Microsoft was one of the earliest smartphone manufacturers, and together with Symbian, one of the two biggest. They didn't miss it, they screwed it up, with their usual mix of greed, attempts at monopoly, and bad software. The difference is that this time, it backfired, and people never again trusted them.
We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.
It was a good idea, and it actually lasted quite a while in comparison to other nations. However, even the Founding Fathers were not optimistic that this was going to last forever. As Jefferson wrote:
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. ..] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.
Yes, because nothing says "effective president" than "being able to lie effectively to the electorate about the policies you're actually going to implement" and "making handouts to corporate cronies".
Low information voters like you and the crooks you favor for office are the cause of government corruption, economic problems, lack of growth, and social problems.
We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state.
The distinction is pretty academic: when government becomes too powerful, media, police, politics, etc. all blur into one entity.
The massive corporations have similar interests
"The" massive corporations don't have much of a choice than to participate in this, because if they don't, their competitors will kill them via legal and legislative manipulation.
Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.
Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.
Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.
It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?
Because people are social creatures, and they trust their friends more than they trust some random journalist. And that would actually be a good thing if Facebook didn't censor and manipulate how people communicate.
Sandberg is angling for a cabinet position: after having graduated from growing up in a wealthy and privileged family to becoming a billionaire, her ambitions are higher, and what else is there other than political power? And even if she doesn't get the cabinet position, sucking up to the Democrats is good business for Silicon Valley companies.
Of course, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and self-delusion in Sandberg's positions. She has led such a privileged life that 99.9% of the men whose backs she walks on can only dream of.
They were very much territorial. In some cases, land was owned by a smaller group like a tribe or tribelet. The land was taken from them collectively, so any redress must be to them collectively.
Stolen property is only returned to someone who can actually establish legal ownership. That means demonstrating that the item was originally owned by the person and that the person now making a claim has inherited that property. Furthermore, there are statutes of limitations and issues of jurisdiction, which means that even if you owned something once, you may not be able to recover it from a new owner.
What you are saying is that because a long dead person of "race A" had stuff taken from them by a long-dead person of "race B", today, people of "race B" owe a debt to people of "race A". That's not how property rights work, sorry.
The truth is that the land you currently possess was taken from the prior owners by force.
The truth is that pre-Columbian Americans had taken that land by force as well, multiple times. The truth is that every human on this planet was, at some point, ousted from their property or homeland. My own family lost all their property multiple times over the past few centuries. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
You don't, but you sure to like to claim the moral high ground that you're not even vaguely close to approaching.
Of course, I take the moral high ground vis-a-vis your position: your position is the position of racists and Nazis. The Nazis also viewed themselves as the original tribal inhabitants of Northern Europe and their entire war was about demanding "their" land back that the Roman empire and other "invaders" had taken from them. Those kinds of theories are racist bullshit, no matter whether they are applied to pre-Roman Germanic tribes or pre-Columbian American tribes.
I think you mean pre-Columbus. Pre-Columbian would be prior to the founding of Columbia. That would also be the case, but it's not really what you're going for.
Regardless, some of those peoples are still around
Well, yes, some of those peoples are still around, which matters to racists and fascists, who believe that races and peoples have rights and share collective guilt. None of those people are still around, which is what matters from the point of justice and liberty.
in spite of our government's best efforts to commit genocide.
Well, you should know, since it's people with your political beliefs that call for, and commit, genocides.
There was no land which was simply unoccupied. Some of it was very sparsely populated, but the natives had over ten thousand years to figure out what the population densities should look like.
What you call "the natives" were thousands of different tribes, groups, and nations. And there was plenty of unoccupied land after European diseases had (unintentionally) killed off more than 95% of the population of the Americas. You're demonstrating your ignorance and racism by reducing the pre-Columbian people and their diverse political and social systems to "the natives" (and, of course, they are actually no more "native" than Europeans).
It's the government's land, because they took it by force! But wait, it's wrong to take land by force. So... give your land back to the natives and fuck off.
The pre-Columbian people that land was taken from are dead; you can't return anything to them. What you are suggesting is to distribute government property based on race, which is the kind of policy espoused by racists and fascists; you know, people like you.
Wait, is it evil to acquire property by force, or not?
To a classical liberal like myself, of course it is.
If you're a progressive, socialist, or other kind of statist, on the other hand, then the use of force to take people's property is necessarily OK, since your kind of government wouldn't function without it.
Because... how do you think the government got the land this nation is based upon?
Some of the land was taken by force, other land was simply unoccupied.
Ah, so you admit the glorious job creators wouldn't give two wet squirts about safety if the evil government didn't impose upon them to do so! I feel like progress has been made.
Well, yes, as owners of the land that the pipeline runs over, the government is naturally the institution demanding safety. What makes government "evil" is that it usually acquires property by force, gives it away to powerful special interests, and does a piss poor job managing and preserving it.
That is, if this land (and the Indian territory) actually was private property and managed as private property, then there would be nothing to riot and protest about.
I have no idea which part of your fabricated example violates the constitution, since you just fabricated that example.
In the real case we are discussing here, "everybody on premises needs to unlock their phones and have them searched" does not seem reasonable. It sounds like a fishing expedition, rather than a targeted criminal investigation.
The government argued that this did not violate the citizens' Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination
It seems to violate the 4A, the one protecting citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure".
Of course, both Bush and Obama pretty much have done away with such niceties. Hillary will continue their "noble" efforts, and kill off the 1A and 2A as well.
Now ther ya go - You immediately assume that I think Hellery is some sort of angle and go on the attack. Hey fellow, the answer to my points is not to divert.
I'm not "diverting". We're talking about the veracity of the leaked E-mails. Hillary's and Podesta's leaked E-mails are consistent with what we know about her and her campaign. And if they have been manipulated in some way, Hillary and Podesta are free to correct the record any time they like.
Hey fellow, the answer to my points
What points? Your fabrications like "If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery"? You haven't made any points. All you have spewed forth is bullshit.
Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds.
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
Just because we don't see traces of editing does not mean there was no editing.
Clinton and Podesta are welcome to clarify which of those E-mails are accurate and which ones have been altered. They are also welcome to provide access to any other E-mails that might provide any other necessary "context".
it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy
So Clinton's conspiracy theories are now accepted facts? And how exactly do these leaks "undermine our democracy"?
Heck, when it comes to "undermining our democracy", you should be much more concerned about the billions of donations flowing through the Clinton Foundation and the hundred million dollars the Clintons have amassed from hobnobbing with billionaires and dictators.
Until you start using the most primitive of available technologies to make oil pipelines safe, like double-walled pipes with interstitial leak monitors
That's a bullshit argument. The pipeline uses whatever technologies federal regulators imposed on it. And that's obviously not going to satisfy either Amy Goodman or the tribal chiefs.
According to progressives, it is highly desirable to take away land from homeowners and farmers via eminent domain for building a useless California High Speed Rail project that will break the budget, transfer massive amounts of tax dollars to private corporations, and never result in meaningful environmental benefits.
But heaven forbid people want to build an oil pipeline, something that actually makes roads safer and actually saves energy: then progressives are up in arms and start protesting and rioting, and they are not above using Native Americans as props in their political theater.
It fires only if your fingers are clean and sweat free, if you aren't wearing gloves, and if the battery is charged. Oh, and there is a delay before the gun unlocks.
That makes it ideal for premeditated murder. For self-defense? Not so much.
Rust is showing itself to be a high-quality, cross platform, high performance language, just like VisualBasic! And its integration via a barely used JSON protocol means that its integration into VisualStudio is not that much worse, really!
TFA seems to be mostly statistics about the apparent emotional states of the two candidates during each debate. That tells you little about their "emotional intelligence".
When it comes to Clinton's smiles, a lot of them seem to be fake smiles rather than genuine emotion. In fact, from Wikileaks, we know that her advisors insert "[smile]" cues into her scripted responses.
The seemingly artificial nature of Clinton's emotional expressions is one of the things that creeps so many people out about her and makes them distrust her so much (to be sure, it is reinforced by actual misconduct).
Slashdot Mirror
WinCE came out in 1996 and Windows Mobile in 2000, about the same time as BlackBerry and PalmOS phones, and long before iPhones and Android.
Microsoft was a pioneer in the mobile space, they just pissed it all away.
Microsoft was one of the earliest smartphone manufacturers, and together with Symbian, one of the two biggest. They didn't miss it, they screwed it up, with their usual mix of greed, attempts at monopoly, and bad software. The difference is that this time, it backfired, and people never again trusted them.
It was a good idea, and it actually lasted quite a while in comparison to other nations. However, even the Founding Fathers were not optimistic that this was going to last forever. As Jefferson wrote:
Yes, because nothing says "effective president" than "being able to lie effectively to the electorate about the policies you're actually going to implement" and "making handouts to corporate cronies".
Low information voters like you and the crooks you favor for office are the cause of government corruption, economic problems, lack of growth, and social problems.
The distinction is pretty academic: when government becomes too powerful, media, police, politics, etc. all blur into one entity.
"The" massive corporations don't have much of a choice than to participate in this, because if they don't, their competitors will kill them via legal and legislative manipulation.
Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.
Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.
Because people are social creatures, and they trust their friends more than they trust some random journalist. And that would actually be a good thing if Facebook didn't censor and manipulate how people communicate.
Sandberg is angling for a cabinet position: after having graduated from growing up in a wealthy and privileged family to becoming a billionaire, her ambitions are higher, and what else is there other than political power? And even if she doesn't get the cabinet position, sucking up to the Democrats is good business for Silicon Valley companies.
Of course, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and self-delusion in Sandberg's positions. She has led such a privileged life that 99.9% of the men whose backs she walks on can only dream of.
Stolen property is only returned to someone who can actually establish legal ownership. That means demonstrating that the item was originally owned by the person and that the person now making a claim has inherited that property. Furthermore, there are statutes of limitations and issues of jurisdiction, which means that even if you owned something once, you may not be able to recover it from a new owner.
What you are saying is that because a long dead person of "race A" had stuff taken from them by a long-dead person of "race B", today, people of "race B" owe a debt to people of "race A". That's not how property rights work, sorry.
The truth is that pre-Columbian Americans had taken that land by force as well, multiple times. The truth is that every human on this planet was, at some point, ousted from their property or homeland. My own family lost all their property multiple times over the past few centuries. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Of course, I take the moral high ground vis-a-vis your position: your position is the position of racists and Nazis. The Nazis also viewed themselves as the original tribal inhabitants of Northern Europe and their entire war was about demanding "their" land back that the Roman empire and other "invaders" had taken from them. Those kinds of theories are racist bullshit, no matter whether they are applied to pre-Roman Germanic tribes or pre-Columbian American tribes.
If you don't understand a word, I suggest you use a dictionary.
Well, yes, some of those peoples are still around, which matters to racists and fascists, who believe that races and peoples have rights and share collective guilt. None of those people are still around, which is what matters from the point of justice and liberty.
Well, you should know, since it's people with your political beliefs that call for, and commit, genocides.
What you call "the natives" were thousands of different tribes, groups, and nations. And there was plenty of unoccupied land after European diseases had (unintentionally) killed off more than 95% of the population of the Americas. You're demonstrating your ignorance and racism by reducing the pre-Columbian people and their diverse political and social systems to "the natives" (and, of course, they are actually no more "native" than Europeans).
The pre-Columbian people that land was taken from are dead; you can't return anything to them. What you are suggesting is to distribute government property based on race, which is the kind of policy espoused by racists and fascists; you know, people like you.
To a classical liberal like myself, of course it is.
If you're a progressive, socialist, or other kind of statist, on the other hand, then the use of force to take people's property is necessarily OK, since your kind of government wouldn't function without it.
Some of the land was taken by force, other land was simply unoccupied.
Are you trying to get at something?
Well, yes, as owners of the land that the pipeline runs over, the government is naturally the institution demanding safety. What makes government "evil" is that it usually acquires property by force, gives it away to powerful special interests, and does a piss poor job managing and preserving it.
That is, if this land (and the Indian territory) actually was private property and managed as private property, then there would be nothing to riot and protest about.
I have no idea which part of your fabricated example violates the constitution, since you just fabricated that example.
In the real case we are discussing here, "everybody on premises needs to unlock their phones and have them searched" does not seem reasonable. It sounds like a fishing expedition, rather than a targeted criminal investigation.
You can be compelled to serve the judiciary; after all, jury duty is a lot more onerous than unlocking your phone.
It seems to violate the 4A, the one protecting citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure".
Of course, both Bush and Obama pretty much have done away with such niceties. Hillary will continue their "noble" efforts, and kill off the 1A and 2A as well.
I'm not "diverting". We're talking about the veracity of the leaked E-mails. Hillary's and Podesta's leaked E-mails are consistent with what we know about her and her campaign. And if they have been manipulated in some way, Hillary and Podesta are free to correct the record any time they like.
What points? Your fabrications like "If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery"? You haven't made any points. All you have spewed forth is bullshit.
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
Clinton and Podesta are welcome to clarify which of those E-mails are accurate and which ones have been altered. They are also welcome to provide access to any other E-mails that might provide any other necessary "context".
So Clinton's conspiracy theories are now accepted facts? And how exactly do these leaks "undermine our democracy"?
Heck, when it comes to "undermining our democracy", you should be much more concerned about the billions of donations flowing through the Clinton Foundation and the hundred million dollars the Clintons have amassed from hobnobbing with billionaires and dictators.
That's a bullshit argument. The pipeline uses whatever technologies federal regulators imposed on it. And that's obviously not going to satisfy either Amy Goodman or the tribal chiefs.
You're projecting your own desires.
According to progressives, it is highly desirable to take away land from homeowners and farmers via eminent domain for building a useless California High Speed Rail project that will break the budget, transfer massive amounts of tax dollars to private corporations, and never result in meaningful environmental benefits.
But heaven forbid people want to build an oil pipeline, something that actually makes roads safer and actually saves energy: then progressives are up in arms and start protesting and rioting, and they are not above using Native Americans as props in their political theater.
It fires only if your fingers are clean and sweat free, if you aren't wearing gloves, and if the battery is charged. Oh, and there is a delay before the gun unlocks.
That makes it ideal for premeditated murder. For self-defense? Not so much.
Rust is showing itself to be a high-quality, cross platform, high performance language, just like VisualBasic! And its integration via a barely used JSON protocol means that its integration into VisualStudio is not that much worse, really!
TFA seems to be mostly statistics about the apparent emotional states of the two candidates during each debate. That tells you little about their "emotional intelligence".
When it comes to Clinton's smiles, a lot of them seem to be fake smiles rather than genuine emotion. In fact, from Wikileaks, we know that her advisors insert "[smile]" cues into her scripted responses.
The seemingly artificial nature of Clinton's emotional expressions is one of the things that creeps so many people out about her and makes them distrust her so much (to be sure, it is reinforced by actual misconduct).