogs.technet.microsof...
The issue with the cake bakers was that they were in Colorado, and Colorado law does include Sexual Orientation as a legally protected class (state's rights, hooray!). Now they're going to the Supreme Court, which plausibly may find that the Cake Baker's First Amendment rights were in fact violated and therefore the Colorado law is unconstitutional. But that's completely apples-to-oranges to violating a web hosting company's terms of service and being booted out because of it.
Sorry, that's just silly. No matter how much we screw up the atmosphere, the Earth will never be as inhospitable as Mars is. Any terraforming we could possibly apply to Mars could be applied to Earth easier. It could possibly save mankind from total annihilation from nuclear war, but nothing short of that.
Cynical me thinks this was done to game the browser usage statistics.
The situation he is describing, which he states explicitly more than once, is a Citizen voting with non-citizen / illegal immigrant family / friends. That is the inescapable conclusion if you are honestly trying to listen to what he says as a whole instead of latching on to part of a sentence fragment in an answer to a confused question.
Also Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in history. If you have to cherry-pick facts to support your narrative, you're probably wrong. Immigration is a complex issue and Obama's response to it is not a simple "sure come in and vote!!!!".
And instead you choose to believe that the only possible explanation for this fragment of a sentence is that Obama is instructing Illegals to vote. Okay dude, believe what you want. Even if he was doing that they are still unable to vote because they can't get on the voter roles.
Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.
Oh piss off. Questions like this aren't even unscripted, that was as scripted of an interview as you can get. Not only did Obama know the questions beforehand, the people surrounding him did as well.
Even if it was scripted, the host clearly fumbled the question. Like, I don't see how there could possibly be any dispute about that. So if it was scripted then that explains it even better, as Obama was answering the slightly different (scripted) version of the question instead of what was actually asked.
And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.
Sure explains those cases of illegals voting multiple times doesn't it? Sure explains all those times the democrats are against voter ID laws doesn't it. "Only citizens can vote" and the only way you can tell who's a citizen is with voter ID laws, and ensuring that those voter rolls are accurate. Keep in mind that multiple elections have been lost with a hundred votes or less.
Evidence please? All the actual evidence shows that in-person voter fraud does not really happen.
https://www.brennancenter.org/...
The only form of voter fraud that voter ID laws could possibly prevent, is to prevent someone from showing up and giving a false name and address. That's the whole idea, because your picture and name and address would be on the ID. The ID does not tell you who is a citizen and who is not any more than the voter role does, it merely confirms that you are who you say you are. So to commit that fraud right now a non-citizen would have to walk up and give the name and address of a citizen, and vote under that name. Not only would that already be doubly-illegal, but it's also easily detectable, as when the actual real citizen goes to vote they'll be flagged for voting twice and an investigation will ensue.
Democrats tend to oppose Voter ID first of all because if you're charging for the IDs then that is essentially a poll tax, which is blatantly unconstitutional (24th Amendment). No one should have to pay to vote; the right extends to all citizens, regardless of how poor. They also tend to oppose Voter ID because it's typically a blatant attempt by Republicans to suppress the vote of people who don't already have Driver's Licences (usually poor and Democratic, typically also a minority), not to solve any actual real fraud problems.
I think you're right about the host's intent, but I think it was a confused and unclear question and that Obama misunderstood it. If you listen to his response (and the rest of the interview), he very clearly is talking about Citizens voting, only. There is no reason to believe that he didn't actually mean Citizens.
The question he was answering (which is actually the question that was asked) is "if I vote will immigration come for my family?" The answer is no, actually regardless of if the voter is a citizen or not (but non-citizens are still not able to vote). Mixed in to that answer is the complicating factors of the host's misuse of the word "citizen" and Obama's correct use of the word "citizen". So I get how you can read a transcript of those two lines and come away with a misunderstanding of what he was saying, but if you take the time to think about it and to listen to the rest of the interview I think it's completely clear. Obama was telling citizens to vote to provide a voice for their non-citizen family and friends, and not to believe the lie that immigration will track them down because of their (the citizen's) vote. That's it, nothing else.
"Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented -- undocumented citizens, I call them citizens because they contribute to this country. Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?"
There are three categories of people mentioned:
So we're mixing completely different categories of people, including citizens and non-citizens, in a confusing way.
The actual question is "Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?". The answer to that question is "no", actually regardless of it the voter is a citizen or not. Immigration will not know where you live because of your voter registration. That is what he explicitly says. He also tries to clarify that only citizens can vote in the same sentence, which in was a mistake.
Do you have any evidence that it's scripted, or that the host asked exactly the question that was in the script? Or is that just an assumption on your part so you can continue believing the narrative.
You haven't even bothered to try to explain the second quote or the rest of the speech. If you listen to what he says as a whole, he is very, very clearly talking about Citizens (only) voting. Yes I agree that if you take that one sentence out of context then it can be misconstrued to mean something else, but I think you are the one that does not understand English (or the voter registration process), not Obama.
Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.
"When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]."
He's answering the question (which is not quite what she asked) "If I vote will immigration come for my undocumented family members", and the answer is no.
"Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote."
He's very clearly saying that Citizens can and should vote in a way that supports their families and friends. He never says that Illegals can or should vote.
And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.
This is a lie. The context is talking about voter suppression and a fear of people deporting the families of voters. "When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]." "Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote." He's talking about Citizens voting, not ever anything else. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.
Superior in terms of raw horsepower sure, but that's not the market that Nintendo is trying to go for.
Nintendo caters to same-console multiplayer and exploration-game and platformer players, not competitive FPS and sports-game players. Their design goals are easy-to-pick-up, intuitive, and fun, not focused solely on dazzling the eyes with the extreme number of polygons. They explore wacky and different game mechanics like the motion-controller Wii remotes and the asymetric-gameplay Wii U tablet. Go into any nursing home. Odds are you'll find a Wii but won't find an Xbox or PS.
It would be stupid for Nintendo to exit the market, there's no one else that is even trying to cater to their player base. You may not be part of their target market, and that's completely okay. Other people are.
Red Hat made the decision to go with systemd for their own operating system. They didn't "force" it on anyone else. If you're unhappy with Debian / whoever else's decision to use systemd you'd better to talk to those maintainers. Obviously they see value in it or they wouldn't be using it.
The free version of RHEL is CentOS or Scientific Linux, not Fedora. Fedora is, as you note, a upstream, fast-moving, bleeding-edge, "test" OS. If that's not what you want then you're using the wrong thing.
That's what preview is for.
So you're griping because the submitter did everything correctly?
His point was that if the 3rd party equipment is exceeding the tolerances in the spec that it's perfectly fair for Intel to say that it voids the warranty. Car manufacturers were trying to ban all 3rd party equipment, spec performing or not, and that's a completely different ballgame.
"Rote".
Sorry if I'm being a Nazi, I never know if someone just typo'd something or acutely used the wrong word, and if so if they would appreciate knowing the correct one or not.
Yes and no. The JVMs' ability to run Java are largely the same, but often times programs rely on being able to set particular options on the JVM which are not part of the language specification and therefore JVM-specific. There can be problems.
Yes and no. It's about as private as an email address. Everyone can always see which email address send a message (or which account purchased something with which bitcoin), but it's not easily traceable back to a real person. Then again if you're actually buying physical things with bitcoin then you probably had to supply a shipping address, so that's pretty easily traceable right there. Or they'd have to trace your internet traffic back to your computer. If they really want to find you they can.
The big draws to bitcoin were that:
1) It's not controlled by a government (so they can't intentionally inflate it)
2) your 'account' is not controlled by a third party (like a bank) which makes it harder for governments to shut down illegal activities because instead of simply requiring that the banks freeze all payments to $website they actually have to track down and shut off the physical servers in question (and for the more paranoid, it's also impossible for the government to simply freeze / steal your money, a la Cyprus)
3) there are no chargebacks, a spent bitcoin stays spent, so you can't buy something, wait for it to be shipped, and then dispute the charge like you can for credit cards (making bitcoins safer for merchants)
4) bitcoin transactions don't require any secret information (like for example your credit card number), making them safer for customers because you don't have to worry about identity theft
5) nerds liked that you could mine it using your spare cpu cycles and make real money out of nothing more than electricity (not true anymore, the market's been flooded with mining rigs and you are extremely unlikely to make more bitcoin than you're paying in electricity unless you get free electricity).
Google: define disinterest
1) the state of not being influenced by personal involvement in something; impartiality.
2) lack of interest in something.
synonyms: indifference, lack of interest, unconcern,
It can mean both depending on context. You don't get to claim that the second definition doesn't exist just because you prefer the first.