Then, you're also seeing the Rand Paul type folks who are willing to jump through the Republican hoops in order to bring a few libertarian ideas to the mainstream. Let's face it. In order to win the Republican presidential nomination, you need to have at least some appeal to the "family values" and "strong defense" contingents in the Republican base. The strategy of compromising principles for political appeal is a huge bone of contention among liberty activists. People willing to go down that road might also appear to be "pseudo-libertarians", but their drift toward the Republican orthodoxy is a matter of practical necessity, not political philosophy.
It certainly seemed like a necessity based on the past outcomes of elections and primaries. But it's not working at all for Rand Paul and other libertarian-leaning candidates that are trying to appear more "mainstream". Instead, the electorate these days is bent on rejecting anything that looks like a mainstream politician. Even the Democrats are leaning that way, with Bernie Sanders polling way higher than any of the political pundits predicted. That says less about Sanders than it does Hillary Clinton - an "insider" that no one views as more trustworthy than any other career politician (yes, Sanders is, in fact, also a career politician, but he has managed to be perceived as an outsider. It's all about the optics.
We are, it seems, on the verge of a populist uprising. Voters have been betrayed so many times and so completely they now realize there is no one in Washington that is listening to their concerns any more. I'm actually surprised there haven't been more of them dumped by voters like Eric Cantor was.
why is it so, so, so important to you for this case not to be islamophobia? why is it so difficult for you to admit that islamophobia exists and is obviously at work here if you have half a fucking brain?
Because it ignores the real issues of our failing public school system and militarized, reactionary police. Making it all about islamophobia (which, yes, of course exists) just plays into the MSM narratives which create conflict for the masses, selling out the people for the benefit of the elites.
Maybe you should read about Beth Van Duyne. It is illuminating to read about her. You might also try reading what the Dallas Morning News (a libertarian/conservative leaning newspaper) has to say about her and the police dept staff. Again it is illuminating. You cann't judge a book by its cover, but you can judge the Irving Texas administration by the words and deeds of its administrator
Well, I did as you suggested. Other than looking into some rumors that a local Mosque may have implemented a Sharia Law court for local Muslims, her biggest claim to fame appears to be pissing off former administration officials and bureaucrats for trying to clear the corruptions and good-old-boy networks from running the city and wasting public money. So, again, nothing there but innuendo and race-card whining bullshit.
I can't agree with her position supporting the school administration and local police, but that has nothing to do with racism - just the over-the-top fear mongering and typical "zero tolerance" overreaction by schools that has been getting increasingly worse over the years. There's plenty of evidence that they do this to ALL the kids, not just Muslims. But, as I mentioned, a preponderance of the evidence doesn't keep people from playing the race card. It's too easy.
oh i'm sorry, you have inside knowledge that ahmed wasn't a victim of anti-muslim bigotry and racism, got it
to assume a brown muslim kid with an electronic doodad getting arrested for a bomb hoax when he said it wasn't a bomb: this wasn't at all motivated by hysteria or fear based on race/ religion. obviously, of course
This is a really easy game to play, isn't it? Any time any minority is treated unfairly, we can claim it's because of bigotry and racism! Win! Nobody can prove the opposite, no evidence to the contrary is adequate.
Let's keep this going as much as possible. We don't want people mixing in with people outside their own group, now do we?
Is it closed source because the Direct Rendering Manager driver has to enforce Digital Restrictions Management in order for things like Netflix to work?
That amendment doesn't address sovereign immunity numbnuts
LOL. No, it doesn't but it was used in a very early SCOTUS case as allowing citizens to sue the Federal government when their rights were violated, and it stands today. Back then, people were also trying to sue states based on that, so the Eleventh amendment was created to bar citizens from suing states (granting sovereign immunity to them). That has never applied to the Federal government, or federal employees, when Constitutional rights (even non-enumerated rights) were allegedly violated.
That has nothing to do with it. Sovereign immunity is almost never invoked, because it is unnecessary with the system rigged the way it is. And besides, as long as you can show standing, suits involving Constitutional violations cannot be subject to sovereign immunity - it's part of the Ninth Amendment. Note that this particular suit names several federal agencies, executive officials (ALWAYS subject to torts for Constitutional rights violations), as well as the telecommunications and ISPs involved in the data collections.
Weird isn't it? If I witness a crime and fail to report it, I can get in trouble. But this? WTF? I mean, if a witness has no standing, then his testimony should be worthless.
As a victim of the State, you must prove harm to have standing for redress court. However, the State has no obligation to prove ANY harm to ANYONE to have standing to prosecute YOU.
There is that. The bigger issue is transportation. There's plenty of water, just not where we need it at the moment. And we have to restore contaminated water. Time to build some big-ass, nuclear powered tunnel boring machines, and pipe it around like oil, gas, and battery acid. And after bailing out the bankers, I don't want hear anybody crying that we don't have the money. There's plenty of that also, just not where we need it at the moment...
It's not like this is a new problem. Solutions were developed as far back as the 1960's, and many politicians promoted those plans as early as 1978 and warned of the dangers of doing nothing. But nobody listened. And it kept getting worse, and still nobody wanted to invest in it. There just wasn't enough corporate profit in it, politicians can succeed by ignoring it, and there is simply no stomach in the US electorate for taking on some pain to alleviate future problems.
So here we are. Carly Fiorina called out Jerry Brown for decades of needing infrastructure and the blockage of any progress by back-to-nature ideologically opposed to dams, canals, even reservoirs in California, so nothing got built and their paying for it now.
And no, it's not like "Climate change" where huge investments are maybe going to mitigate some warming, how much and whether any of it will work is questionable.
We have proven, practical solutions for storing and transporting water and, yes, even desalination where it's needed (just check out the projects in Dubai). But nothing happens. Worst drought ever in California, and what does the leadership say? Saving water for the future is "utter ignorance". Really? Seems I remember ancient Egyptians even knew enough to store food in case of famine.
There are serious geopolitical ramifications of male changes in rainfall patterns.
Look, I know it's popular among the social justice crowd to blame all kinds of ills on "the patriarchy", but, you're not really coming off as credible to blame the dominant gender for orchestrating where the rain falls.
You are right that the African *farmers* are screwed badly by the EU CAP, but their industry and resources are more fucked by the USA and their governmental stability invaded by most of the first world (EU, USA, Russia, mainly). A strong Africa is not so easy to pillage or make beholden to you and a de-facto satellite state.
Talked to anyone from an African country lately? Obviously not. They aren't complaining about western countries these days (or Russia either). Ask them about the Chinese. Sure there are some niches of western companies trying to compete, but mostly they can't. It's loaded with Chinese companies. And they don't bother trying to hire locals.
even the press release cannot mention a single good reason for it except "we have been conned in the past and now must pay the price... for pagination!"
Yea, it actually sounds like they really failed at training. Yes, converting a document from one format to another, I've found, will often give you different page breaks. So... don't rely on the page breaks. You can use hard breaks, document sections, template formats, etc., and not deal with that issue.
Which is fine, but if you're going to use such an edge case to make the claim that one suite of software is superior to the other, you're on thin ice.
But this is not the only edge case, there are lots of them. As the OP said, Libre is fine for most users, especially home users, but many people run into lots of edge cases, and even if their task is doable, it will take more effort and time. For businesses, that means it's costing them money.
But here's where people stop thinking. You weren't actually paying for the phone, the phone company was. Because at the end of 24 months, you're still paying the same monthly rate, and you now own the phone.
And that's why about 2 years ago, AT&T changed their plans and offered a "bring your own phone" discount. Your smart phone rate dropped about $30/mo. if you had or own phone, or bought it on their "next" plan (basically paying for the phone in installments). So under Next, your rate does drop after 24 months (or whatever your schedule was - some phones go to 30 months, some pay off in 18).
This is what unregulated industry looks like. Everybody remember this the next time some libertarian pops off about the market deciding such things, or how there's no such thing as externalities. Making super cheap stuff is easy if you don't have to pay all your costs but can dump them on other people to (in this case literally) suck up.
“It was an a-ha moment when we realized freemium was better-suited for consumer offerings or simplified business functionality for smaller needs.”
I recommend that investors stay away from this company. For the next experiment, they'll be offering taxi service in rural areas, and wondering why they can't sell coats at their beach stores.
Not necessarily. Stupid Synology NAS users fell victim of this.
FTFY. You don't leave it open for Internet access.
This. File system sharing protocols are inherently insecure. Doesn't matter if it's Samba, CIFS, NFS, and whatever Microsoft is calling the Windows version of SMB these days - they all have serious vulnerabilities that can be exploited from a public interface. Don't expose them to the world.
If you want to share files on the public Internet, there are better ways. Lots of ways to do it on a web-based platform. And share copies of stuff, and keep your system isolated. If you are using these Internet-based sharing things for traveling, use some kind of VPN instead.
Back up the horse, AC. I was responding to your post, done anonymously, that criticized anonymous speech. It did. Quoting from your original post:
The problem with the Internet in general is that for some people, the anonymity of it just enables the absolute worst possible behavior in them,... ends up destroying free speech.
No, you didn't call for a ban, specifically. However, you premise was clearly that it was anonymous posting that caused the problem.
jackasses like the two of you being hypocrites yourselves. Either that, or you're just more of the rediculous trolls who infest the Internet, and are here for one reason only: To argue with people for the sole purpose of arguing. Which are you? Or are you part of the horde of hate-mongering assholes that Reddit is kicking to the curb?
Nevermind - I see that you've decided to prove your own point that anonymous posters are typically hate-filled ranters hiding behind anonymity to launch personal attacks because they have nothing useful to say.
the anonymity of it just enables the absolute worst possible behavior in them
He said anonymously...
You can sit there all day long and say 'You have to take the bad with the good', and that's fine and dandy in the abstract, but the reality of that statement, completely unbounded, ends up destroying free speech: extremists end up being louder than everyone else because that's what extremists do.
There are extremists on both sides that do that, and people learn to just tune them out. It doesn't destroy free speech at all. What destroys free speech is banning anonymity. You seem to enjoy it yourself. You've used it to post a thoughtful and interesting comment (even though your premise is wrong).
Anonymous free speech is how the U.S. was founded (even The Federalist Papers were released using nom de plumes). It's how abolitionism took hold. It's how people in repressive regimes expose the extent of the oppression. It's how people with unpopular opinions (that are nevertheless often correct) get their messages heard without getting ostracized and forced into silence. Worse, demanding a positive identity for speech is a form of prior restraint - it can be intimidating.
Slashdot Mirror
Then, you're also seeing the Rand Paul type folks who are willing to jump through the Republican hoops in order to bring a few libertarian ideas to the mainstream. Let's face it. In order to win the Republican presidential nomination, you need to have at least some appeal to the "family values" and "strong defense" contingents in the Republican base. The strategy of compromising principles for political appeal is a huge bone of contention among liberty activists. People willing to go down that road might also appear to be "pseudo-libertarians", but their drift toward the Republican orthodoxy is a matter of practical necessity, not political philosophy.
It certainly seemed like a necessity based on the past outcomes of elections and primaries. But it's not working at all for Rand Paul and other libertarian-leaning candidates that are trying to appear more "mainstream". Instead, the electorate these days is bent on rejecting anything that looks like a mainstream politician. Even the Democrats are leaning that way, with Bernie Sanders polling way higher than any of the political pundits predicted. That says less about Sanders than it does Hillary Clinton - an "insider" that no one views as more trustworthy than any other career politician (yes, Sanders is, in fact, also a career politician, but he has managed to be perceived as an outsider. It's all about the optics.
We are, it seems, on the verge of a populist uprising. Voters have been betrayed so many times and so completely they now realize there is no one in Washington that is listening to their concerns any more. I'm actually surprised there haven't been more of them dumped by voters like Eric Cantor was.
But ... but.. Muh ROADS!
except that it is actually islamophobia
Prove it.
why is it so, so, so important to you for this case not to be islamophobia? why is it so difficult for you to admit that islamophobia exists and is obviously at work here if you have half a fucking brain?
Because it ignores the real issues of our failing public school system and militarized, reactionary police. Making it all about islamophobia (which, yes, of course exists) just plays into the MSM narratives which create conflict for the masses, selling out the people for the benefit of the elites.
Maybe you should read about Beth Van Duyne. It is illuminating to read about her. You might also try reading what the Dallas Morning News (a libertarian/conservative leaning newspaper) has to say about her and the police dept staff. Again it is illuminating. You cann't judge a book by its cover, but you can judge the Irving Texas administration by the words and deeds of its administrator
Well, I did as you suggested. Other than looking into some rumors that a local Mosque may have implemented a Sharia Law court for local Muslims, her biggest claim to fame appears to be pissing off former administration officials and bureaucrats for trying to clear the corruptions and good-old-boy networks from running the city and wasting public money. So, again, nothing there but innuendo and race-card whining bullshit.
I can't agree with her position supporting the school administration and local police, but that has nothing to do with racism - just the over-the-top fear mongering and typical "zero tolerance" overreaction by schools that has been getting increasingly worse over the years. There's plenty of evidence that they do this to ALL the kids, not just Muslims. But, as I mentioned, a preponderance of the evidence doesn't keep people from playing the race card. It's too easy.
oh i'm sorry, you have inside knowledge that ahmed wasn't a victim of anti-muslim bigotry and racism, got it
to assume a brown muslim kid with an electronic doodad getting arrested for a bomb hoax when he said it wasn't a bomb: this wasn't at all motivated by hysteria or fear based on race/ religion. obviously, of course
This is a really easy game to play, isn't it? Any time any minority is treated unfairly, we can claim it's because of bigotry and racism! Win! Nobody can prove the opposite, no evidence to the contrary is adequate.
Let's keep this going as much as possible. We don't want people mixing in with people outside their own group, now do we?
Is it closed source because the Direct Rendering Manager driver has to enforce Digital Restrictions Management in order for things like Netflix to work?
In Soviet Russia, Netflix watches YOU!
That amendment doesn't address sovereign immunity numbnuts
LOL. No, it doesn't but it was used in a very early SCOTUS case as allowing citizens to sue the Federal government when their rights were violated, and it stands today. Back then, people were also trying to sue states based on that, so the Eleventh amendment was created to bar citizens from suing states (granting sovereign immunity to them). That has never applied to the Federal government, or federal employees, when Constitutional rights (even non-enumerated rights) were allegedly violated.
That has nothing to do with it. Sovereign immunity is almost never invoked, because it is unnecessary with the system rigged the way it is. And besides, as long as you can show standing, suits involving Constitutional violations cannot be subject to sovereign immunity - it's part of the Ninth Amendment. Note that this particular suit names several federal agencies, executive officials (ALWAYS subject to torts for Constitutional rights violations), as well as the telecommunications and ISPs involved in the data collections.
Weird isn't it? If I witness a crime and fail to report it, I can get in trouble. But this? WTF? I mean, if a witness has no standing, then his testimony should be worthless.
As a victim of the State, you must prove harm to have standing for redress court. However, the State has no obligation to prove ANY harm to ANYONE to have standing to prosecute YOU.
Seems fair.
I'm assuming you're talking about desalination.
There is that. The bigger issue is transportation. There's plenty of water, just not where we need it at the moment. And we have to restore contaminated water. Time to build some big-ass, nuclear powered tunnel boring machines, and pipe it around like oil, gas, and battery acid. And after bailing out the bankers, I don't want hear anybody crying that we don't have the money. There's plenty of that also, just not where we need it at the moment...
It's not like this is a new problem. Solutions were developed as far back as the 1960's, and many politicians promoted those plans as early as 1978 and warned of the dangers of doing nothing. But nobody listened. And it kept getting worse, and still nobody wanted to invest in it. There just wasn't enough corporate profit in it, politicians can succeed by ignoring it, and there is simply no stomach in the US electorate for taking on some pain to alleviate future problems.
So here we are. Carly Fiorina called out Jerry Brown for decades of needing infrastructure and the blockage of any progress by back-to-nature ideologically opposed to dams, canals, even reservoirs in California, so nothing got built and their paying for it now.
And no, it's not like "Climate change" where huge investments are maybe going to mitigate some warming, how much and whether any of it will work is questionable.
We have proven, practical solutions for storing and transporting water and, yes, even desalination where it's needed (just check out the projects in Dubai). But nothing happens. Worst drought ever in California, and what does the leadership say? Saving water for the future is "utter ignorance". Really? Seems I remember ancient Egyptians even knew enough to store food in case of famine.
There are serious geopolitical ramifications of male changes in rainfall patterns.
Look, I know it's popular among the social justice crowd to blame all kinds of ills on "the patriarchy", but, you're not really coming off as credible to blame the dominant gender for orchestrating where the rain falls.
You are right that the African *farmers* are screwed badly by the EU CAP, but their industry and resources are more fucked by the USA and their governmental stability invaded by most of the first world (EU, USA, Russia, mainly). A strong Africa is not so easy to pillage or make beholden to you and a de-facto satellite state.
Talked to anyone from an African country lately? Obviously not. They aren't complaining about western countries these days (or Russia either). Ask them about the Chinese. Sure there are some niches of western companies trying to compete, but mostly they can't. It's loaded with Chinese companies. And they don't bother trying to hire locals.
even the press release cannot mention a single good reason for it except "we have been conned in the past and now must pay the price... for pagination!"
Yea, it actually sounds like they really failed at training. Yes, converting a document from one format to another, I've found, will often give you different page breaks. So... don't rely on the page breaks. You can use hard breaks, document sections, template formats, etc., and not deal with that issue.
Which is fine, but if you're going to use such an edge case to make the claim that one suite of software is superior to the other, you're on thin ice.
But this is not the only edge case, there are lots of them. As the OP said, Libre is fine for most users, especially home users, but many people run into lots of edge cases, and even if their task is doable, it will take more effort and time. For businesses, that means it's costing them money.
But here's where people stop thinking. You weren't actually paying for the phone, the phone company was. Because at the end of 24 months, you're still paying the same monthly rate, and you now own the phone.
And that's why about 2 years ago, AT&T changed their plans and offered a "bring your own phone" discount. Your smart phone rate dropped about $30 /mo. if you had or own phone, or bought it on their "next" plan (basically paying for the phone in installments). So under Next, your rate does drop after 24 months (or whatever your schedule was - some phones go to 30 months, some pay off in 18).
If this were at all relevant, why is the CO2 increasing rather than plants doing more converting and keeping the number stable?
If you guys would stop eating them, we might find out!
I'd like to see it used on claims made in religious articles.
I'm confused. Are you saying you want scientists to comment on religious dogma, or are you saying you want theologians commenting on science articles?
This is what unregulated industry looks like. Everybody remember this the next time some libertarian pops off about the market deciding such things, or how there's no such thing as externalities. Making super cheap stuff is easy if you don't have to pay all your costs but can dump them on other people to (in this case literally) suck up.
But.. but. Muh roads!!
Note 1: Large business should not use Visual Studio Community due to licensing.
Actually, large business CANNOT use Visual Studio Community due to licensing. Not for anything productive, anyway.
FTFA:
“It was an a-ha moment when we realized freemium was better-suited for consumer offerings or simplified business functionality for smaller needs.”
I recommend that investors stay away from this company. For the next experiment, they'll be offering taxi service in rural areas, and wondering why they can't sell coats at their beach stores.
Not necessarily. Stupid Synology NAS users fell victim of this.
FTFY. You don't leave it open for Internet access.
This. File system sharing protocols are inherently insecure. Doesn't matter if it's Samba, CIFS, NFS, and whatever Microsoft is calling the Windows version of SMB these days - they all have serious vulnerabilities that can be exploited from a public interface. Don't expose them to the world.
If you want to share files on the public Internet, there are better ways. Lots of ways to do it on a web-based platform. And share copies of stuff, and keep your system isolated. If you are using these Internet-based sharing things for traveling, use some kind of VPN instead.
FTFY.
Didn't you get the memo? It's not the South that's standing in the way of the Progressive New World Order any more, it's "Rurl 'Merica".
Back up the horse, AC. I was responding to your post, done anonymously, that criticized anonymous speech. It did. Quoting from your original post:
The problem with the Internet in general is that for some people, the anonymity of it just enables the absolute worst possible behavior in them, ... ends up destroying free speech.
No, you didn't call for a ban, specifically. However, you premise was clearly that it was anonymous posting that caused the problem.
jackasses like the two of you being hypocrites yourselves. Either that, or you're just more of the rediculous trolls who infest the Internet, and are here for one reason only: To argue with people for the sole purpose of arguing. Which are you? Or are you part of the horde of hate-mongering assholes that Reddit is kicking to the curb?
Nevermind - I see that you've decided to prove your own point that anonymous posters are typically hate-filled ranters hiding behind anonymity to launch personal attacks because they have nothing useful to say.
the anonymity of it just enables the absolute worst possible behavior in them
He said anonymously...
You can sit there all day long and say 'You have to take the bad with the good', and that's fine and dandy in the abstract, but the reality of that statement, completely unbounded, ends up destroying free speech: extremists end up being louder than everyone else because that's what extremists do.
There are extremists on both sides that do that, and people learn to just tune them out. It doesn't destroy free speech at all. What destroys free speech is banning anonymity. You seem to enjoy it yourself. You've used it to post a thoughtful and interesting comment (even though your premise is wrong).
Anonymous free speech is how the U.S. was founded (even The Federalist Papers were released using nom de plumes). It's how abolitionism took hold. It's how people in repressive regimes expose the extent of the oppression. It's how people with unpopular opinions (that are nevertheless often correct) get their messages heard without getting ostracized and forced into silence. Worse, demanding a positive identity for speech is a form of prior restraint - it can be intimidating.