The only real difference is that dynamically re-keyable mechanical locks are more expensive
$15 for a deadbolt, $20 for a knob on Amazon. Admittedly, I have no experience with Kwikset's smartkey lock, but the promotional material makes it sound nice enough and there are presumably nicer brands if it's junk.
Either way, if your reprogrammer/re-keyer or your locks are network connected, then the lock may be comprised through that communication channel.
The network is an additional channel. The maids are *always* a potential attack vector, regardless of whether or not they can rekey.
and prone to mechanical failure.
I've never had a regular pin tumbler lock fail for any reason. (Though I don't know offhand whether the internals of a rekeyable are more fragile.) And it has to be compared to the failure modes of electronic locks.
You can have no network and re-key on location with a keycard as well.
Yes, I said that. This is probably the way to go for people truly concerned about security but really want electronic locks. A compromise option could be available if a network existed to determine the status of locks, but not remotely change them.
Dynamically re-keyable mechanical locks have the same security properties as magnetic strip keycards
Can you install a reader device to intercept the key code from the mechanical key? (Granted, this is harder to do with most modern insert-and-remove slots, but criminals managed to do this with the old constant movement ones.)
I'm not a Luddite about this. A carefully designed, properly installed and properly used electronic key system could be cheaper/more secure, yes, but there are a ton of issues to consider and they clearly haven't been, so at this time anyone who cares about robustness and security should seriously look into mechanical options. It's very similar to the argument against electronic voting machines. It's not that it's impossible to do them correctly; it's that there are many more concerns and the industry isn't self-policing and the local governments buying these machines are clueless... and at the end of the day, what are they actually offering that's better than an optical scanning system that leaves a paper trail? It's just technology for technology's sake.
At this time, the only real-world consideration that might be a persuasive, although depressing, argument against mechanical locks is if the guests are turned off by them, thinking them old-fashioned or lower security. Or if they are a piece of shit compared to non-dynamically-rekeyable locks. I haven't looked into them extensively--yes, some people are bitching that they're cheaply made, but Kwikset has always been the cheap and sloppy option in their traditional locks as well. I suspect that if the traditional house key pin tumbler form factor were abandoned, it would be simple enough to develop a robust dynamically rekeyable mechanism.
Well, you're the second person to question this. I very clearly remember reading it and thinking it was a bit of a shame and an obvious example of the current state of the industry, with them preferring to use common commodity stuff that every code monkey can work with, but no, I don't have a source. This was some years ago.
One quick addendum... maybe the issue here is you don't quite understand the brazen, overt nature of the untruths involved here:
“You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals,” said CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. “That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?”
And Trump responds:
“No,” Trump replied. “I didn’t say that at all.”
And this is completely true. Maybe he's raped plenty of women, maybe the sexual assault accusations against him are very compelling and disturbing indeed, but what Cooper just said was an utterly shameful, baldfaced lie.
The mainstream media, in confronting Trump, must not try to out-fox Fox News at their own game. This will only provide them with more ammunition.
But if you have more than one person in the household, and one wants to use the PC for non-game purposes while the other plays a game, you need a second machine for the game.
Same argument for "a second TV." And with cheap tablets and cheap laptops, the second TV may well cost more money.
And I imagine it's cheaper for this second machine to be a Nintendo Switch than a gaming PC.
Well, that's a Switch-specific argument, not applicable to other consoles. The Switch will be the first major semi-portable console to appear, i.e. has its own screen with multiplayer using separate, dedicated controllers. I can see how this may turn out to be useful for a lot of people, though I personally don't see it as being very important or interesting.
Furthermore, if your existing PC is something other than a Windows tower, such as a laptop or a Mac, upgrades aren't quite so simple.
If you're using a laptop for cutting-edge gaming, you have too much money and upgrade cost therefore shouldn't be an issue. If you're using a *Mac* for gaming, you're a masochist and you have too much money.
Do you know anyone who has bought an aftermarket MXM GPU for a laptop or a Thunderbolt external GPU for a Mac?
If you're using a *Mac laptop* for gaming, you're the reason why communists exist.
Seriously, I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the comparison. Do you know anyone who bought a portable TV and carried that around in a bag with their console to do some console equivalent of LAN parties?
Pre-Switch consoles were not easily portable. Neither are the gaming desktops that I'm comparing them to. Score: 0 - 0.
Ease of use, certainly. Price, not really. In the 90s, consoles were cheaper but in the 2000s and 2010s upgrading one's video card (and occasionally the proc/motherboard) has been cheaper.
Remember this, in 1997 games like Diablo and Fallout 1 were 256 color sprites and tiles DOS games when PSone games were running 32-bit color with polygonal graphics.
Uh no, neither of those two ran on DOS. They were Windows games. And I believe they had 16 bit colors. I'm not sure what the purpose is of comparing 3D PS games to 2D PC games. The Playstation 1 had 2d games, and of course Windows had 3D games. In fact, less than two years later Quake 3 offered curved surfaces before the Playstation 2 was even out.
Game selection
...is much better on PC? Yes, consoles have exclusive titles but that doesn't make consoles as a whole better. You can't get the latest Mario Kart on the Xbox or Halo on the Wii. And the PC certainly has plenty of exclusives.
A browser nobody uses written in a language nobody uses.
Quick, let Dropbox know no one uses Rust. I mean they went and re-wrote their entire back end in it. If only they thought like you such a crisis could have been averted.
And Twitter was originally written in Ruby, and Orbitz was written in Common Lisp.
And time passes, and both are rewritten to C or Java or something, and neither Ruby nor Lisp is a very commonly used language.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Rust succeed, but the QWERTY effect, or "popular for being popular", is a pretty tough nut to crack.
I wonder what would have happened if a politician in the US turned out to have provided a false name and a false date of birth when applying for citizenship
If that person was fleeing persecution from a hellhole like Somalia (or a hellhole-lite like Kenya) and there was no evidence that the false info was used for any nefarious purposes at all, no, there wouldn't be any negative repercussions for someone who had established herself as a high profile public servant. The reason she was forced out was because of her criticism of Islam, not because the Dutch government was incapable of re-approving her under another name.
But in your mind basically it seems to be OK if they don't physically try and stop you, no matter the consequences for themselves.
This is just whole-cloth imagination on your part, though. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm saying it has nothing to do with what's on the tape. "Let" means to permit. There is no alternate definition of that single word, "let", that means "to not offer resistance while under duress". Yes, it *could* be used as part of a sentence that contains the words clarifying that the person is being coerced, but Trump didn't utter those words.
If you want to talk about Trump's accusers, be my guest. Did he walk into the changing rooms at his beauty contests? Kinda sounds like a crime, that. Maybe find some witnesses, talk about that, and sure, go ahead and bring up the tape in the context of showing how Trump sounds like a guy who doesn't have a lot of respect for women.
The tape is not *inconsistent* with a guy who is a rapist. It certainly doesn't prove he's not a rapist. But the tape doesn't contain a confession. It contains bragging from a guy who talks about his seduction of women in extremely crude terms. Insisting that the tape contains a confession only hurts your arguments. In all honesty, it's made me realize I can never trust certain left-leaning news sources again, including the New York Times and The Guardian, that (unlike Fox News) I previously trusted to at least paraphrase a quote correctly and honestly. The insertion of the phrase "for consent" after the words "I don't wait" when there was no context whatsoever (in the tape) to imply that there was a lack of consent is the worst kind of yellow journalism, and *lots* of people noticed it, but the people who were still blown away that a cad and con like Trump had gotten so far were too eager for a smoking gun that they still clung to the lie, even after the election was over and done with.
You know what? Trump is a goddamn liar. A brazen liar, trying to deflect attention from his lies by calling the press liars. It is thus of *paramount* importance that the press not actually play into his hands by printing actual lies. If otherwise intelligent-sounding leftists like you can't see that, I do believe this country may be doomed.
Nearly all of the criticisms & "facts" that the GOP & rightwingnuts kept harping on about Obama were *entirely* fictional and they made 5 MILLION of his voting base vanish in just 4 years - and triggered the LARGEST EVER change of House seats in just TWO.
...
I'm trying to figure out how to reply "maybe it's sloppily-aimed rabidity like that" in a polite and gentle enough manner that you'll read this and understand that I'm anti-Trump as well and be able to process and at least tolerate what I'm saying.
The point is to rant about the things that matter, not the things that don't. Spending time about the character flaws that ultimately don't much matter helps Trump. People who are unsure about them look at the criticism on page 1 and nod with satisfaction, happy once they realize that the story is irrelevant or even utter nonsense. The world isn't burning after all! It's just silly liberals getting their panties in a twist over bullshit. Most of them don't continue slogging all the way to page 3 to see the stories on climate change or the SCOTUS. I've witnessed this sort of thing firsthand.
Not making a big fucking deal about his silly, stupid lies about the crowd is actually really, really important. It's not "normalizing" him; it's making room for the criticisms that actually goddamn matter whilst simultaneously making the anti-Trump position as a whole seem more serious and respectable to those who aren't paying close attention.
The 5 million missing voters is largely the result of differences on the left, not the right. This should be very obvious because there were even more missing voters (8 mil I think? I forget) compared to 2008. Loss of enthusiasm is a loss of turnout, even if they hate Trump.
If you don't know any former Obama supporters who went Trump, please find some and talk to them. I am related to three of them. (All female, as it happens.) Understanding their reasoning is the key to understanding why so many people weren't motivated to bother showing up, I believe.
rape is pretty much unrelated to the issue so fuck off with it
Your word of the day is...
Analogy (from Greek , analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.
Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, as well as decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation, and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition".[3] Specific analogical language comprises exemplification, comparisons, metaphors, similes, allegories, and parables, but not metonymy. Phrases like and so on, and the like, as if, and the very word like also rely on an analogical understanding by the receiver of a message including them. Analogy is important not only in ordinary language and common sense (where proverbs and idioms give many examples of its application) but also in science, philosophy, and the humanities. The concepts of association, comparison, correspondence, mathematical and morphological homology, homomorphism, iconicity, isomorphism, metaphor, resemblance, and similarity are closely related to analogy. In cognitive linguistics, the notion of conceptual metaphor may be equivalent to that of analogy.
Analogy has been studied and discussed since classical antiquity by philosophers, scientists, and lawyers. The last few decades have shown a renewed interest in analogy, most notably in cognitive science.
Don't want to be disputed when you say something false?... Too bad it's false.
You have to say it a third time, or the reality-bending charm doesn't work. Also, if you want to accuse me of lying, you should probably do so *before* you've already conceded the truth of the sentence.
You fully admitted that Trump did denounce Duke. I didn't say it was sincere or brilliant or anything. I said it existed, unlike denouncements of BLM by a overwhelming majority of prominent leftists. I don't think that makes Trump or the right better people. I think it speaks to the reality of the different cultures surrounding the far left and far right, and their being in different places in mainstream culture.
If that is your goal, rather than looking like a pathetic internet troll.
Says the person who thinks that TED was hoodwinked by some con artists, a fraud that apparently has gone undetected since their official Youtube channel still bears a video titled "An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter | Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi". And the hundreds videos of different BLM activists in different places chanting the same quote, the same quote that's at the top of BLM's website, also faked. Or a coincidence.
This on the the basis of... nothing whatsoever. Literally nothing. Literally no reason for any sane human to suspect that BLM was and is not an intentional, centrally organized project surrounded by a cloud of lazy colloquial usage that exists around all kinds of politically charged words, like "nazi".
If you aren't a troll, if you are deadly serious as you type this, then you probably need medication of *some* sort. Zero snark here. This isn't a joke.
You do jump quickly to these types of vituperative remarks
ACs are subhuman. You should get down on your knees and thank god you received any reply at all. Also, since there is near zero intellectual engagement here, snark is the only thing that's keeping me coming back.
None of the ones involved with BLM got elected president of a country with nuclear warheads.
"Trump is bad and a moron and a liar and I wouldn't be surprised if he were a rapist." Are you happy? Are you happy with your *life*? How old are you, seriously? As I said in my other reply, I think most intelligent people reach a stage where talking about how much the American right sucks loses all amusement or illusion of usefulness. The American mainstream right is a permanent reactionary force. They *can't* change. The left can.
Still, that truth (an old one st that, older than Godwinâs) won't make Black Lives Matter into any kind of official or organised group
Again with the idiocy. This is keeping me coming back as well, because it's such a dumbassed thing to say it's a little amusing. It's like putting a [citation needed] flag on water being wet. You offer no rebuttal whatsoever; you just say "that isn't proof!" Well sorry, I've already spent 15 seconds being your Google monkey today. That's 15 seconds more than most ACs get.
softball interview anything other than what it is.
You actually expect them to grill them on whether they're lying? Why doesn't the local news grill NASA about whether the moon landings are faked and the moon is actually made of overripe gouda? This is hysteria, an actual mental disease if you aren't in fact trolling. There's no reason at all to suspect BLM isn't centrally organized (plus a bunch of lazy retweeters and pundits who don't know any better, plus some percentage of independently organized protests who have appropriated the BLM label but have differing agendas.) You might as well claim that PETA doesn't exist as an organization for all the sense you're making. No, I'm not going to give you more proof, because it's not up for discussion any more than the Earth being older than 6,000 years is up for discussion. At the end of the day, you're perfectly free to stick your own head up your ass or not. This isn't even an argument.
No, no I'm not. Because that's not the topic. Censorship and hypocrisy and obliviousness on the left is the topic here. I don't see "Trump" in the headline at all, in fact.
I don't have much to say about the American right any more. It's a pile of shit and the things it's more correct than the left on, it's still wildly wrong on. It has a bag of tricks that heavily rely on those relative advantages it does have, and so I've come to realize that improving the left (and thereby undermine the right's key talking points) to win over more undecided / uninterested centrist people is a more productive and interesting conversation to have.
I think that most intelligent people who don't give in to pure apathy come to a similar conclusion, except for the hard core of people who love the rush of fighting an evil enemy more than anything else.
her husband could have told them about the importance of keyfabe.
I'm not super into wrestling, but I think you may be referring to the man who shot kayfabe in the brain stem, danced on its grave and then renamed his company to celebrate its demise.
Now it seems like you're trying esteem-by-association, which is odd since you started off criticizing them with guilt-by-association.
I take it back. Lay off of the Adderall; I think you're having an episode of stimulant-induced psychosis.
I'm actually quite in the mood to find the good fight but this isn't even fun. You're too far off the mark of what I'm even saying for this to be interesting, sporting or at all useful to anyone.
Too bad you're forgetting what you're trying to prove isn't something TED would investigate.
The onus is on you to stop acting like a dumbass, stop trying to put words in my mouth, and put up or shut up re: the claims of these women, and/or their open admiration and promotion of the words of Assata Shakur, and/or the leftists who support BLM without bothering to find out what the movement (or the individual protests in that movement) is actually about. That doesn't make them *guilty*; it makes them *lazy* and a liability in the coming culture wars.
I'm generally against the overmedication of children but for Christ's sake, please take your Adderall. You cannot seem to stay on topic.
Sorry, but the fact is, Trump totally fumbled on handling David Duke,
See if you can spot the difference between these two things: Saying "I don't know the guy--no comment" and then a few days later saying that he disavows him, vs. people's open and unapologetic support for an organization that idolizes a convicted murderer and violent black power icon (with other vague far-left rhetoric stirred in here and there), with no attempt whatsoever to disavow.
The point is *specifically* about awareness, introspection and the media's enthusiasm to call people out, not the relative evils of the right vs. left. I don't care about dissecting any other aspect of the GOP right now. One clusterfuck at a time. For this particular, very specific issue, the right is doing better than the left and this is a problem because 1. it's giving them a good recruitment tactic in the broader culture war and 2. They're doing much worse than the left on most other things, including running the country in general.
TED is a conference where you have to pay $6000 just to walk in the door. "Past speakers include Bill Clinton, Jane Goodall, Al Gore, Gordon Brown, Billy Graham, Richard Dawkins, Bill Gates, Bono, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and many Nobel Prize winners." Yeah, lots of very, very smart and rich and well-connected people run the thing and attend the thing. If TED had been conned by three frauds claiming to have been the originators of the BLM hashtag and a subsequent nationwide BLM movement, someone would notice and it would've been in the fucking newspaper.
I only skimmed the rest of your post after reading that, but it appears to be aimless blithering that's trying to pretend my words mean something other than their plain English meaning.
You're completely detached from not just reality (see my other post regarding BLM's organizational structure, which you've flatly denied exists despite already having been given a link), but from what the conversation is about.
I'm not pro Trump. The fully acknowledge that right is generally much worse than the left in America. Pause your bluster for a moment, take a deep breath and see if you can spot the issue that is completely orthogonal to the issue of the crappiness of Trump: how the far right is reported and policed vs. how the far left is reported and policed and the damage this is causing.
Actually, there is no "official" Black Lives Matter, so you're making a false claim there. Perhaps you're just ignorant, and don't realize that the group lacks an organised structure.
I could go searching on Youtube for the dozens of different video clips I've seen of groups of people chanting the same phrase that's at the top of the BLM website, the quote from the most wanted terrorist with a $2M bounty on her head, but not for an AC. You're going to have to at least log in to make me do the legwork for you.
However, it seems you don't know that your attempt at guilt-by-association is also false
The context here is the banning of entire subs. In the other post where I discussed this point, I made a more explicit rejection of guilt by association. People who unknowingly tweet their support or even unknowingly join protests are not automatically sympathizers with everything they do and stand for.
But it's still a real organization with real goals that, by their own admission, go far beyond ending police brutality.
Be a little more aware, it looks desperate when you make such far-fetched attacks.
And it looks dumb when you post pathetic denialism as an AC. Go educate yourself. If you want to call those women liars, if you want to prove proof that statements ilke 'over 30 different BLM regional chapters exist' are lies then please, be my guest.
The human race invented "the lies and customs of 'RL' interaction" for good reasons
Rape is a sound evolutionary game-theoretic strategy for gene propagation too, thus explaining its prevalence. Therefore is ethical and an institution worth preserving?
probably to save civilization.
Civilization has very, very little in common with "civilization" as it existed when modern humans first evolved. The numbers of people one interacted with were much smaller, specialized jobs and leisure activities limited and probably rigidly formalized by cultural custom, dying of hunger or disease a constant risk, etc.
Letting the id roam free just because you can is not necessarily a good idea.
Honesty and id are not synonymous. The subs that were closed were apparently closed because someone was trying to "dox" the man who assault the white nationalist twat on camera. Trying to determine the identity of a criminal is now "doxing", which is worthy indiscriminate censorship. And the only feedback I got when I tried to point this out in Slashdot's article on this was a single -1 Troll mod.
Because regular, traditional RL interactions and ethics do not value a concern for the truth or consistency. We're supposed to be virtue signaling over the nazi. Duh. Ditto lying about the contents of Trump's pussy-grabbnig tape, inserting the words "for consent" after "I don't wait" when there was already sufficient context (including the phrase "they let you do it") to indicate that he was not talking about sexual assault. The lie is deemed completely acceptable by dozens of mainstream news organizations, actually bordering on "invisible", entirely because of the context surrounding it.
(I'm a leftist who's repeatedly spoken out against Trump, incidentally.)
The echo chambers of RL have been duplicated online, you see, and the vitriol is a result of those echo chambers being challenged. I'm not saying those challenges are widely successful, but they are at least happening and from what I've seen *some* progress is being made. For now. But there are very worrying developments at Twitter and Reddit and Youtube, and the current political climate certainly does not bode well.
The stupid asshole went in front of the CIA, stood with his back to their wall of nameless but honored dead and whined about how nobody believed how big, beautiful, fantastic & historic his inauguration audience was.
But why do you care? Why does anyone else? Trump is an asshole and a dope. Even most of the people who voted for him seem to be very ready to acknowledge this. Anyone who is still bemoaning his character criticizing the brass on the Titanic as being insufficiently polished.
It's insane that this is still going on not only after the election, but after the transfer of power. It was beating a dead horse 6 months ago, but apparently we need to pulverized the poor equine into molecule-sized bits. Again and again and again, Trump gets the mainstream media and the left yelling over irrelevancies whilst multiple bigger issues (not all, but many) slide under the radar. This isn't a neutral thing that's happening here. Every minute wasted on topics like this is a minute that could've been spent on substantive criticism.
Some have branded him a genius for this, but he's exhibited such doltish behavior elsewhere that this is seems extremely implausible. And yet it keeps happening.
Maybe on this one, specific tactic Trump is a genius. Maybe his business dealings has given him good instincts about how to exploit certain psychological flaws related to the bike shed effect.
The much less widely known/accept corollary to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is that online communication is the only place you can hope for something approaching real honesty or a real glimpse into how other people think. The lies and customs of 'RL' interaction are never more visible than when set alongside their internet equivalents. Truth and rationality may, in some distant future, win out as the default mode of human discourse. But if so, they will win out by the trial and error accumulations of a hundred million flame wars, not by forcing everyone to use their real names online or some other similarly horrendous scheme that asserts the superiority of traditional bullshit over internet bullshit.
I think WotC got rid of their forums just a year ago as well. This is... a bad trend. Because none of these major social media sites that are replacing the old forums, not a single one, takes a strong free-speech stance. At one time Reddit might've qualified as an exception but, sadly, this is no longer the case.
Slashdot Mirror
The only real difference is that dynamically re-keyable mechanical locks are more expensive
$15 for a deadbolt, $20 for a knob on Amazon. Admittedly, I have no experience with Kwikset's smartkey lock, but the promotional material makes it sound nice enough and there are presumably nicer brands if it's junk.
Either way, if your reprogrammer/re-keyer or your locks are network connected, then the lock may be comprised through that communication channel.
The network is an additional channel. The maids are *always* a potential attack vector, regardless of whether or not they can rekey.
and prone to mechanical failure.
I've never had a regular pin tumbler lock fail for any reason. (Though I don't know offhand whether the internals of a rekeyable are more fragile.) And it has to be compared to the failure modes of electronic locks.
You can have no network and re-key on location with a keycard as well.
Yes, I said that. This is probably the way to go for people truly concerned about security but really want electronic locks. A compromise option could be available if a network existed to determine the status of locks, but not remotely change them.
Dynamically re-keyable mechanical locks have the same security properties as magnetic strip keycards
Can you install a reader device to intercept the key code from the mechanical key? (Granted, this is harder to do with most modern insert-and-remove slots, but criminals managed to do this with the old constant movement ones.)
I'm not a Luddite about this. A carefully designed, properly installed and properly used electronic key system could be cheaper/more secure, yes, but there are a ton of issues to consider and they clearly haven't been, so at this time anyone who cares about robustness and security should seriously look into mechanical options. It's very similar to the argument against electronic voting machines. It's not that it's impossible to do them correctly; it's that there are many more concerns and the industry isn't self-policing and the local governments buying these machines are clueless... and at the end of the day, what are they actually offering that's better than an optical scanning system that leaves a paper trail? It's just technology for technology's sake.
At this time, the only real-world consideration that might be a persuasive, although depressing, argument against mechanical locks is if the guests are turned off by them, thinking them old-fashioned or lower security. Or if they are a piece of shit compared to non-dynamically-rekeyable locks. I haven't looked into them extensively--yes, some people are bitching that they're cheaply made, but Kwikset has always been the cheap and sloppy option in their traditional locks as well. I suspect that if the traditional house key pin tumbler form factor were abandoned, it would be simple enough to develop a robust dynamically rekeyable mechanism.
Well, you're the second person to question this. I very clearly remember reading it and thinking it was a bit of a shame and an obvious example of the current state of the industry, with them preferring to use common commodity stuff that every code monkey can work with, but no, I don't have a source. This was some years ago.
“You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals,” said CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. “That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?”
And Trump responds:
“No,” Trump replied. “I didn’t say that at all.”
And this is completely true. Maybe he's raped plenty of women, maybe the sexual assault accusations against him are very compelling and disturbing indeed, but what Cooper just said was an utterly shameful, baldfaced lie.
The mainstream media, in confronting Trump, must not try to out-fox Fox News at their own game. This will only provide them with more ammunition.
Where is the section of Dutch law that says no one can ever reapply for citizenship once it is lost (for fraud, or for any reason)?
Not sure, but I read a while back that the back end was being rewritten to C or C++.
But if you have more than one person in the household, and one wants to use the PC for non-game purposes while the other plays a game, you need a second machine for the game.
Same argument for "a second TV." And with cheap tablets and cheap laptops, the second TV may well cost more money.
And I imagine it's cheaper for this second machine to be a Nintendo Switch than a gaming PC.
Well, that's a Switch-specific argument, not applicable to other consoles. The Switch will be the first major semi-portable console to appear, i.e. has its own screen with multiplayer using separate, dedicated controllers. I can see how this may turn out to be useful for a lot of people, though I personally don't see it as being very important or interesting.
Furthermore, if your existing PC is something other than a Windows tower, such as a laptop or a Mac, upgrades aren't quite so simple.
If you're using a laptop for cutting-edge gaming, you have too much money and upgrade cost therefore shouldn't be an issue. If you're using a *Mac* for gaming, you're a masochist and you have too much money.
Do you know anyone who has bought an aftermarket MXM GPU for a laptop or a Thunderbolt external GPU for a Mac?
If you're using a *Mac laptop* for gaming, you're the reason why communists exist.
Seriously, I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the comparison. Do you know anyone who bought a portable TV and carried that around in a bag with their console to do some console equivalent of LAN parties?
Pre-Switch consoles were not easily portable. Neither are the gaming desktops that I'm comparing them to. Score: 0 - 0.
Damn! That is nice.
Remember this, in 1997 games like Diablo and Fallout 1 were 256 color sprites and tiles DOS games when PSone games were running 32-bit color with polygonal graphics.
Uh no, neither of those two ran on DOS. They were Windows games. And I believe they had 16 bit colors. I'm not sure what the purpose is of comparing 3D PS games to 2D PC games. The Playstation 1 had 2d games, and of course Windows had 3D games. In fact, less than two years later Quake 3 offered curved surfaces before the Playstation 2 was even out.
Game selection
...is much better on PC? Yes, consoles have exclusive titles but that doesn't make consoles as a whole better. You can't get the latest Mario Kart on the Xbox or Halo on the Wii. And the PC certainly has plenty of exclusives.
A browser nobody uses written in a language nobody uses.
Quick, let Dropbox know no one uses Rust. I mean they went and re-wrote their entire back end in it. If only they thought like you such a crisis could have been averted.
And Twitter was originally written in Ruby, and Orbitz was written in Common Lisp.
And time passes, and both are rewritten to C or Java or something, and neither Ruby nor Lisp is a very commonly used language.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Rust succeed, but the QWERTY effect, or "popular for being popular", is a pretty tough nut to crack.
Trolls don't bring honesty.
Real life is full of trolls who are never called out or modded down.
I wonder what would have happened if a politician in the US turned out to have provided a false name and a false date of birth when applying for citizenship
If that person was fleeing persecution from a hellhole like Somalia (or a hellhole-lite like Kenya) and there was no evidence that the false info was used for any nefarious purposes at all, no, there wouldn't be any negative repercussions for someone who had established herself as a high profile public servant. The reason she was forced out was because of her criticism of Islam, not because the Dutch government was incapable of re-approving her under another name.
But in your mind basically it seems to be OK if they don't physically try and stop you, no matter the consequences for themselves.
This is just whole-cloth imagination on your part, though. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm saying it has nothing to do with what's on the tape. "Let" means to permit. There is no alternate definition of that single word, "let", that means "to not offer resistance while under duress". Yes, it *could* be used as part of a sentence that contains the words clarifying that the person is being coerced, but Trump didn't utter those words.
If you want to talk about Trump's accusers, be my guest. Did he walk into the changing rooms at his beauty contests? Kinda sounds like a crime, that. Maybe find some witnesses, talk about that, and sure, go ahead and bring up the tape in the context of showing how Trump sounds like a guy who doesn't have a lot of respect for women.
The tape is not *inconsistent* with a guy who is a rapist. It certainly doesn't prove he's not a rapist. But the tape doesn't contain a confession. It contains bragging from a guy who talks about his seduction of women in extremely crude terms. Insisting that the tape contains a confession only hurts your arguments. In all honesty, it's made me realize I can never trust certain left-leaning news sources again, including the New York Times and The Guardian, that (unlike Fox News) I previously trusted to at least paraphrase a quote correctly and honestly. The insertion of the phrase "for consent" after the words "I don't wait" when there was no context whatsoever (in the tape) to imply that there was a lack of consent is the worst kind of yellow journalism, and *lots* of people noticed it, but the people who were still blown away that a cad and con like Trump had gotten so far were too eager for a smoking gun that they still clung to the lie, even after the election was over and done with.
You know what? Trump is a goddamn liar. A brazen liar, trying to deflect attention from his lies by calling the press liars. It is thus of *paramount* importance that the press not actually play into his hands by printing actual lies. If otherwise intelligent-sounding leftists like you can't see that, I do believe this country may be doomed.
Nearly all of the criticisms & "facts" that the GOP & rightwingnuts kept harping on about Obama were *entirely* fictional and they made 5 MILLION of his voting base vanish in just 4 years - and triggered the LARGEST EVER change of House seats in just TWO.
...
I'm trying to figure out how to reply "maybe it's sloppily-aimed rabidity like that" in a polite and gentle enough manner that you'll read this and understand that I'm anti-Trump as well and be able to process and at least tolerate what I'm saying.
The point is to rant about the things that matter, not the things that don't. Spending time about the character flaws that ultimately don't much matter helps Trump. People who are unsure about them look at the criticism on page 1 and nod with satisfaction, happy once they realize that the story is irrelevant or even utter nonsense. The world isn't burning after all! It's just silly liberals getting their panties in a twist over bullshit. Most of them don't continue slogging all the way to page 3 to see the stories on climate change or the SCOTUS. I've witnessed this sort of thing firsthand.
Not making a big fucking deal about his silly, stupid lies about the crowd is actually really, really important. It's not "normalizing" him; it's making room for the criticisms that actually goddamn matter whilst simultaneously making the anti-Trump position as a whole seem more serious and respectable to those who aren't paying close attention.
The 5 million missing voters is largely the result of differences on the left, not the right. This should be very obvious because there were even more missing voters (8 mil I think? I forget) compared to 2008. Loss of enthusiasm is a loss of turnout, even if they hate Trump.
If you don't know any former Obama supporters who went Trump, please find some and talk to them. I am related to three of them. (All female, as it happens.) Understanding their reasoning is the key to understanding why so many people weren't motivated to bother showing up, I believe.
rape is pretty much unrelated to the issue so fuck off with it
Your word of the day is...
Analogy (from Greek , analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.
Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, as well as decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation, and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition".[3] Specific analogical language comprises exemplification, comparisons, metaphors, similes, allegories, and parables, but not metonymy. Phrases like and so on, and the like, as if, and the very word like also rely on an analogical understanding by the receiver of a message including them. Analogy is important not only in ordinary language and common sense (where proverbs and idioms give many examples of its application) but also in science, philosophy, and the humanities. The concepts of association, comparison, correspondence, mathematical and morphological homology, homomorphism, iconicity, isomorphism, metaphor, resemblance, and similarity are closely related to analogy. In cognitive linguistics, the notion of conceptual metaphor may be equivalent to that of analogy.
Analogy has been studied and discussed since classical antiquity by philosophers, scientists, and lawyers. The last few decades have shown a renewed interest in analogy, most notably in cognitive science.
Don't want to be disputed when you say something false? ... Too bad it's false.
You have to say it a third time, or the reality-bending charm doesn't work. Also, if you want to accuse me of lying, you should probably do so *before* you've already conceded the truth of the sentence.
You fully admitted that Trump did denounce Duke. I didn't say it was sincere or brilliant or anything. I said it existed, unlike denouncements of BLM by a overwhelming majority of prominent leftists. I don't think that makes Trump or the right better people. I think it speaks to the reality of the different cultures surrounding the far left and far right, and their being in different places in mainstream culture.
If that is your goal, rather than looking like a pathetic internet troll.
Says the person who thinks that TED was hoodwinked by some con artists, a fraud that apparently has gone undetected since their official Youtube channel still bears a video titled "An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter | Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi". And the hundreds videos of different BLM activists in different places chanting the same quote, the same quote that's at the top of BLM's website, also faked. Or a coincidence.
This on the the basis of... nothing whatsoever. Literally nothing. Literally no reason for any sane human to suspect that BLM was and is not an intentional, centrally organized project surrounded by a cloud of lazy colloquial usage that exists around all kinds of politically charged words, like "nazi".
If you aren't a troll, if you are deadly serious as you type this, then you probably need medication of *some* sort. Zero snark here. This isn't a joke.
You do jump quickly to these types of vituperative remarks
ACs are subhuman. You should get down on your knees and thank god you received any reply at all. Also, since there is near zero intellectual engagement here, snark is the only thing that's keeping me coming back.
None of the ones involved with BLM got elected president of a country with nuclear warheads.
"Trump is bad and a moron and a liar and I wouldn't be surprised if he were a rapist." Are you happy? Are you happy with your *life*? How old are you, seriously? As I said in my other reply, I think most intelligent people reach a stage where talking about how much the American right sucks loses all amusement or illusion of usefulness. The American mainstream right is a permanent reactionary force. They *can't* change. The left can.
Still, that truth (an old one st that, older than Godwinâs) won't make Black Lives Matter into any kind of official or organised group
Again with the idiocy. This is keeping me coming back as well, because it's such a dumbassed thing to say it's a little amusing. It's like putting a [citation needed] flag on water being wet. You offer no rebuttal whatsoever; you just say "that isn't proof!" Well sorry, I've already spent 15 seconds being your Google monkey today. That's 15 seconds more than most ACs get.
softball interview anything other than what it is.
You actually expect them to grill them on whether they're lying? Why doesn't the local news grill NASA about whether the moon landings are faked and the moon is actually made of overripe gouda? This is hysteria, an actual mental disease if you aren't in fact trolling. There's no reason at all to suspect BLM isn't centrally organized (plus a bunch of lazy retweeters and pundits who don't know any better, plus some percentage of independently organized protests who have appropriated the BLM label but have differing agendas.) You might as well claim that PETA doesn't exist as an organization for all the sense you're making. No, I'm not going to give you more proof, because it's not up for discussion any more than the Earth being older than 6,000 years is up for discussion. At the end of the day, you're perfectly free to stick your own head up your ass or not. This isn't even an argument.
You're not showing any interest in
No, no I'm not. Because that's not the topic. Censorship and hypocrisy and obliviousness on the left is the topic here. I don't see "Trump" in the headline at all, in fact.
I don't have much to say about the American right any more. It's a pile of shit and the things it's more correct than the left on, it's still wildly wrong on. It has a bag of tricks that heavily rely on those relative advantages it does have, and so I've come to realize that improving the left (and thereby undermine the right's key talking points) to win over more undecided / uninterested centrist people is a more productive and interesting conversation to have.
I think that most intelligent people who don't give in to pure apathy come to a similar conclusion, except for the hard core of people who love the rush of fighting an evil enemy more than anything else.
her husband could have told them about the importance of keyfabe.
I'm not super into wrestling, but I think you may be referring to the man who shot kayfabe in the brain stem, danced on its grave and then renamed his company to celebrate its demise.
Now it seems like you're trying esteem-by-association, which is odd since you started off criticizing them with guilt-by-association.
I take it back. Lay off of the Adderall; I think you're having an episode of stimulant-induced psychosis.
I'm actually quite in the mood to find the good fight but this isn't even fun. You're too far off the mark of what I'm even saying for this to be interesting, sporting or at all useful to anyone.
Too bad you're forgetting what you're trying to prove isn't something TED would investigate.
The onus is on you to stop acting like a dumbass, stop trying to put words in my mouth, and put up or shut up re: the claims of these women, and/or their open admiration and promotion of the words of Assata Shakur, and/or the leftists who support BLM without bothering to find out what the movement (or the individual protests in that movement) is actually about. That doesn't make them *guilty*; it makes them *lazy* and a liability in the coming culture wars.
Sorry, but the fact is, Trump totally fumbled on handling David Duke,
See if you can spot the difference between these two things: Saying "I don't know the guy--no comment" and then a few days later saying that he disavows him, vs. people's open and unapologetic support for an organization that idolizes a convicted murderer and violent black power icon (with other vague far-left rhetoric stirred in here and there), with no attempt whatsoever to disavow.
The point is *specifically* about awareness, introspection and the media's enthusiasm to call people out, not the relative evils of the right vs. left. I don't care about dissecting any other aspect of the GOP right now. One clusterfuck at a time. For this particular, very specific issue, the right is doing better than the left and this is a problem because 1. it's giving them a good recruitment tactic in the broader culture war and 2. They're doing much worse than the left on most other things, including running the country in general.
Jesus fucking Christ, are you for real? Not even sure if I should reply, but there might be a few stragglers reading this. The women are for real. They spoke at TED. Not TEDx, real TED. They talked about their baby, Black Lives Matter. And you can also see that many people do chant the same slogan, over and over. The slogan at the top of the BLM site I linked. Not all, but it is there.
TED is a conference where you have to pay $6000 just to walk in the door. "Past speakers include Bill Clinton, Jane Goodall, Al Gore, Gordon Brown, Billy Graham, Richard Dawkins, Bill Gates, Bono, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and many Nobel Prize winners." Yeah, lots of very, very smart and rich and well-connected people run the thing and attend the thing. If TED had been conned by three frauds claiming to have been the originators of the BLM hashtag and a subsequent nationwide BLM movement, someone would notice and it would've been in the fucking newspaper.
I only skimmed the rest of your post after reading that, but it appears to be aimless blithering that's trying to pretend my words mean something other than their plain English meaning.
You're completely detached from not just reality (see my other post regarding BLM's organizational structure, which you've flatly denied exists despite already having been given a link), but from what the conversation is about.
I'm not pro Trump. The fully acknowledge that right is generally much worse than the left in America. Pause your bluster for a moment, take a deep breath and see if you can spot the issue that is completely orthogonal to the issue of the crappiness of Trump: how the far right is reported and policed vs. how the far left is reported and policed and the damage this is causing.
Actually, there is no "official" Black Lives Matter, so you're making a false claim there. Perhaps you're just ignorant, and don't realize that the group lacks an organised structure.
Actually, there is. And I linked to their site, explained why they were considered founders and that other major organizations were acknowledging them as such. If you're calling these women liars, please say so. And provide evidence.
I could go searching on Youtube for the dozens of different video clips I've seen of groups of people chanting the same phrase that's at the top of the BLM website, the quote from the most wanted terrorist with a $2M bounty on her head, but not for an AC. You're going to have to at least log in to make me do the legwork for you.
However, it seems you don't know that your attempt at guilt-by-association is also false
The context here is the banning of entire subs. In the other post where I discussed this point, I made a more explicit rejection of guilt by association. People who unknowingly tweet their support or even unknowingly join protests are not automatically sympathizers with everything they do and stand for.
But it's still a real organization with real goals that, by their own admission, go far beyond ending police brutality.
Be a little more aware, it looks desperate when you make such far-fetched attacks.
And it looks dumb when you post pathetic denialism as an AC. Go educate yourself. If you want to call those women liars, if you want to prove proof that statements ilke 'over 30 different BLM regional chapters exist' are lies then please, be my guest.
The human race invented "the lies and customs of 'RL' interaction" for good reasons
Rape is a sound evolutionary game-theoretic strategy for gene propagation too, thus explaining its prevalence. Therefore is ethical and an institution worth preserving?
probably to save civilization.
Civilization has very, very little in common with "civilization" as it existed when modern humans first evolved. The numbers of people one interacted with were much smaller, specialized jobs and leisure activities limited and probably rigidly formalized by cultural custom, dying of hunger or disease a constant risk, etc.
Letting the id roam free just because you can is not necessarily a good idea.
Honesty and id are not synonymous. The subs that were closed were apparently closed because someone was trying to "dox" the man who assault the white nationalist twat on camera. Trying to determine the identity of a criminal is now "doxing", which is worthy indiscriminate censorship. And the only feedback I got when I tried to point this out in Slashdot's article on this was a single -1 Troll mod.
Because regular, traditional RL interactions and ethics do not value a concern for the truth or consistency. We're supposed to be virtue signaling over the nazi. Duh. Ditto lying about the contents of Trump's pussy-grabbnig tape, inserting the words "for consent" after "I don't wait" when there was already sufficient context (including the phrase "they let you do it") to indicate that he was not talking about sexual assault. The lie is deemed completely acceptable by dozens of mainstream news organizations, actually bordering on "invisible", entirely because of the context surrounding it.
(I'm a leftist who's repeatedly spoken out against Trump, incidentally.)
The echo chambers of RL have been duplicated online, you see, and the vitriol is a result of those echo chambers being challenged. I'm not saying those challenges are widely successful, but they are at least happening and from what I've seen *some* progress is being made. For now. But there are very worrying developments at Twitter and Reddit and Youtube, and the current political climate certainly does not bode well.
The stupid asshole went in front of the CIA, stood with his back to their wall of nameless but honored dead and whined about how nobody believed how big, beautiful, fantastic & historic his inauguration audience was.
But why do you care? Why does anyone else? Trump is an asshole and a dope. Even most of the people who voted for him seem to be very ready to acknowledge this. Anyone who is still bemoaning his character criticizing the brass on the Titanic as being insufficiently polished.
It's insane that this is still going on not only after the election, but after the transfer of power. It was beating a dead horse 6 months ago, but apparently we need to pulverized the poor equine into molecule-sized bits. Again and again and again, Trump gets the mainstream media and the left yelling over irrelevancies whilst multiple bigger issues (not all, but many) slide under the radar. This isn't a neutral thing that's happening here. Every minute wasted on topics like this is a minute that could've been spent on substantive criticism.
Some have branded him a genius for this, but he's exhibited such doltish behavior elsewhere that this is seems extremely implausible. And yet it keeps happening.
Maybe on this one, specific tactic Trump is a genius. Maybe his business dealings has given him good instincts about how to exploit certain psychological flaws related to the bike shed effect.
The much less widely known/accept corollary to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is that online communication is the only place you can hope for something approaching real honesty or a real glimpse into how other people think. The lies and customs of 'RL' interaction are never more visible than when set alongside their internet equivalents. Truth and rationality may, in some distant future, win out as the default mode of human discourse. But if so, they will win out by the trial and error accumulations of a hundred million flame wars, not by forcing everyone to use their real names online or some other similarly horrendous scheme that asserts the superiority of traditional bullshit over internet bullshit.
I think WotC got rid of their forums just a year ago as well. This is... a bad trend. Because none of these major social media sites that are replacing the old forums, not a single one, takes a strong free-speech stance. At one time Reddit might've qualified as an exception but, sadly, this is no longer the case.