I had two people different mod me troll in fairly quick succession long before anyone modded me up (plus another troll mod on another reply in this chain), so I felt the need to request a clarification. Obviously yes, it's the internet and people will do stupid shit but they didn't seem like posts that should have been particularly controversial.
Qubes isn't 100% perfect; there are a couple usability points that Joanna has apparently sacrificed in the name of security, namely GPU passthrough for Windows (e.g. for 3d gaming) and automatic icon transfer to Dom0 (improving, but still far from perfect.) And there are a handful of relatively minor bugs I've seen, but overall the learning curve is remarkably shallow for what it's actually doing behind the scenes (and also the performance has been utterly astonishing, at least for someone like me who is coming over from Virtualbox.) Everything is very GUI-centric, and of the things that still require the CLI it's generally pretty straightforward (with well-written man pages) and Joanna has expressed the intention to eventually have it all doable via GUI.
It is supposedly possible to build an Ubuntu template for Qubes but I've never tried. Qubes ships with Debian 8 but I think 7 and 9 are available as well, so if Debian unstable fixes the issue that might be the best way forward if you wanted to try Qubes.
Of course, almost any distro is easily installable as an HVM (which is the label Qubes and Xen uses for a "second desktop" approach akin to Virtualbox or QEMU / KVM), but you won't have the window mixing, clipboard sharing, PV / PVH drivers (necessary for the near-native speeds Qubes' templates offer) or easy file sharing functional right out of the box.
The complaint generally isn't that the campaign would need to be "built around" misogyny for it to be a problem.
Except that that was, word for word, SvnLyrBrto's complaint.
Merely choosing to include it might actually be the big problem.
Choosing to include it where exactly? His comments to Kelly or Fiorina, maybe? You're not talking about his quotes dredged up from years ago in that sentence ("choosing to include it"), so let's have it. In terms of the platform Trump is actually running on, (as opposed to character assessment, which is a valid but very much separate enterprise), I can find no trace of misogyny except to the extent that his clumsy, base-appealing, nonsense about abortion that he didn't really believe himself[1].
In a subsequent reply, SvnLyrBrto gave examples of Trump's misogynistic platform as calling Clinton crooked and calling Warren "goofy" and "Pocahontas". Making this election a referendum on SJW privilege / victimhood mentality (i.e. this complaint is obviously absurd because he's treated male rivals with no less disdain; most of the misogyny claims only make sense if you consider women to be inferior creatures in need of coddling) is the worst possible thing the left in this country could be doing, but that's exactly what many of the political advertisements seem to be doing.
And the problems in that area don't relate only to character or policy, they relate to both actually.
No. Trump has zero misogynistic policies (note the italics) himself. The amount of damage he might do to women's issues in this country is entirely related to his interactions with the GOP establishment and base, and his laziness (as explained in the link in footnote 1) and has pretty much nothing to do with touching women's pussies or doing whatever his accusers are saying he did. (Corollary: Whether or not Bill Clinton is a rapist, as Juanita Broderick claims, has very little to do his future position in Hillary's administration that she's hinted at.) Calling out this muddled thinking was precisely the point of my post. I am against Trump.
1. As I concede here, this is actually disturbing for quite another reason. There are, in fact, a mountain of sound arguments against Trump, but an inability to property distinguish and frame them has been damaging Hillary's approach and (even more disturbingly to me) significantly damaging what could have easily been a pretty large resurgence and revitalization of the left in this country.
True enough, but we have words that mean different things for a reason. Not that this is at all important; just was a bit confused because it suddenly seemed conceivable you were referring to a non-California state.
His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close. If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.
Point tentatively conceded. This is actually one of the great unacknowledged dangers of a Trump presidency: his efforts to appeal to the base (and/or establishment) after winning the popular vote, combined with his sloth and stupidity, mean that the worst things to come out of a Trump presidency might just be the things that are the most Trump-free... the things he's too lazy to concern himself with, so the people behind the scenes take care of it instead. At the end of the day, I do most worry that he's basically just a Howard Stern version of George W. Bush. I'm not sure, though.
So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!
Yes. That is what we do. We find a rich Arab nation (doesn't have to be Saudi Arabia, could be UAE or whatever) and give them some huge incentives to take the refugees. They speak the same language. They mostly have the same religion. We won't be senselessly increasing the risk of another major terrorist attack in America leading to another post-9/11 hysteria that greatly emboldens the right wing in this country.
This is win/win/win/win/win, but you can't stand the thought of doing something that might also have the side effect of pleasing the Islamophobes or the alt-right. One must have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of who is advocating what.
Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. The background checks would not have caught many of the attackers of the past few years.
Boy, reading that one would hardly realize the vast majority of Syrian refugees are still in the middle east. But don't let completely deceiving the reader stop you from making a statement.
The refusal of many rich Middle Eastern states to accept significant numbers of refugees for permanent settlement has been widely reported by sources such as the Guardian. I don't have the time to research this in depth right now, but I'm not about to accept my "facts" from a site that fiatly asserts that everyone in this migration is both a Syrian and a refugee, when there is widespread evidence that this is not the case.
We absolutely should help genuine refugees and I do agree that some degree of moral imperative does exist, but that's not a license to smear over all the niggling details here.
Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.
I don't keep up with Trump quotes nor am I particularly fond of the typical progressive Trump quote dissection. The man has all the nuance of... you know, I can't think of a good hyperbolic way to end this analogy. THAT'S how bad it is, but as a consequence it does mean that the etiquette police wear out their welcome pretty fast. I don't care. This point was conclusively made like a year ago.
It's not clear at all.
Yes it is. He repeatedly made a big deal of the Latinos who supported him. Given that, please explain to me the logic of calling it "racist" to say that someone's ethnicity might cloud their judgement. I don't think it's *reasonable*--a Ku Klux Klan member probably shouldn't be permitted to objecting to having a black judge, for instance, but the fact is the internal logic of the objection itself (provided it's based on an accusation of bias) is not racist.
Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn
The odious regime of Assad is the third most important issue here (which ties into the second issue, because he is part of a small minority of Shia ruling over the Sunni majority in Shia.)
I think my brain is deteriorating, holy shit. Majority in SYRIA*. Damn it. Probably more typos but the time I spend proofreading responses to ACs must be kept limited.
I've no idea. Like I said, that isn't the "Easy Option" I favor. I should clarify, I meant easy as in cohesive and not self-contradictory... it's fairly easy to figure out roughly where you should be standing under those two philosophies. I didn't mean "easy" as in simple to describe a winning formula. I should have chose a different adjective. Easy is misleading.
None of it ended well.
Uh, I think some citizens of South Korea might disagree with you a bit there. It may be oversimplistic to say that if the North won then the whole thing would look exactly like it looks now (but also including the South), but I think it's a reasonable starting assumption that the South wouldn't be nearly so nice a place to live if they had lost.
The USA wants more than peace in Syria, they want regime-change and ignore any other policy.
There's been plenty of waffling there for years. Plenty of people have said that Assad shouldn't be opposed because the alternative is worse. Obama didn't use the apparent violation of the "red line" as a pretext, etc.
It's war-mongering over a penny-ante country that has caused the biggest human migration in history
Not all of which are refugees and not all of which are even from Syria. I've given up trying to find an authoritative set of numbers, but anyone who begins the conversation by pretending that all of the migration is due to displacement by war is a bit suspect. Even the poor dead boy on the beach was not dead because his family was desperately fleeing a war zone... he was dead because his family were trying to get out of Turkey (where they were safe, if not prosperous) for a better life in the EU. A lot of the migration needs to be viewed for the same sort of lens that we view immigration from Latin America. There is of course a humanitarian element even in people looking for jobs (or even just welfare or access to better basic services), but since the subtext of your post was blaming us for creating this wave of migration through causing war...
That's a problem borne by Europe, who has little involvement in the middle-east. It is not being borne by the culpable agents: middle-eastern countries, Russia and the USA.
It is a problem first and foremost borne of the crazier element in Islam, which is far larger than most people wanted to or would admit prior to ISIS's string of victories.
The Shia/Sunni conflict is the second most important element here (or possibly the most important element, as I'm not at all sure if ISIS would exist in its current form if not for the conflict with the Shia.)
The odious regime of Assad is the third most important issue here (which ties into the second issue, because he is part of a small minority of Shia ruling over the Sunni majority in Shia.)
Eventually as we go down this list we will of course come to our kicking a hornet's nest that we should not have. That is obviously a significant causative agent, but it was in no means a direct one.
The reason France is suffering terrorist attacks is because 1) the resurgence of militant Islamism; 2) the re-settlement and failed assimilation that occurred in France during the 1980s.
At this point I've no idea what your thesis statement is, other than perhaps you think I should defend "Easy Option 2" when I've already identified myself much more strongly with "Easy Option 1".
I disagree they do it particularly well. They clearly overcompensate. The correct solution is to hide choice, not remove choice. They remove choice not because it makes life easier for their users, but because it induces a uniformity of experience... it's a branding choice, not a usability enhancement, but the fact that OS X has good usability (plus some *nix internals that some people appreciate) has blinded many people to this distinction.
The limitations of Apple's approach would become immediately clear if they had a real competitor but Microsoft doesn't compete on anything but lock-in and Linux has much less funding and is geared towards a different sort of user.
what's with the Heinz 57 filesystems? Do we really need the glut of filesystem choices offered? No, not really;
Uh, except Linux users (of the more user friendly distros including, but not limited to, Ubuntu and its derivatives) haven't had to worry about this for at least ten years unless they've wanted to. No GUI installer senselessly badgers you about the file system. That's nonsense.
There are some usability areas that are painfully lacking... I recently complained at length about Linux file browsers being uselessly the same in their flaws, and I still don't understand why passwords are required to install official security updates. Even Mint requires that a password be entered the last time I checked. If there's a concern about an attacker surreptitiously updating the system in a malicious way then... well there are several responses to that argument, and several resolutions, but forcing the user to constantly type in their password for routine actions is not a good way of doing this. All it does is cause unnecessary delays in the installation of important security updates.
Seriously, you people modding this down... post AC to explain why. You've got me curious now.
Do you think I'm lying? The context of this conversation is someone who already says he PREFERS Linux desktops but is stuck with Windows due to some applications he needs. I'm explaining an elegant solution for his situation, not trying to convince anyone who is convinced that Linux desktops are far inferior to Windows' current desktop.
I *live* in a border state... the largest border state in the union; indeed, the largest state IN the union.
Global warming is going to be a godsend for you Alaskans.
How the hell did I miss that? With his economy comment, and the "we are most definitely going Hillary in November", I just parsed it to mean California. I have no idea where he lives now. Alaska is most definitely not the 6th largest economy in the world, Texas is most definitely not voting for Hillary, and California is most definitely not the largest state in the nation (third largest, isn't it?)
By this logic, "Video games not running on Linux" is the games' (or the gamer's?) problem and not a Linux problem.
What is (/was) the point of Java? What was the ONE GODDAMNED THING it was supposed to do that other, much faster / more expressive / more powerful languages couldn't do?
Windows-only games were designed to be Windows-only. Java was supposed to be portable and consistent, damn it. The OP said that it failed to run properly on the exact same version of the JVM ("1.7.0_111") because it was "a different build." I'm not entirely sure how that should be parsed, but blaming "Linux" as a whole is not my first instinct.
To clarify, it's not like I'm against all character analysis whatsoever, but it shouldn't be muddled with analysis of policies and any character analysis that betrays the mindset of a self-hating progressive is going to do more harm than good... when you claim that Trump admitted something that he clearly did not admit to, all you're doing is establishing your own untrustworthiness. I suppose this can also solidify your own "Never Trump" base, sure, but very few fence-sitters are convinced by this sort of hyperbole.
"crooked" Hillary Clinton
"goofy" Elizabeth Warren, aka (in his mind) Pocahontas
Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie. So it's misogyny when he treats women equally, is it? This is the exact thing I'm talking about here. It's people like you who are sabotaging the momentum the left was bequeathed after Iraq. The alt-right is built first and foremost on a rejection of self-flagellation and inferiority complex politics (racism is secondary and not as universally subscribed, although it is alarmingly common.)
'Pocahontas' has nothing to do with misogyny that I can see, and I'd go further and say there's no good reason to suspect racism because Trump's entire point (lame as it is) is that Warren was "pretending" to be of a ethnicity that doesn't show any significant connection to in either her appearance or her cultural upbringing.
Declarations of intent and history of sexually assaulting women
He said that women LET HIM kiss them / "touch their pussies". Without commenting on the likely veracity of that statement or the obnoxious tone in which it was delivered, there was no hint that I could discern that Trump was saying the women were in any way unwilling. In fact, his entire macho thesis was that they were willing.
As for accusers, the women who've accused him of crimes may or may not be telling the truth. The women who accused your former governor may or may not have been telling the truth. The women who accused Bill Clinton may or may not have been telling the truth. "Not relevant!", you say? Not even when Hillary hints that Bill might be placed in a high position in her administration? It's not at all relevant that she's talking about allowing an accused rapist to fix our economy?
My own take on this is our police and more importantly our culture need to be tweaked so that woman fight back and speak up earlier, but beyond that I don't think that new lurid claims of shit that happened decades in the past should weigh heavily in our decision making process. If there's enough evidence, arrest the motherfucker! If not, oh well, that sucks (if he is indeed guilty), but the idea that everything comes to a screeching halt the minute a few new accusers come forward talking about shit that happened decades ago... it's just not sustainable. It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting the alleged victims; it's a matter of their claims for justice being orthogonal to someone's political significance.
What about the trade wars he wants to start and the treaties he wants to abrogate.
That's a decent starting point to another conversation, a conversation that you SHOULD be having instead of this scattershot mud-slinging that's doing more damage to the left than it is to the right.
I'm against Trump! And I want to see the left effectively fight him off without disillusioning any more young people about what it means to be on or of the left.
Because you don't have to run all of your applications in Windows? You can do the absolute minimum amount of work in Windows, only the stuff that you need Windows for, and then right-click to instantly send those files over to a Linux VM. The extra work involved is trivial. If you're apathetic about the differences between Windows and Linux desktops then that might not be much of a win[1] , but tnok85 (the person I was replying to) said that he preferred Linux desktops.
Also, even if you only ran Windows 7 in Qubes (not using any Linux VMs other than the built in connectivity ones that are already configured for you), it's still actually a "Linux Desktop". You never have to look at the start button if you don't want to--all of your Windows 7 applications can appear seamlessly in KDE or XFCE.
Also, Qubes' template system can be applied to Windows 7 in addition to Linux VMs. You can[2] very easily create multiple Windows VMs based on the same base image. There are a lot of ways you could use this functionality, but one possibility is one Windows VM could be strictly offline for security, one could be a regular online Win7 VM, and a third one could exclusively use a VPN or Tor ProxyVM for internet connectivity. And any application you install in the Win7 template would automatically propagate to all VMs based on that template (multiple templates are possible, either from-scratch or by cloning.)
Almost all of this is doable using GUI tools (I think you might need a tiny amount of CLI usage for setting up a Win7 template but there are guides available.
1. Except to the extent that using a hypervisor like Qubes is *great* for easy portability and security. System==>BackupVMs==>[just a few clicks later]==> done. Your entire environment is now be copied over and transferable to any other physical machine running Qubes. No CLI fiddling required (unless you want to), and you can even encrypt the backup without jumping through any extra hoops.
2. Well, the precise legality of this is... a gray area, but certainly you could do this legally if you had the right license from MS, or multiple licenses.
Diversity also greatly helped Linux. You have to be very, very careful with the "diversity is bad--we must reduce choices so people aren't overwhelmed!" argument... that's what got us GNOME 3.
(And I personally believe that GNOME 3 and Unity, which would've never come about if not for GNOME 3, together constitute the worst thing that's ever happened to the desktop Linux ecosystem.)
I haven't been on Slashdot in a long time, but that used to be a joke around here whenever there was an optimistic news story about Linux on the desktop.
I love (prefer) Linux on the desktop. Software requirements holding me back from fully embracing it.
If the software in question isn't terribly performance intensive, that isn't a very compelling reason any more. You've plenty of virtualization options at your disposal, some ridiculously easy to set up (Virtualbox).
If the cumbersome-ness of the UI or of moving data between VMs has been holding you back, I humbly suggest you consider Qubes OS, which has been promoted so heavily as a security-focused distro that many people have failed to emphasize that it's also one of the best hypervisors around from a usability standpoint. Templates (your choice of Fedora or Debian) greatly streamline the updating process and it's very easy to share the clipboard (securely) or send files to another VM on the fly, but most importantly there's one single desktop (XFCE or KDE) with one taskbar, and color-coded windows can be freely mixed from multiple Linux and Windows 7 VMs (Windows 10 compatibility in the works, but in the meantime it can still be run as an HVM.)
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Most enthusiastic Trump supporters obviously have their heads in the clouds but, with statements like that, obviously so do people like you.
misogyny
Every fence-sitter, Trump supporter and even many Hillary supporters I know realize that his campaign is not "built around" misogyny. That's fucking ridiculous and you know it. Don't mix up character criticism with policy criticism. In regards to policy, he's make some token anti-abortion remarks, very clumsily, because people were telling him that he had to work on his appeal to the base. That's it. In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
racism
Blacks: He's supporting the cops 100% as a ploy more or less. Any right-thinking individual would prefer he take a more nuanced approach (but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.) I don't think you can plausibly expand this to call it a racist platform. He's pro-police. He's never made it about race. And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home. Whether it's true or not true, they bring very little to the table... they have nothing to do with effective solutions.
Latinos: I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over. Any reasonable person living in those states should be concerned about the deterioration over the past few years, even if the amount that's been spilling over has been fairly limited until now. Trump was of course sensationalist and dumb as usual in this area (and in particular, a physical wall would of course be irredeemably stupid), but if millions of people have managed to make it across the border then I would say that's a decent argument for better border control just about any way you look at it. (With the path to citizenship thing being a separate issue that we can all probably strongly disagree on.)
Very, very few countries have or tolerate massive illegal immigration on the scale we've seen. It's not a ugly, racist American thing to want that situation to change, and if you're not concerned about violence in Northern Mexico you're either ignorant or apathetic. (Of course, where I differ from Trump on this issue is I would immediately scale back the war on drugs as much as possible, which will ultimately dry up the revenue streams that support the gangs.)
xenophobic isolationism
Muslims! Ok now, look motherfucker, you have two easy choices here:
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble. That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees", because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.) Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (includ
While you're entirely correct, it seems clear enough that the OP was talking about immigration, not trade. While I'm not quite sure of the full significance or relevance of this regarding Russia, it's worth noting that it is perfectly feasible to have free trade without permitting large scale immigration.
The scientific consensus is that the detonation of 100+ airburst nuclear bombs over large cities with a blast size similar to those in the Russian and US nuclear force would push enough debris into the stratosphere to create a nuclear winter that would last somewhere between a decade to 100 years with average summer temperature drops of 36F (20C).
"Push enough debris"? I never heard that interpretation before; I always heard that nuclear winter was contingent on wildfires creating tons of smoke.
Furthermore, there has never been any broad scientific consensus that this outcome was likely, and especially not with as few as 100 airbursts. Mass ignition of wildfires depends on the nuclear flash igniting fires miles and miles away, but this flash can be attenuated by atmospheric haze and the severity of the resulting wildfires depends on the local climate and weather and whether or not the infrastructure of the enemy has been decimated to the point that they can't take effective steps to contain the fires.
There are other very good reasons for not wanting to see even a limited nuclear exchange, but the nuclear winter thing is kind of suspect and your hyperbolic description of it needlessly cheapens the anti-nuclear argument.
That is actually the incorrect spelling and pronunciation. "Aluminum" is the original and correct spelling. The British inexplicably insisted on inserting a fifth fucking syllable into an already-cumbersome word, but for whatever reason never did propose the same change for "platinum".
NATO is obviously never going to invade Russia and occupy their land unless attacked first. The same cannot be reasonably said of Russia regarding her neighbors.
A few years ago, there was even some idle talk about Russia eventually joining NATO. That might have been naive, but the point is no one on our side is particularly looking for a fight here. Given the prosperity of Germany and most of the rest of Western Europe, there's no reason to suspect that a friendly and allied Russia would have suffered under a supposed American hegemony. They could've even continue their geopolitical games against us, just sans military threats.
Slashdot Mirror
I had two people different mod me troll in fairly quick succession long before anyone modded me up (plus another troll mod on another reply in this chain), so I felt the need to request a clarification. Obviously yes, it's the internet and people will do stupid shit but they didn't seem like posts that should have been particularly controversial.
Qubes isn't 100% perfect; there are a couple usability points that Joanna has apparently sacrificed in the name of security, namely GPU passthrough for Windows (e.g. for 3d gaming) and automatic icon transfer to Dom0 (improving, but still far from perfect.) And there are a handful of relatively minor bugs I've seen, but overall the learning curve is remarkably shallow for what it's actually doing behind the scenes (and also the performance has been utterly astonishing, at least for someone like me who is coming over from Virtualbox.) Everything is very GUI-centric, and of the things that still require the CLI it's generally pretty straightforward (with well-written man pages) and Joanna has expressed the intention to eventually have it all doable via GUI.
It is supposedly possible to build an Ubuntu template for Qubes but I've never tried. Qubes ships with Debian 8 but I think 7 and 9 are available as well, so if Debian unstable fixes the issue that might be the best way forward if you wanted to try Qubes.
Of course, almost any distro is easily installable as an HVM (which is the label Qubes and Xen uses for a "second desktop" approach akin to Virtualbox or QEMU / KVM), but you won't have the window mixing, clipboard sharing, PV / PVH drivers (necessary for the near-native speeds Qubes' templates offer) or easy file sharing functional right out of the box.
The complaint generally isn't that the campaign would need to be "built around" misogyny for it to be a problem.
Except that that was, word for word, SvnLyrBrto's complaint.
Merely choosing to include it might actually be the big problem.
Choosing to include it where exactly? His comments to Kelly or Fiorina, maybe? You're not talking about his quotes dredged up from years ago in that sentence ("choosing to include it"), so let's have it. In terms of the platform Trump is actually running on, (as opposed to character assessment, which is a valid but very much separate enterprise), I can find no trace of misogyny except to the extent that his clumsy, base-appealing, nonsense about abortion that he didn't really believe himself[1].
In a subsequent reply, SvnLyrBrto gave examples of Trump's misogynistic platform as calling Clinton crooked and calling Warren "goofy" and "Pocahontas". Making this election a referendum on SJW privilege / victimhood mentality (i.e. this complaint is obviously absurd because he's treated male rivals with no less disdain; most of the misogyny claims only make sense if you consider women to be inferior creatures in need of coddling) is the worst possible thing the left in this country could be doing, but that's exactly what many of the political advertisements seem to be doing.
And the problems in that area don't relate only to character or policy, they relate to both actually.
No. Trump has zero misogynistic policies (note the italics) himself. The amount of damage he might do to women's issues in this country is entirely related to his interactions with the GOP establishment and base, and his laziness (as explained in the link in footnote 1) and has pretty much nothing to do with touching women's pussies or doing whatever his accusers are saying he did. (Corollary: Whether or not Bill Clinton is a rapist, as Juanita Broderick claims, has very little to do his future position in Hillary's administration that she's hinted at.) Calling out this muddled thinking was precisely the point of my post. I am against Trump.
1. As I concede here, this is actually disturbing for quite another reason. There are, in fact, a mountain of sound arguments against Trump, but an inability to property distinguish and frame them has been damaging Hillary's approach and (even more disturbingly to me) significantly damaging what could have easily been a pretty large resurgence and revitalization of the left in this country.
True enough, but we have words that mean different things for a reason. Not that this is at all important; just was a bit confused because it suddenly seemed conceivable you were referring to a non-California state.
His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close. If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.
Point tentatively conceded. This is actually one of the great unacknowledged dangers of a Trump presidency: his efforts to appeal to the base (and/or establishment) after winning the popular vote, combined with his sloth and stupidity, mean that the worst things to come out of a Trump presidency might just be the things that are the most Trump-free... the things he's too lazy to concern himself with, so the people behind the scenes take care of it instead. At the end of the day, I do most worry that he's basically just a Howard Stern version of George W. Bush. I'm not sure, though.
So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!
Yes. That is what we do. We find a rich Arab nation (doesn't have to be Saudi Arabia, could be UAE or whatever) and give them some huge incentives to take the refugees. They speak the same language. They mostly have the same religion. We won't be senselessly increasing the risk of another major terrorist attack in America leading to another post-9/11 hysteria that greatly emboldens the right wing in this country.
This is win/win/win/win/win, but you can't stand the thought of doing something that might also have the side effect of pleasing the Islamophobes or the alt-right. One must have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of who is advocating what.
Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. The background checks would not have caught many of the attackers of the past few years.
Boy, reading that one would hardly realize the vast majority of Syrian refugees are still in the middle east. But don't let completely deceiving the reader stop you from making a statement.
The refusal of many rich Middle Eastern states to accept significant numbers of refugees for permanent settlement has been widely reported by sources such as the Guardian. I don't have the time to research this in depth right now, but I'm not about to accept my "facts" from a site that fiatly asserts that everyone in this migration is both a Syrian and a refugee, when there is widespread evidence that this is not the case.
We absolutely should help genuine refugees and I do agree that some degree of moral imperative does exist, but that's not a license to smear over all the niggling details here.
Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.
I don't keep up with Trump quotes nor am I particularly fond of the typical progressive Trump quote dissection. The man has all the nuance of... you know, I can't think of a good hyperbolic way to end this analogy. THAT'S how bad it is, but as a consequence it does mean that the etiquette police wear out their welcome pretty fast. I don't care. This point was conclusively made like a year ago.
It's not clear at all.
Yes it is. He repeatedly made a big deal of the Latinos who supported him. Given that, please explain to me the logic of calling it "racist" to say that someone's ethnicity might cloud their judgement. I don't think it's *reasonable*--a Ku Klux Klan member probably shouldn't be permitted to objecting to having a black judge, for instance, but the fact is the internal logic of the objection itself (provided it's based on an accusation of bias) is not racist.
Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn
The odious regime of Assad is the third most important issue here (which ties into the second issue, because he is part of a small minority of Shia ruling over the Sunni majority in Shia.)
I think my brain is deteriorating, holy shit. Majority in SYRIA*. Damn it. Probably more typos but the time I spend proofreading responses to ACs must be kept limited.
Please ignore my retarded confusion of born and borne. I even typed it the way you did, FFS.
Such as?
I've no idea. Like I said, that isn't the "Easy Option" I favor. I should clarify, I meant easy as in cohesive and not self-contradictory... it's fairly easy to figure out roughly where you should be standing under those two philosophies. I didn't mean "easy" as in simple to describe a winning formula. I should have chose a different adjective. Easy is misleading.
None of it ended well.
Uh, I think some citizens of South Korea might disagree with you a bit there. It may be oversimplistic to say that if the North won then the whole thing would look exactly like it looks now (but also including the South), but I think it's a reasonable starting assumption that the South wouldn't be nearly so nice a place to live if they had lost.
The USA wants more than peace in Syria, they want regime-change and ignore any other policy.
There's been plenty of waffling there for years. Plenty of people have said that Assad shouldn't be opposed because the alternative is worse. Obama didn't use the apparent violation of the "red line" as a pretext, etc.
It's war-mongering over a penny-ante country that has caused the biggest human migration in history
Not all of which are refugees and not all of which are even from Syria. I've given up trying to find an authoritative set of numbers, but anyone who begins the conversation by pretending that all of the migration is due to displacement by war is a bit suspect. Even the poor dead boy on the beach was not dead because his family was desperately fleeing a war zone... he was dead because his family were trying to get out of Turkey (where they were safe, if not prosperous) for a better life in the EU. A lot of the migration needs to be viewed for the same sort of lens that we view immigration from Latin America. There is of course a humanitarian element even in people looking for jobs (or even just welfare or access to better basic services), but since the subtext of your post was blaming us for creating this wave of migration through causing war...
That's a problem borne by Europe, who has little involvement in the middle-east. It is not being borne by the culpable agents: middle-eastern countries, Russia and the USA.
It is a problem first and foremost borne of the crazier element in Islam, which is far larger than most people wanted to or would admit prior to ISIS's string of victories.
The Shia/Sunni conflict is the second most important element here (or possibly the most important element, as I'm not at all sure if ISIS would exist in its current form if not for the conflict with the Shia.)
The odious regime of Assad is the third most important issue here (which ties into the second issue, because he is part of a small minority of Shia ruling over the Sunni majority in Shia.)
Eventually as we go down this list we will of course come to our kicking a hornet's nest that we should not have. That is obviously a significant causative agent, but it was in no means a direct one.
The reason France is suffering terrorist attacks is because 1) the resurgence of militant Islamism; 2) the re-settlement and failed assimilation that occurred in France during the 1980s.
At this point I've no idea what your thesis statement is, other than perhaps you think I should defend "Easy Option 2" when I've already identified myself much more strongly with "Easy Option 1".
You click on Windows it runs
That is idiot proofness that users like.
On every single version of Windows everywhere?
Windows has never been idiotproof, nor is it a very good embodiment of the "it just works" design philosophy.
This is something that Apple does very well.
I disagree they do it particularly well. They clearly overcompensate. The correct solution is to hide choice, not remove choice. They remove choice not because it makes life easier for their users, but because it induces a uniformity of experience... it's a branding choice, not a usability enhancement, but the fact that OS X has good usability (plus some *nix internals that some people appreciate) has blinded many people to this distinction.
The limitations of Apple's approach would become immediately clear if they had a real competitor but Microsoft doesn't compete on anything but lock-in and Linux has much less funding and is geared towards a different sort of user.
what's with the Heinz 57 filesystems? Do we really need the glut of filesystem choices offered? No, not really;
Uh, except Linux users (of the more user friendly distros including, but not limited to, Ubuntu and its derivatives) haven't had to worry about this for at least ten years unless they've wanted to. No GUI installer senselessly badgers you about the file system. That's nonsense.
There are some usability areas that are painfully lacking... I recently complained at length about Linux file browsers being uselessly the same in their flaws, and I still don't understand why passwords are required to install official security updates. Even Mint requires that a password be entered the last time I checked. If there's a concern about an attacker surreptitiously updating the system in a malicious way then... well there are several responses to that argument, and several resolutions, but forcing the user to constantly type in their password for routine actions is not a good way of doing this. All it does is cause unnecessary delays in the installation of important security updates.
Seriously, you people modding this down... post AC to explain why. You've got me curious now.
Do you think I'm lying? The context of this conversation is someone who already says he PREFERS Linux desktops but is stuck with Windows due to some applications he needs. I'm explaining an elegant solution for his situation, not trying to convince anyone who is convinced that Linux desktops are far inferior to Windows' current desktop.
I *live* in a border state... the largest border state in the union; indeed, the largest state IN the union.
Global warming is going to be a godsend for you Alaskans.
How the hell did I miss that? With his economy comment, and the "we are most definitely going Hillary in November", I just parsed it to mean California. I have no idea where he lives now. Alaska is most definitely not the 6th largest economy in the world, Texas is most definitely not voting for Hillary, and California is most definitely not the largest state in the nation (third largest, isn't it?)
Who the hell modded this (and this) troll? I'm not annoyed so much as confused. A rabid pro-Windows user or something?
By this logic, "Video games not running on Linux" is the games' (or the gamer's?) problem and not a Linux problem.
What is (/was) the point of Java? What was the ONE GODDAMNED THING it was supposed to do that other, much faster / more expressive / more powerful languages couldn't do?
Windows-only games were designed to be Windows-only. Java was supposed to be portable and consistent, damn it. The OP said that it failed to run properly on the exact same version of the JVM ("1.7.0_111") because it was "a different build." I'm not entirely sure how that should be parsed, but blaming "Linux" as a whole is not my first instinct.
To clarify, it's not like I'm against all character analysis whatsoever, but it shouldn't be muddled with analysis of policies and any character analysis that betrays the mindset of a self-hating progressive is going to do more harm than good... when you claim that Trump admitted something that he clearly did not admit to, all you're doing is establishing your own untrustworthiness. I suppose this can also solidify your own "Never Trump" base, sure, but very few fence-sitters are convinced by this sort of hyperbole.
"crooked" Hillary Clinton "goofy" Elizabeth Warren, aka (in his mind) Pocahontas
Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie. So it's misogyny when he treats women equally, is it? This is the exact thing I'm talking about here. It's people like you who are sabotaging the momentum the left was bequeathed after Iraq. The alt-right is built first and foremost on a rejection of self-flagellation and inferiority complex politics (racism is secondary and not as universally subscribed, although it is alarmingly common.)
'Pocahontas' has nothing to do with misogyny that I can see, and I'd go further and say there's no good reason to suspect racism because Trump's entire point (lame as it is) is that Warren was "pretending" to be of a ethnicity that doesn't show any significant connection to in either her appearance or her cultural upbringing.
Declarations of intent and history of sexually assaulting women
He said that women LET HIM kiss them / "touch their pussies". Without commenting on the likely veracity of that statement or the obnoxious tone in which it was delivered, there was no hint that I could discern that Trump was saying the women were in any way unwilling. In fact, his entire macho thesis was that they were willing.
As for accusers, the women who've accused him of crimes may or may not be telling the truth. The women who accused your former governor may or may not have been telling the truth. The women who accused Bill Clinton may or may not have been telling the truth. "Not relevant!", you say? Not even when Hillary hints that Bill might be placed in a high position in her administration? It's not at all relevant that she's talking about allowing an accused rapist to fix our economy?
My own take on this is our police and more importantly our culture need to be tweaked so that woman fight back and speak up earlier, but beyond that I don't think that new lurid claims of shit that happened decades in the past should weigh heavily in our decision making process. If there's enough evidence, arrest the motherfucker! If not, oh well, that sucks (if he is indeed guilty), but the idea that everything comes to a screeching halt the minute a few new accusers come forward talking about shit that happened decades ago... it's just not sustainable. It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting the alleged victims; it's a matter of their claims for justice being orthogonal to someone's political significance.
What about the trade wars he wants to start and the treaties he wants to abrogate.
That's a decent starting point to another conversation, a conversation that you SHOULD be having instead of this scattershot mud-slinging that's doing more damage to the left than it is to the right.
I'm against Trump! And I want to see the left effectively fight him off without disillusioning any more young people about what it means to be on or of the left.
Because you don't have to run all of your applications in Windows? You can do the absolute minimum amount of work in Windows, only the stuff that you need Windows for, and then right-click to instantly send those files over to a Linux VM. The extra work involved is trivial. If you're apathetic about the differences between Windows and Linux desktops then that might not be much of a win[1] , but tnok85 (the person I was replying to) said that he preferred Linux desktops.
Also, even if you only ran Windows 7 in Qubes (not using any Linux VMs other than the built in connectivity ones that are already configured for you), it's still actually a "Linux Desktop". You never have to look at the start button if you don't want to--all of your Windows 7 applications can appear seamlessly in KDE or XFCE.
Also, Qubes' template system can be applied to Windows 7 in addition to Linux VMs. You can[2] very easily create multiple Windows VMs based on the same base image. There are a lot of ways you could use this functionality, but one possibility is one Windows VM could be strictly offline for security, one could be a regular online Win7 VM, and a third one could exclusively use a VPN or Tor ProxyVM for internet connectivity. And any application you install in the Win7 template would automatically propagate to all VMs based on that template (multiple templates are possible, either from-scratch or by cloning.)
Almost all of this is doable using GUI tools (I think you might need a tiny amount of CLI usage for setting up a Win7 template but there are guides available.
1. Except to the extent that using a hypervisor like Qubes is *great* for easy portability and security. System==>BackupVMs==>[just a few clicks later]==> done. Your entire environment is now be copied over and transferable to any other physical machine running Qubes. No CLI fiddling required (unless you want to), and you can even encrypt the backup without jumping through any extra hoops.
2. Well, the precise legality of this is... a gray area, but certainly you could do this legally if you had the right license from MS, or multiple licenses.
Also, that sounds more like a Java problem than a Linux problem.
Diversity also greatly helped Linux. You have to be very, very careful with the "diversity is bad--we must reduce choices so people aren't overwhelmed!" argument... that's what got us GNOME 3.
(And I personally believe that GNOME 3 and Unity, which would've never come about if not for GNOME 3, together constitute the worst thing that's ever happened to the desktop Linux ecosystem.)
I haven't been on Slashdot in a long time, but that used to be a joke around here whenever there was an optimistic news story about Linux on the desktop. I love (prefer) Linux on the desktop. Software requirements holding me back from fully embracing it.
If the software in question isn't terribly performance intensive, that isn't a very compelling reason any more. You've plenty of virtualization options at your disposal, some ridiculously easy to set up (Virtualbox).
If the cumbersome-ness of the UI or of moving data between VMs has been holding you back, I humbly suggest you consider Qubes OS, which has been promoted so heavily as a security-focused distro that many people have failed to emphasize that it's also one of the best hypervisors around from a usability standpoint. Templates (your choice of Fedora or Debian) greatly streamline the updating process and it's very easy to share the clipboard (securely) or send files to another VM on the fly, but most importantly there's one single desktop (XFCE or KDE) with one taskbar, and color-coded windows can be freely mixed from multiple Linux and Windows 7 VMs (Windows 10 compatibility in the works, but in the meantime it can still be run as an HVM.)
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Most enthusiastic Trump supporters obviously have their heads in the clouds but, with statements like that, obviously so do people like you.
misogyny
Every fence-sitter, Trump supporter and even many Hillary supporters I know realize that his campaign is not "built around" misogyny. That's fucking ridiculous and you know it. Don't mix up character criticism with policy criticism. In regards to policy, he's make some token anti-abortion remarks, very clumsily, because people were telling him that he had to work on his appeal to the base. That's it. In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
racism
Blacks: He's supporting the cops 100% as a ploy more or less. Any right-thinking individual would prefer he take a more nuanced approach (but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.) I don't think you can plausibly expand this to call it a racist platform. He's pro-police. He's never made it about race. And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home. Whether it's true or not true, they bring very little to the table... they have nothing to do with effective solutions.
Latinos: I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over. Any reasonable person living in those states should be concerned about the deterioration over the past few years, even if the amount that's been spilling over has been fairly limited until now. Trump was of course sensationalist and dumb as usual in this area (and in particular, a physical wall would of course be irredeemably stupid), but if millions of people have managed to make it across the border then I would say that's a decent argument for better border control just about any way you look at it. (With the path to citizenship thing being a separate issue that we can all probably strongly disagree on.)
Very, very few countries have or tolerate massive illegal immigration on the scale we've seen. It's not a ugly, racist American thing to want that situation to change, and if you're not concerned about violence in Northern Mexico you're either ignorant or apathetic. (Of course, where I differ from Trump on this issue is I would immediately scale back the war on drugs as much as possible, which will ultimately dry up the revenue streams that support the gangs.)
xenophobic isolationism
Muslims! Ok now, look motherfucker, you have two easy choices here:
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble. That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees", because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.) Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (includ
Apple should add an apple key.
Closed or open?
While you're entirely correct, it seems clear enough that the OP was talking about immigration, not trade. While I'm not quite sure of the full significance or relevance of this regarding Russia, it's worth noting that it is perfectly feasible to have free trade without permitting large scale immigration.
The scientific consensus is that the detonation of 100+ airburst nuclear bombs over large cities with a blast size similar to those in the Russian and US nuclear force would push enough debris into the stratosphere to create a nuclear winter that would last somewhere between a decade to 100 years with average summer temperature drops of 36F (20C).
"Push enough debris"? I never heard that interpretation before; I always heard that nuclear winter was contingent on wildfires creating tons of smoke.
Furthermore, there has never been any broad scientific consensus that this outcome was likely, and especially not with as few as 100 airbursts. Mass ignition of wildfires depends on the nuclear flash igniting fires miles and miles away, but this flash can be attenuated by atmospheric haze and the severity of the resulting wildfires depends on the local climate and weather and whether or not the infrastructure of the enemy has been decimated to the point that they can't take effective steps to contain the fires.
There are other very good reasons for not wanting to see even a limited nuclear exchange, but the nuclear winter thing is kind of suspect and your hyperbolic description of it needlessly cheapens the anti-nuclear argument.
That is actually the incorrect spelling and pronunciation. "Aluminum" is the original and correct spelling. The British inexplicably insisted on inserting a fifth fucking syllable into an already-cumbersome word, but for whatever reason never did propose the same change for "platinum".
NATO is obviously never going to invade Russia and occupy their land unless attacked first. The same cannot be reasonably said of Russia regarding her neighbors.
A few years ago, there was even some idle talk about Russia eventually joining NATO. That might have been naive, but the point is no one on our side is particularly looking for a fight here. Given the prosperity of Germany and most of the rest of Western Europe, there's no reason to suspect that a friendly and allied Russia would have suffered under a supposed American hegemony. They could've even continue their geopolitical games against us, just sans military threats.
Unfortunately, this was not to be.