On the developer side not its not probably that much harder to make the games able to support a range, all be it a limited one, of hardware.
On the consumer side though, I am not thrilled. I know many will disagree with me but I liked the least common denominator aspect of consoles. It meant that you could go to the store bring the game home and just play it. It worked and played the way it did in the store or on the TV commercial. Granny just had to understand little Timmy has a PlayStation and this is a PlayStation title to buy him a birthday gift.
Now its going to be back to the world of PC games. Where you have to buy the thing to find out it runs all choppy on your hardware or many of the cool visual effects are disabled etc. Now its back to having to go read a bunch of forums to see if Grand Theft Auto 19 is actually worth playing on my PlayStation 9 model 1B+ or if I really have to go invest in a PlayStation 9 model 2X or maybe a PlayStation 9 model 2X+ to enjoy it.
I don't see this as being terribly good for consumers.
So what if they do? I have been pretty against systemd and I still think there is plenty to dislike about it. I use Slackware on my personal stuff to avoid. I have found it has caused far more problems than it solves at work. It seems like something that might be alright for your laptop but I don't think it makes much of any sense for my servers with long uptimes.
With all that said, there is nothing magical about mount. Its basically it self just a thin wrapper around some syscalls. Who cares? If busybox was used to mount the root filesystem in your initrd rather than gnu mount would you freak out? I don't see this one being much of an issue.
All of those things you suggest are either reusable or durable. The military wants something that is neither. They want something they have blow up because that way they get something they can keep buying over and over again, so their procurement guys keep getting their kick backs. Congress persons want something they can blow up because its continuous stream of pork to their district.
The waving in rules vary from state to state as well. I can't give you a list of which but in some parts of the country if you wave someone YOU take responsibility for it being safe for them to proceed.
ime someone waves you ahead and then tries running into you because you are failing to yield them the right of way
In some places the accident would be considered their fault at least if you could find a whiteness to say, "he waved that guy"
I am saying its right to break into someones private files and publishing them but the victims are not blameless.
My mother always told me never write something down you don't want others to read. The same logical applies to taking photos. If these people had not been photoing themselves for the sake of lewd behavior like sexting etc the leaks could not have happened.
Again I am not saying they did anything ethically wrong, morally perhaps but not really a concern of ours, but they did do something inherently risky. When you do something risky, sometimes you lose.
That just isn't true. Obama from the moment he took office essentially ignored Nouri al-Maliki his executive counter part, who desperately wanted to work the US and have our help. His problem was he could not get a lot of backing for his legislature on the status of forces agreement. Obama knows a thing or two about executive power, there was a lot he could have done before the agreement expired that he/we did not do to complete the training of forces the pacifying of very rebel groups. Obama started bring troops home pretty much the day he took office with little regard for completing the mission. It was his administration and Hillary's state department that set al-Maliki up for failure. The fact is early in the Obama presidency he was not interested in Iraq and had campaigned on leveling. He even took credit for 'getting us out' despite the fact that it was Bush's status of forces agreement that was expiring, at the time it was presented as Obama delivering on a campaign promise, suddenly Bush owned it again when it was revealed to have been premature.
Had al-Maliki been seen as stronger and more successful he might have the political capital at home to go after the conditions we required for the status of forces, namely legal immunity for our troops. We could have worked to make the the case but Obama did not do so.
Its also true that we still could have very much 'told' the Iraqi government, "look this is how it is," yes that would have crossed a line making us an occupying force but none the less we *could* have done it and I think in retrospect perhaps we should have.
Now what would be really cool is if there was some voice to text interface that maybe made each sentence clickable or something and could start playing the audio from that point.
4. In VA at least, if there is a cop car on the side of a two lane the road you are required to move over when passing them. So how does the system spot that?
Its a little worse than that even, see that rule is actually suffixed with "if it is safe to do so" or similar language. IE if you have cut 2' in front of someone's bumper in traffic at speed to do so, you should not actually do it. There is a lot of subjective decision making in driving. What I just described might not be safe at 70mph on the interstate or it might be if that person has acknowledged you and is waving you in. The mixture of automated drivers and humans is going to prove interesting.
but governments seem to finally be stopping it which is good
No its not good. Its interference in the free market place by government, where it isn't needed and simply curtails freedom of individuals. The taxi industry should simply be deregulated. If someone wants the protection and safety afforded by a company that has vetted drivers, commercial insurance, vehicles subject to additional safety inspections etc, fine they can pay for that. If I am cool jumping in a car driven by "some guy" in "a car" and depending on my own medical coverage (which dear old uncle same forced me to carry now) in the event of an accident that should be my call!
I should have the right to decide if I feel comfortable and capable assuming total responsibility for my safety and protection or if I want to hire an organization that will take on some of that instead. I should have the right to assume whatever risk I want, as should everyone else. If it turns out there is no market for the level of protection traditional taxi and livery companies provide - well there is your answer society dose not value or need them. I don't think this will be the case though.
I certainly don't use Uber or Lyft outside my home town where I have people to call and I know the geography ( so I could tell if I was being taken somewhere other than where I asked to go ). I always use a traditional cab or car service when traveling.
I think only a crazy person would use it in a city they don't know. I mean really get in a car (with no identifying marks) driven by a total stranger (who probably has not even had a background check) who can drive you to the "wrong side of the tracks" before you are able to recognize anything is wrong, where he gets out and six of his buddies beat you senseless CCW or no, that is stupid. If someone wants to do that though, to save a buck that is there business.
Objective: Eliminate the need for drivers from our livery service to obtain cost savings and reduce personnel overhead utilizing automation technology.
Proposed solution: The self driving solution will operate the vehicle however requires and engineer to be present and able to take over driving and operation of key systems as required. Additional a co-pilot shall be present to record events and assist the engineer as required.
Progress!
*I get the presence of the engineer and co-pilot are temporary its still kinda funny though, they have replaced a low skill driver with an engineer, and probably someone with similar training/qualification as the former driver to be co-pilot.
The facts are there was no provision for impeachment of a sitting president under their constitution at the time, and yet it happened.
It does not matter they guy was corrupt and in the pocket of the Russians, a coup is still a coup. The rule of law should matter. The people should live with the consequences of who they voted for or use a predefined process for impeachment or recall. You don't get to make one up after the fact.
We saw the same thing with the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Are the people there better off having removed them, oh probably but it was NOT legal or democratic.
What is even worse is in the case of both Ukraine and Egypt we violate our own laws and sacrifice our own integrity continuing to provide aide and honor treaties with these countries after these coups have occured, despite the fact our laws say we can't do that. We could/should probably recognize the new governments as new governments and consider it a diplomatic reset, but that is bad for business and our State Department / Congress is lazy and corrupt itself.
I have to agree with you. From the quick google search I did possession and distribution of CP is prima facie illegal in the US. There are no special exceptions for LEOs conducting strings. Obviously we have a big general exception for storage of evidence etc, maybe it was the Aussies that did most of the objectionable hosting etc but its still highly questionable for the DOJ to cooperate in an investigation using such methods. If that is "ok to do" than pretty much all the DOJ need do is find some banana republic somewhere to hire some work out to and basically anything they do on the Internet is suddenly above and beyond the reach of law.
The other issue is hacking suspects computers without a search warrant seems like a plain violation of the CFAA to me. So again the feds cooperating with an other nation using such methods should be illegal as they are accessories to the crime.
If Law Enforcement can't follow the law the rest of us should not have to either.
I think the grandparents point was you don't sue John Doe who wrote an article falsely accusing you of being child molester for People Magazine, you sue People Magazine for publishing it.
I think the GP is proposing the Twitter be held to similar editorial standards. IE if John Doe posts some libelous comment about John Smith, Smith's beef should be with Twitter not with Doe directly. I actually agree. When you consider our current libel and slander laws take into account the credibility of the person making the claims and their ability to do harm to the victim, in terms of swaying the opinions of others; Twitter is the guilty party. Its Twitter that is providing the platform to reach millions of eyeballs. Twitter isn't like a hosting provider letting you publish their own site. They are using the content in their own publication, with their logo all over it, and they are the one making money off the ads and clicks.
Now if the law is viewed in this way it probably means Twitter, Facebook, maybe even Slashdot and online forums can't continue to exist because they can't police all their content and would be sued into oblivion. I would miss Slashdot and a handful of technical formums, but as far as the rest of the Internet goes little of value would be lost.
So the need a reputation system of some kind, or to prominently display account create dates and number of posts, perhaps number of followers that person has anywhere their content is displayed when on their own feed or elsewhere.
People need to learn not to take the opinions and statements of someone who is essentially and Anonymous Coward to seriously. I am not suggesting they go as far as real name policy, but at least people maintaining a persona for a period of time have some investment in reputation. Presumably they care if people are listening, so they are less likely to harass others and be inflammatory for its own sake, unless the persona itself is designed to be an inflammatory type, in which case most normal intelligent people will recognize a provocateur ( like @nearo ) and treat their speech accordingly.
Twitter needs to make it easy for regular folks to identify people who have opinions that matter from the digital equivalent of the crazy dude ranting in the park about who shot JFK.
Don't use Twatter myself so I am not going to have the correct terms but the miss feature is clearly letting other people's content appear on your feed.
Their mistake was making it a conversation platform rather than a status posting platform. Maybe nobody would be interested if you could not converse but that is the root of what creates a situation where content can be associated with you that you don't control.
Which I assume is people's real objection to the 'abuse' Its not that someone wrote something mean and sent it to them, its that the entire world can read it.
You realize that TCP/IP is a layer 3/4 protocol while token is a layer 1/2 protocol as such they have nothing to do with each other really. The first networks I installed were TCP/IP over token.
Come one GoldenEye sucked, sure it was maybe the best console shooter out there but the experience was awful compared to shooters on the PC at that time. The game play was slow, the movement ponderous.
Anyone who had played a BUILD engine game on PC would have found GoldenEye virtually unplayable.
Apps might not be an issue. If Google can port the JVM to this thing than most of the Android stack could come along with it, mostly effort free. That would give you Android just hosted on a different kernel. The only things that would not be compatible would be 'native' apps.
So Google would have a huge library of existing software if that is what is being planned.
I'll take Trump's trade wars over Hillary's shooting kind any day. Hillary is an interventionist. She is essentially Bush Jr in every respect when it comes to international policy. She is boosum buddies with Ghouls like Henry Kissinger. Both Libya and Syria were as ill informed and badly executed as Iraq and Afghanistan. Only they were more illegal because congress never approved either. As far as I can glean from any public statement HRC has made her position is "Would do again."
Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe. The media isnt telling the truth, she alluded to profiting from a possible Obama assassination during her campaign in 2008. Arguable it was more specific implied threat than Trump made recently but for some reason its okay when she dose it. Yet the media portrays Trump as the Thug in this election. They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.
So you agree with me then? We need to be prepared for the fact climate is changing and plan to take some positive action to address it rather than passive ones like just cutting emissions?
The thing is Trump or his political team, Paul Manafort isn't stupid, could make some arguments to salvage even attacking the Khan there are some intelligent and arguments to be made. Trump could argue being a gold star parent should not make the guy immune from criticism. We don't hold children responsible for the sins of the father so why would we allow the father to cloak himself in the virtue of the son? The Constitutional argument Khan makes is incorrect based on a number SCOTUS decisions, and US law does currently allow the president by proclamation to deny any group entry into the US the president believes would be detrimental to the United States. So Trump does not need congress if elected, its already done. The Muslim ban would be both Constitutional and legal under US as its generally understood today.
Trump could easily be primed to make these arguments even if he is to bone headed to think of them on his own and won't do the home work. The fact that he continues to flub interview after interview on these subjects is frankly astonishing. I don't understand why the great delegator does not grab someone in his campaign office and say "I need a solid rebuttal to the criticism I am getting over my Khan comments brief me in hour." Its like he does not actually want to be prepared or is so conceited he thinks he can convince everyone he is right with his next unrehearsed, un-researched comment.
So I am with you. He has either gone off the rails or he is not really trying to win, can't tell which. I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era, so I want very much to be a Trump apologist but he is making it really really hard lately.
EXACTLY - the supposed lack of fact checking is a left wing lie to try to discredit right leaning less traditional media sources they don't control. This idea that fact checking is dead is easily tested.
Look back on the massive conspiracy to conceal what was going on in Vietnam so that LBJ could defeat Gold Water and push a bunch of Great Society bullshit through before the shit hit the fan. There was plenty of available evidence to suggest that either there was going to be a total victory for the Communists or required American ground intervention long before the election. The State Department and the media collaborated to hide and distort the facts.
Arguably the SAME thing was done with Benghazi weeks before the 2012 election. It was obvious that Obama and Hillary's war ( excuse me, kinetic military action ) there was going as badly as Bush Jr's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were going. Which was just the sort of thing that might have move things a few % in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virgina radically altering the way the electoral map was shaping up, so the media allowed the distorted story to go unchecked.
Its sorta like how none of the talking heads ever bother to point out that Libya is/was an illegal war because it went longer than the War Powers Act allows and was never authorized. Now maybe you can make the argument that is because Congress was to craven to hold a vote, but that does not change the fact continued action there past sixty days was criminal act; the bombs should have stopped falling. Its the same with the bizzarly accepted fiction the AUMF which authorized action against Al Qaeda someone includes ISIS because they are the 'same group' while ignoring the fact that none of intelligence and strategic people treat it that way. Pretty much everything we have done in Syria is also illegal. The media never spends anytime on this they but they are happy to let people say "Bush lied, people died" on air all day long. Whatever you think about the merits of that intelligence and those wars they were authorized wars, that is an import fact and contrast that should be presented and almost never is.
Slashdot Mirror
On the developer side not its not probably that much harder to make the games able to support a range, all be it a limited one, of hardware.
On the consumer side though, I am not thrilled. I know many will disagree with me but I liked the least common denominator aspect of consoles. It meant that you could go to the store bring the game home and just play it. It worked and played the way it did in the store or on the TV commercial. Granny just had to understand little Timmy has a PlayStation and this is a PlayStation title to buy him a birthday gift.
Now its going to be back to the world of PC games. Where you have to buy the thing to find out it runs all choppy on your hardware or many of the cool visual effects are disabled etc. Now its back to having to go read a bunch of forums to see if Grand Theft Auto 19 is actually worth playing on my PlayStation 9 model 1B+ or if I really have to go invest in a PlayStation 9 model 2X or maybe a PlayStation 9 model 2X+ to enjoy it.
I don't see this as being terribly good for consumers.
So what if they do? I have been pretty against systemd and I still think there is plenty to dislike about it. I use Slackware on my personal stuff to avoid. I have found it has caused far more problems than it solves at work. It seems like something that might be alright for your laptop but I don't think it makes much of any sense for my servers with long uptimes.
With all that said, there is nothing magical about mount. Its basically it self just a thin wrapper around some syscalls. Who cares? If busybox was used to mount the root filesystem in your initrd rather than gnu mount would you freak out? I don't see this one being much of an issue.
All of those things you suggest are either reusable or durable. The military wants something that is neither. They want something they have blow up because that way they get something they can keep buying over and over again, so their procurement guys keep getting their kick backs. Congress persons want something they can blow up because its continuous stream of pork to their district.
Once we have found the poor what is the next step? Drone Strike?
The waving in rules vary from state to state as well. I can't give you a list of which but in some parts of the country if you wave someone YOU take responsibility for it being safe for them to proceed.
ime someone waves you ahead and then tries running into you because you are failing to yield them the right of way
In some places the accident would be considered their fault at least if you could find a whiteness to say, "he waved that guy"
not absolve you of debt
Not true the court may absolve all or part of an obligation, especially if its clear you will never have the ability to pay.
I am saying its right to break into someones private files and publishing them but the victims are not blameless.
My mother always told me never write something down you don't want others to read. The same logical applies to taking photos. If these people had not been photoing themselves for the sake of lewd behavior like sexting etc the leaks could not have happened.
Again I am not saying they did anything ethically wrong, morally perhaps but not really a concern of ours, but they did do something inherently risky. When you do something risky, sometimes you lose.
Obama stalled it as long as he could
That just isn't true. Obama from the moment he took office essentially ignored Nouri al-Maliki his executive counter part, who desperately wanted to work the US and have our help. His problem was he could not get a lot of backing for his legislature on the status of forces agreement. Obama knows a thing or two about executive power, there was a lot he could have done before the agreement expired that he/we did not do to complete the training of forces the pacifying of very rebel groups. Obama started bring troops home pretty much the day he took office with little regard for completing the mission. It was his administration and Hillary's state department that set al-Maliki up for failure. The fact is early in the Obama presidency he was not interested in Iraq and had campaigned on leveling. He even took credit for 'getting us out' despite the fact that it was Bush's status of forces agreement that was expiring, at the time it was presented as Obama delivering on a campaign promise, suddenly Bush owned it again when it was revealed to have been premature.
Had al-Maliki been seen as stronger and more successful he might have the political capital at home to go after the conditions we required for the status of forces, namely legal immunity for our troops. We could have worked to make the the case but Obama did not do so.
Its also true that we still could have very much 'told' the Iraqi government, "look this is how it is," yes that would have crossed a line making us an occupying force but none the less we *could* have done it and I think in retrospect perhaps we should have.
So its perfectly fair.
Now what would be really cool is if there was some voice to text interface that maybe made each sentence clickable or something and could start playing the audio from that point.
4. In VA at least, if there is a cop car on the side of a two lane the road you are required to move over when passing them. So how does the system spot that?
Its a little worse than that even, see that rule is actually suffixed with "if it is safe to do so" or similar language. IE if you have cut 2' in front of someone's bumper in traffic at speed to do so, you should not actually do it. There is a lot of subjective decision making in driving. What I just described might not be safe at 70mph on the interstate or it might be if that person has acknowledged you and is waving you in. The mixture of automated drivers and humans is going to prove interesting.
but governments seem to finally be stopping it which is good
No its not good. Its interference in the free market place by government, where it isn't needed and simply curtails freedom of individuals. The taxi industry should simply be deregulated. If someone wants the protection and safety afforded by a company that has vetted drivers, commercial insurance, vehicles subject to additional safety inspections etc, fine they can pay for that. If I am cool jumping in a car driven by "some guy" in "a car" and depending on my own medical coverage (which dear old uncle same forced me to carry now) in the event of an accident that should be my call!
I should have the right to decide if I feel comfortable and capable assuming total responsibility for my safety and protection or if I want to hire an organization that will take on some of that instead. I should have the right to assume whatever risk I want, as should everyone else. If it turns out there is no market for the level of protection traditional taxi and livery companies provide - well there is your answer society dose not value or need them. I don't think this will be the case though.
I certainly don't use Uber or Lyft outside my home town where I have people to call and I know the geography ( so I could tell if I was being taken somewhere other than where I asked to go ). I always use a traditional cab or car service when traveling.
I think only a crazy person would use it in a city they don't know. I mean really get in a car (with no identifying marks) driven by a total stranger (who probably has not even had a background check) who can drive you to the "wrong side of the tracks" before you are able to recognize anything is wrong, where he gets out and six of his buddies beat you senseless CCW or no, that is stupid. If someone wants to do that though, to save a buck that is there business.
Objective: Eliminate the need for drivers from our livery service to obtain cost savings and reduce personnel overhead utilizing automation technology.
Proposed solution: The self driving solution will operate the vehicle however requires and engineer to be present and able to take over driving and operation of key systems as required. Additional a co-pilot shall be present to record events and assist the engineer as required.
Progress!
*I get the presence of the engineer and co-pilot are temporary its still kinda funny though, they have replaced a low skill driver with an engineer, and probably someone with similar training/qualification as the former driver to be co-pilot.
That isn't fair criticism.
The facts are there was no provision for impeachment of a sitting president under their constitution at the time, and yet it happened.
It does not matter they guy was corrupt and in the pocket of the Russians, a coup is still a coup. The rule of law should matter. The people should live with the consequences of who they voted for or use a predefined process for impeachment or recall. You don't get to make one up after the fact.
We saw the same thing with the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Are the people there better off having removed them, oh probably but it was NOT legal or democratic.
What is even worse is in the case of both Ukraine and Egypt we violate our own laws and sacrifice our own integrity continuing to provide aide and honor treaties with these countries after these coups have occured, despite the fact our laws say we can't do that. We could/should probably recognize the new governments as new governments and consider it a diplomatic reset, but that is bad for business and our State Department / Congress is lazy and corrupt itself.
I have to agree with you. From the quick google search I did possession and distribution of CP is prima facie illegal in the US. There are no special exceptions for LEOs conducting strings. Obviously we have a big general exception for storage of evidence etc, maybe it was the Aussies that did most of the objectionable hosting etc but its still highly questionable for the DOJ to cooperate in an investigation using such methods. If that is "ok to do" than pretty much all the DOJ need do is find some banana republic somewhere to hire some work out to and basically anything they do on the Internet is suddenly above and beyond the reach of law.
The other issue is hacking suspects computers without a search warrant seems like a plain violation of the CFAA to me. So again the feds cooperating with an other nation using such methods should be illegal as they are accessories to the crime.
If Law Enforcement can't follow the law the rest of us should not have to either.
I think the grandparents point was you don't sue John Doe who wrote an article falsely accusing you of being child molester for People Magazine, you sue People Magazine for publishing it.
I think the GP is proposing the Twitter be held to similar editorial standards. IE if John Doe posts some libelous comment about John Smith, Smith's beef should be with Twitter not with Doe directly. I actually agree. When you consider our current libel and slander laws take into account the credibility of the person making the claims and their ability to do harm to the victim, in terms of swaying the opinions of others; Twitter is the guilty party. Its Twitter that is providing the platform to reach millions of eyeballs. Twitter isn't like a hosting provider letting you publish their own site. They are using the content in their own publication, with their logo all over it, and they are the one making money off the ads and clicks.
Now if the law is viewed in this way it probably means Twitter, Facebook, maybe even Slashdot and online forums can't continue to exist because they can't police all their content and would be sued into oblivion. I would miss Slashdot and a handful of technical formums, but as far as the rest of the Internet goes little of value would be lost.
So the need a reputation system of some kind, or to prominently display account create dates and number of posts, perhaps number of followers that person has anywhere their content is displayed when on their own feed or elsewhere.
People need to learn not to take the opinions and statements of someone who is essentially and Anonymous Coward to seriously. I am not suggesting they go as far as real name policy, but at least people maintaining a persona for a period of time have some investment in reputation. Presumably they care if people are listening, so they are less likely to harass others and be inflammatory for its own sake, unless the persona itself is designed to be an inflammatory type, in which case most normal intelligent people will recognize a provocateur ( like @nearo ) and treat their speech accordingly.
Twitter needs to make it easy for regular folks to identify people who have opinions that matter from the digital equivalent of the crazy dude ranting in the park about who shot JFK.
Don't use Twatter myself so I am not going to have the correct terms but the miss feature is clearly letting other people's content appear on your feed.
Their mistake was making it a conversation platform rather than a status posting platform. Maybe nobody would be interested if you could not converse but that is the root of what creates a situation where content can be associated with you that you don't control.
Which I assume is people's real objection to the 'abuse' Its not that someone wrote something mean and sent it to them, its that the entire world can read it.
You realize that TCP/IP is a layer 3/4 protocol while token is a layer 1/2 protocol as such they have nothing to do with each other really. The first networks I installed were TCP/IP over token.
Come one GoldenEye sucked, sure it was maybe the best console shooter out there but the experience was awful compared to shooters on the PC at that time. The game play was slow, the movement ponderous.
Anyone who had played a BUILD engine game on PC would have found GoldenEye virtually unplayable.
Apps might not be an issue. If Google can port the JVM to this thing than most of the Android stack could come along with it, mostly effort free. That would give you Android just hosted on a different kernel. The only things that would not be compatible would be 'native' apps.
So Google would have a huge library of existing software if that is what is being planned.
Sounds like RIghtsCorp is trying to interfere with a contract they are not a party to, one between you and the ISP.
Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.
I'll take Trump's trade wars over Hillary's shooting kind any day. Hillary is an interventionist. She is essentially Bush Jr in every respect when it comes to international policy. She is boosum buddies with Ghouls like Henry Kissinger. Both Libya and Syria were as ill informed and badly executed as Iraq and Afghanistan. Only they were more illegal because congress never approved either. As far as I can glean from any public statement HRC has made her position is "Would do again."
Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe. The media isnt telling the truth, she alluded to profiting from a possible Obama assassination during her campaign in 2008. Arguable it was more specific implied threat than Trump made recently but for some reason its okay when she dose it. Yet the media portrays Trump as the Thug in this election. They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.
So you agree with me then? We need to be prepared for the fact climate is changing and plan to take some positive action to address it rather than passive ones like just cutting emissions?
The thing is Trump or his political team, Paul Manafort isn't stupid, could make some arguments to salvage even attacking the Khan there are some intelligent and arguments to be made. Trump could argue being a gold star parent should not make the guy immune from criticism. We don't hold children responsible for the sins of the father so why would we allow the father to cloak himself in the virtue of the son? The Constitutional argument Khan makes is incorrect based on a number SCOTUS decisions, and US law does currently allow the president by proclamation to deny any group entry into the US the president believes would be detrimental to the United States. So Trump does not need congress if elected, its already done. The Muslim ban would be both Constitutional and legal under US as its generally understood today.
Trump could easily be primed to make these arguments even if he is to bone headed to think of them on his own and won't do the home work. The fact that he continues to flub interview after interview on these subjects is frankly astonishing. I don't understand why the great delegator does not grab someone in his campaign office and say "I need a solid rebuttal to the criticism I am getting over my Khan comments brief me in hour." Its like he does not actually want to be prepared or is so conceited he thinks he can convince everyone he is right with his next unrehearsed, un-researched comment.
So I am with you. He has either gone off the rails or he is not really trying to win, can't tell which. I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era, so I want very much to be a Trump apologist but he is making it really really hard lately.
EXACTLY - the supposed lack of fact checking is a left wing lie to try to discredit right leaning less traditional media sources they don't control. This idea that fact checking is dead is easily tested.
Look back on the massive conspiracy to conceal what was going on in Vietnam so that LBJ could defeat Gold Water and push a bunch of Great Society bullshit through before the shit hit the fan. There was plenty of available evidence to suggest that either there was going to be a total victory for the Communists or required American ground intervention long before the election. The State Department and the media collaborated to hide and distort the facts.
Arguably the SAME thing was done with Benghazi weeks before the 2012 election. It was obvious that Obama and Hillary's war ( excuse me, kinetic military action ) there was going as badly as Bush Jr's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were going. Which was just the sort of thing that might have move things a few % in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virgina radically altering the way the electoral map was shaping up, so the media allowed the distorted story to go unchecked.
Its sorta like how none of the talking heads ever bother to point out that Libya is/was an illegal war because it went longer than the War Powers Act allows and was never authorized. Now maybe you can make the argument that is because Congress was to craven to hold a vote, but that does not change the fact continued action there past sixty days was criminal act; the bombs should have stopped falling. Its the same with the bizzarly accepted fiction the AUMF which authorized action against Al Qaeda someone includes ISIS because they are the 'same group' while ignoring the fact that none of intelligence and strategic people treat it that way. Pretty much everything we have done in Syria is also illegal. The media never spends anytime on this they but they are happy to let people say "Bush lied, people died" on air all day long. Whatever you think about the merits of that intelligence and those wars they were authorized wars, that is an import fact and contrast that should be presented and almost never is.