>"As consumers continue to demand greater storage for their cameras, the combination of high-speed performance with a 1TB option now offers a solution for content creators who shoot large volumes of high-resolution images and 4K video."
The better use case is for laptops, tablets, phones and such devices, not cameras. Photographs- a cheap 128GB SD card stores many, many hundreds of super-high quality photos, which you then unload onto a computer and wipe. Far more capacity than anyone would ever want to trust or need on a single card (which is also easy to change). Even the most elaborate weddings I can make due with two 128GB cards. Video- perhaps, but 256GB is a LOT of 1080P footage. Again, how much to trust on one card? But on a laptop, it makes a wonderful media card to have lots of replaceable (not critical) music, photos, movies, etc, and also for backup. You can only mount and keep a single card active and "home" in the device, so having a lot of space is very useful.
>"Listen Netflix. This is your best feature. It's why I signed up. If you add hoops, captchas, and other DRMish garbage, I'm cancelling my service"
I don't share my account *or* viewing with ANYONE, and yet I have to pay the same as someone like you, who supports several people using it a whole lot. Or the people who share their account with several friends. So, to me, I would love it if other people were more restricted and paid for their increased usage such that my price could go down by half or less and Netflix still does fine or better (INCLUDING those extreme users who drop it completely). For all those who drop, they could possibly gain far more users willing to pay $5/mo who were not willing to pay $11 or whatnot. I have no data to support that, either way.
Of course, it won't necessarily work out that way, they could just keep the same pricing AND enforce less use, where everyone loses. I am just making the point that what is a "great deal" for many, is a "sucky deal" for others who use it a total of just several hours a month on a single device. It is the same thing with cable- all the advertising is about "A single charge for your whole household and unlimited TV's!! Great Value!" Again, I have one person and one TV. So for me, it is the absolute worst possible deal. I am, in essence, subsidizing it for all the multi-person households by paying 200% to 500% more per person than they are.
>"Sure its a neat little thing now but how long till the Powers that Be decide its good enough and we don't 'need' real meat anymore which will become illegal?"
And in a reverse twist, as a semi-vegetarian (no meat or seafood, but yes poultry) for 80% of my life, I can't stand the smell or taste of meat and if these newer non-meat things smell or taste too much like meat and become popular, they might push out the products that I DO like.... high-protein, non-animal products that don't try to be meat. One good example is the truly excellent Morning Star Farms "Garden Veggie Patty".
>"I don't trust that startpage.com can have zero tracking by Google and here's why. About 75% of web sites have some sort of traffic monitoring aid or ad source that relates in some way back to Google"
That is a good point, but it is why it is best to combine it with Firefox, with tracking limiting controls enabled:)
>"Piracy is currently by far and away the best solution..."
It just has that problem of being illegal. So it is only "best" for the consumer, not the producer, not for the economy. And the more people who get their content that way, the less content will be created. So content will be more expensive, created less, and of lower quality.
Let's face it- while many people who pirate do so to be free of restrictions, many do it because they just don't want to pay for content. The interesting part, though, is that piracy does put price and restrictions pressure on content creators to help keep them in check.
>"The break even point is about 2 months of cable for all of the above."
The problem is that most streaming video (outside of Netflix) either doesn't get the content I want, or has forced commercials. I won't do commercials- EVER. With cable, I get the content I want and with TiVo, nothing [like commercials] is forced. And I have the bonus of TONS of local content that is ready to play and skip around without any delays or streaming problems or dependency on a working Internet connection. AND I don't have to watch 5, 10, or 30 seconds of poor quality video while it figures out I have a lot of bandwidth available and scales up. AND I can instantly move forward or backward and slow-mo and frame-by-frame- things that rarely work well (or at all) with streaming. AND when I have something recorded- it is MINE. It won't disappear a day or month or year later when I am ready to watch or (or a series) as I have had happen with streaming (when, at a whim, something can be dropped or pulled). AND I don't have to deal with the typically HORRIBLE user interfaces that many of the streaming stuff use (including Netflix).
I say all this because people on Slashdot often make the mistake of thinking that streaming is so perfect in every way compared to cable + DVR, and it is not. It has downsides too. Its best upside is (besides price)- if a program remains available, you can watch it NOW, without having to make sure it is recorded at some point (especially when you discover a new series too late and miss the first episodes).
Now, perhaps this has changed since 2 years ago when I last checked... but I doubt it. So although I am pissed at paying so much for the 8 or so channels I watch consistently (out of the HUNDREDS of others I have to subsidize for others), it doesn't seem I have the alternative I want, yet.
>"At times like that, when getting the result is more important to me than watching my privacy, then I'll use a !g and try Google if I come up dry on Duckduckgo."
>"The problem with DuckDuckGo is that, when it comes to searching, it simply sucks. I used it as my default search engine for a week, and I had to return to Google"
>"Samsung smart TVs run Tizen, Samsung's wacky custom operating system."
Um, it isn't "wacky" nor really "custom". It is a Linux distro developed by the Linux Foundation. You know, one of the most important supporting organizations for one of the most important and widely used operating systems in the world.
Tizen can also run Android apps (with a compatibility layer). It is true that Samsung is the only one who is making LOTS of use of it right now. And since Apple already supports Android for iTunes, it shouldn't be a huge feat to make it run in Tizen.
>"Typically, they are. If they ask the harasser to leave, or call the cops, then they have fulfilled the responsibility. If they simply watch Person B getting harassed then the restaurant is liable."
Correct. Because extending the liability further than that will have a HUGE chilling effect on everything. And platforms will start insisting on more and more "verification" on who someone is- which will destroy the ability of anonymous or semi-anonymous participation on any platform and further increase tracking and the power and possible abuse by the platforms, themselves.
>"Cost was initially a major factor for me. With gas/oil, mandatory insurance, parking, maintenance, tickets and the vehicle itself, I estimated I saved $10-12K a year not having a vehicle."
My assumption is/was that most people just can't adequately survive without also having a car (I have a car, motorcycle, and bicycle). Especially led that way in my response based on the silliness of the summary saying "saving gas" (which implies they have a car and choose not to use it). I probably should have specified that in my original posting. Sorry about that.
>"Experts offered several explanations for the nationwide decrease that has unfolded even as cities spent millions trying to become more bike-friendly. Most obviously, lower gasoline prices and a stronger economy contributed to strong auto sales and less interest in cheaper alternatives, such as mass transit and bikes."
No. Who are these "experts"??
Almost nobody rides a bike to work to "save gas." For most, if he/she is within easy biking range, that doesn't amount to much gas. And it isn't cost either. Those biking do so primarily for exercise, possible enjoyment, and in some cases to reduce wear on their car (short start/stop trips are rough on ICE cars, plus they sit in the sun parked all day). For most it is certainly not as fast or convenient, especially in bad weather. And it is often very unsafe, certainly if it requires ANY riding on major/busy roads.
I bike almost every day to work and have for many years, but I also live 0.5mi from work. Yes, I also sometimes walk, but typically want to get there/home faster and also biking deters being stopped for conversations with neighbors:)
Republicans Conservative. More conservative than Democrats, yes, but far from where many conservatives would want to be. The R and D parties are now both corrupt beyond hope when it comes to cronyism. And, thus, spending is and has been out of control.
I would not agree with at all, either. Many racists are fascist, communist, socialist, democrat, etc. Racism (and sexism, and ethnicism, etc) knows no political bounds.
>"Conservatives are not actually concerned with the runaway spending or massive debt, as noted by observing their own spending tendencies, which focus entirely on their own preferences, which does not include controlling the debt."
Wrong. *Republicans* are not that concerned with runaway spending or massive debt. Why? Because they aren't all that conservative in that way anymore. Which is a good example of why I keep saying the two party system is a failure.
>"They also don't mind reducing freedom, as their insistence on controlling minorities and immigrants and the poor on welfare shows,"
That doesn't make any sense. Conservatives don't "control" minorities, immigrants, and the poor. What are you even trying to say?
>"there is a reason they can't stand drug legalization."
Again, that is a Republican thing, not a conservative thing. As an example, Libertarians are conservative, and they have little interest in a drug war. True conservatives diminish the power and control of government.
>"[blah blah religious far right, blah blah Trump, blah blah what I think is racist talk is not free speech, blah blah cakes, blah blah I deny all the studies ]"
>"but being conservative means "opposed to change". "
That is ONE definition of conservative. Others might be "being cautious" with change or "sticking to the Constitution" or "opposing change that reduces freedom". Example- we have RUNAWAY spending and a MASSIVE debt. A conservative would typically want to rework that existing system to reduce the debt and deficit. That obviously requires change.
>"In America the people we call conservative aren't. They're in favor of sweeping changes to social order. "
? You pretty much described liberals, at least how they are now. They typically seem to want sweeping changes that control people's lives- taking and giving them money, telling them what they can or can't say or do. Conservatives typically want LESS government intervention in people's lives, smaller government, less centralized-government, fewer laws, less spending. Things have moved so far left in the last 50 years that any move back towards fiscal and personal responsibility does amount to change.
>"What I'm saying is, maybe if ya'all would stop buddying up with the racists us lefties would stop callin' ya racists. Your words don't matter, your actions do."
That is a cop out. There are bad/extreme people who are attracted to a conservative platform (as there are on the liberal platform) but for the wrong reasons or with warped perspectives. I have seen PLENTY of condemnation of racism by high profile conservatives. Plus there are different TYPES of conservatives. Lumping them all together isn't any more fair than lumping Communists in with liberals.
>"Your words don't matter, your actions do."
If that were true, then "the left" would immediately condemn things like affirmative action- whose WORDS claim one thing like "equality" and "fairness", but actions end up being absolutely racist by forcing discrimination based on race. Or whose words defend things like "free speech" and whose actions support banning speech they think is "offensive". Or whose words say they support "freedom of religion" but whose actions try to force people to do things against their own religious views. Or whose words claim they support the Constitution, personal freedom, and safety but whose actions enact tons of increasingly draconian "gun control" laws that do nothing to stop bad people yet restrict good people in very bad ways, which INCREASES crime (as proven in dozens of high profile studies).
>"In fact technically "liberal" comes from french and in terms of politics and philosophy refers to someone who believes in equal rights and the right to self determination"
And those can be achieved both though liberal and conservative means. Perfect "reverse" example is that hiring quotas, mostly supported by liberals, *are* racist. And most suppression of free speech nowadays seems to be coming from the left (traditionally defined as "liberal"). So it really depends on perspective, terms, and definitions. And on that topic, what used to be "liberal" in the USA is barely recognizable- it has fractured in some wild ways that don't at all resemble classic liberalism (things like identity politics, so-called "hate speech", and "equal outcomes"). Of course, that has happened with what used to be "conservative" also... although considerably less.
>"A separate axis is where you find conservative vs progressive. Essentially a conservative is risk-averse and fearful in dedication to maintaining things as they are while a progressive is open to taking risks in exchange for at minimum an equivalent benefit."
Right back to my point about terms. Now you are throwing in "progressive". I could just as easily describe progressive as just wanting change for change's sake and conservative as not wanting to make changes that remove liberty or try to force "equal outcomes". That doesn't quite fit, either.
>"The opposite on this axis is an authoritarian."
And yet authoritarianism is not conservativism.
>"Oddly the vast apparent majority of those who refer to themselves as "conservatives" tend to want to make radical changes and reforms."
And perhaps some of those changes they want to make are to revert things back to a more conservative state with regards to fiscal responsibility, for example?
What I was saying in my first reply is that ascribing blanket terms like "racism" to conservatives is not only factually incorrect and very poor form, but it is exactly the type of hyper-polarization and demonization, being fueled by the mass-media, that is causing such conflict and misunderstanding. Half the country is not racist and intolerant. And, on that same level, the other half of the country is not fiscally irresponsible and anti-constitutional.
Plus, very few people fit neatly on a single dot on one, linear scale. This is precisely why I think our two-party system is so hopelessly out of touch with what we want and need.... as if there are only two ways to address a problem, or only two sides to any complex issue.
>"But, shees, make it an option. (I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm part of a small minority, but I'd like to have all the Linux utilities that output timestamps include an option to use "yyyy-mm-dd" for the dates.)"
You are not a small minority on Slashdot, I suspect. I know, for one, I wish ALL DATES were yyyy-mm-dd. It is the ONLY date format that actually makes sense. mm-dd-yyyy and dd-mm-yyyy are absolutely crazy. And because half the world uses one and half uses the other, it makes trying to determine what something like 08-03-2018 is, impossible. And, really, I think that with a push, most non-technical users would quickly see the advantage and adapt to it without much pain.
The ONLY thing worse was post Y2K systems that still used a F'ing 2 year date, then you end up with something like 10-09-11. What the F*** date *is* THAT??!!! And yes, I have had to put up with such junk!!!!!! (Can you tell?)
>"More and more of our customers are switching to Outlook, so it's a pain to train people to save the file and run tnef at the command line. Yes, it's proprietary, but Microsoft is pushing it hard so the problem is just going to get worse."
We had the same nightmare when using Claws.... until Claws developers added a nice plugin (years and years ago) to handle those horrible TNEF things. I *hate* such "defacto" standards like what MS did with TNEF!
>"What we really need is for the major webmail platforms to implement GPG in a way that is basically transparent to users."
I couldn't agree more. But it needs to be standards that work on all Email, not just webmail. Encryption is just a nightmare of complexity for "normal users" when it comes to Email. There are "solutions" now for just certain platforms, which make them not really standards and hostile to anyone not using those platforms.
OpenPFP/GPG is as close as we have to this. But it is not easy to set up and maintain; and typical users just can't handle it.
>"I havn't really found an email client for PC that I really like. "
Have you tried Claws? It is powerful, local, loads instantly, operates very fast, very configurable, very keyboard friendly (although fully GUI), and has lots of nice features. Plugins allow it to do spell checking, view HTML, encrypt, handle TNEF, antispam, scripting, calendar, and lots of other nice things.
Although it doesn't compose HTML Email, but I think of that as a FEATURE. I have 150 people using it at work, and it really does a good job.
>"Portland is "liberal", rest of the state not so much. In fact, it's been known for its racism and intolerance in the past"
Being "liberal" doesn't mean non-racist and tolerant. And being "conservative" doesn't mean being racist or intolerant. In fact, I see many, many, many cases where there is a reverse of what you said/implied and other cases where there is no relation whatsoever. Perhaps you didn't mean for it to sound like what you just said?
>"Only too 3.5 years and fucking with hardware and software to artificially obsolete Win7!"
You forgot to mention them also trying over and over again to force it down users' throats with unrequested (and usually unwanted) "upgrades" from 7 to 10.
Slashdot Mirror
>"As consumers continue to demand greater storage for their cameras, the combination of high-speed performance with a 1TB option now offers a solution for content creators who shoot large volumes of high-resolution images and 4K video."
The better use case is for laptops, tablets, phones and such devices, not cameras. Photographs- a cheap 128GB SD card stores many, many hundreds of super-high quality photos, which you then unload onto a computer and wipe. Far more capacity than anyone would ever want to trust or need on a single card (which is also easy to change). Even the most elaborate weddings I can make due with two 128GB cards. Video- perhaps, but 256GB is a LOT of 1080P footage. Again, how much to trust on one card? But on a laptop, it makes a wonderful media card to have lots of replaceable (not critical) music, photos, movies, etc, and also for backup. You can only mount and keep a single card active and "home" in the device, so having a lot of space is very useful.
>"Listen Netflix. This is your best feature. It's why I signed up. If you add hoops, captchas, and other DRMish garbage, I'm cancelling my service"
I don't share my account *or* viewing with ANYONE, and yet I have to pay the same as someone like you, who supports several people using it a whole lot. Or the people who share their account with several friends. So, to me, I would love it if other people were more restricted and paid for their increased usage such that my price could go down by half or less and Netflix still does fine or better (INCLUDING those extreme users who drop it completely). For all those who drop, they could possibly gain far more users willing to pay $5/mo who were not willing to pay $11 or whatnot. I have no data to support that, either way.
Of course, it won't necessarily work out that way, they could just keep the same pricing AND enforce less use, where everyone loses. I am just making the point that what is a "great deal" for many, is a "sucky deal" for others who use it a total of just several hours a month on a single device. It is the same thing with cable- all the advertising is about "A single charge for your whole household and unlimited TV's!! Great Value!" Again, I have one person and one TV. So for me, it is the absolute worst possible deal. I am, in essence, subsidizing it for all the multi-person households by paying 200% to 500% more per person than they are.
>"Sure its a neat little thing now but how long till the Powers that Be decide its good enough and we don't 'need' real meat anymore which will become illegal?"
And in a reverse twist, as a semi-vegetarian (no meat or seafood, but yes poultry) for 80% of my life, I can't stand the smell or taste of meat and if these newer non-meat things smell or taste too much like meat and become popular, they might push out the products that I DO like.... high-protein, non-animal products that don't try to be meat. One good example is the truly excellent Morning Star Farms "Garden Veggie Patty".
>"I don't trust that startpage.com can have zero tracking by Google and here's why. About 75% of web sites have some sort of traffic monitoring aid or ad source that relates in some way back to Google"
That is a good point, but it is why it is best to combine it with Firefox, with tracking limiting controls enabled :)
>"Piracy is currently by far and away the best solution..."
It just has that problem of being illegal. So it is only "best" for the consumer, not the producer, not for the economy. And the more people who get their content that way, the less content will be created. So content will be more expensive, created less, and of lower quality.
Let's face it- while many people who pirate do so to be free of restrictions, many do it because they just don't want to pay for content. The interesting part, though, is that piracy does put price and restrictions pressure on content creators to help keep them in check.
>"The break even point is about 2 months of cable for all of the above."
The problem is that most streaming video (outside of Netflix) either doesn't get the content I want, or has forced commercials. I won't do commercials- EVER. With cable, I get the content I want and with TiVo, nothing [like commercials] is forced. And I have the bonus of TONS of local content that is ready to play and skip around without any delays or streaming problems or dependency on a working Internet connection. AND I don't have to watch 5, 10, or 30 seconds of poor quality video while it figures out I have a lot of bandwidth available and scales up. AND I can instantly move forward or backward and slow-mo and frame-by-frame- things that rarely work well (or at all) with streaming. AND when I have something recorded- it is MINE. It won't disappear a day or month or year later when I am ready to watch or (or a series) as I have had happen with streaming (when, at a whim, something can be dropped or pulled). AND I don't have to deal with the typically HORRIBLE user interfaces that many of the streaming stuff use (including Netflix).
I say all this because people on Slashdot often make the mistake of thinking that streaming is so perfect in every way compared to cable + DVR, and it is not. It has downsides too. Its best upside is (besides price)- if a program remains available, you can watch it NOW, without having to make sure it is recorded at some point (especially when you discover a new series too late and miss the first episodes).
Now, perhaps this has changed since 2 years ago when I last checked... but I doubt it. So although I am pissed at paying so much for the 8 or so channels I watch consistently (out of the HUNDREDS of others I have to subsidize for others), it doesn't seem I have the alternative I want, yet.
>"At times like that, when getting the result is more important to me than watching my privacy, then I'll use a !g and try Google if I come up dry on Duckduckgo."
Or just use:
https://startpage.com/
and get the same Google results with zero tracking from/by Google. You can have your cake and eat it too.
>"In my experience they are not. Not even close. I wish I could ditch Google"
You can. Just use:
https://startpage.com/
and get the same Google results but without the tracking.
>"The problem with DuckDuckGo is that, when it comes to searching, it simply sucks. I used it as my default search engine for a week, and I had to return to Google"
No you didn't, simply use:
https://startpage.com/
instead. Same Google search results, but through a proxy so Google cannot track you.
>"Samsung smart TVs run Tizen, Samsung's wacky custom operating system."
Um, it isn't "wacky" nor really "custom". It is a Linux distro developed by the Linux Foundation. You know, one of the most important supporting organizations for one of the most important and widely used operating systems in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Tizen can also run Android apps (with a compatibility layer). It is true that Samsung is the only one who is making LOTS of use of it right now. And since Apple already supports Android for iTunes, it shouldn't be a huge feat to make it run in Tizen.
https://support.apple.com/en-u...
Not that I am a fan of iTunes, but I can see where having such support would benefit both Samsung and Apple.
>"Typically, they are. If they ask the harasser to leave, or call the cops, then they have fulfilled the responsibility. If they simply watch Person B getting harassed then the restaurant is liable."
Correct. Because extending the liability further than that will have a HUGE chilling effect on everything. And platforms will start insisting on more and more "verification" on who someone is- which will destroy the ability of anonymous or semi-anonymous participation on any platform and further increase tracking and the power and possible abuse by the platforms, themselves.
>"Cost was initially a major factor for me. With gas/oil, mandatory insurance, parking, maintenance, tickets and the vehicle itself, I estimated I saved $10-12K a year not having a vehicle."
My assumption is/was that most people just can't adequately survive without also having a car (I have a car, motorcycle, and bicycle). Especially led that way in my response based on the silliness of the summary saying "saving gas" (which implies they have a car and choose not to use it). I probably should have specified that in my original posting. Sorry about that.
>"Experts offered several explanations for the nationwide decrease that has unfolded even as cities spent millions trying to become more bike-friendly. Most obviously, lower gasoline prices and a stronger economy contributed to strong auto sales and less interest in cheaper alternatives, such as mass transit and bikes."
No. Who are these "experts"??
Almost nobody rides a bike to work to "save gas." For most, if he/she is within easy biking range, that doesn't amount to much gas. And it isn't cost either. Those biking do so primarily for exercise, possible enjoyment, and in some cases to reduce wear on their car (short start/stop trips are rough on ICE cars, plus they sit in the sun parked all day). For most it is certainly not as fast or convenient, especially in bad weather. And it is often very unsafe, certainly if it requires ANY riding on major/busy roads.
I bike almost every day to work and have for many years, but I also live 0.5mi from work. Yes, I also sometimes walk, but typically want to get there/home faster and also biking deters being stopped for conversations with neighbors :)
Republicans Conservative. More conservative than Democrats, yes, but far from where many conservatives would want to be. The R and D parties are now both corrupt beyond hope when it comes to cronyism. And, thus, spending is and has been out of control.
I would not agree with at all, either. Many racists are fascist, communist, socialist, democrat, etc. Racism (and sexism, and ethnicism, etc) knows no political bounds.
>"Conservatives are not actually concerned with the runaway spending or massive debt, as noted by observing their own spending tendencies, which focus entirely on their own preferences, which does not include controlling the debt."
Wrong. *Republicans* are not that concerned with runaway spending or massive debt. Why? Because they aren't all that conservative in that way anymore. Which is a good example of why I keep saying the two party system is a failure.
>"They also don't mind reducing freedom, as their insistence on controlling minorities and immigrants and the poor on welfare shows,"
That doesn't make any sense. Conservatives don't "control" minorities, immigrants, and the poor. What are you even trying to say?
>"there is a reason they can't stand drug legalization."
Again, that is a Republican thing, not a conservative thing. As an example, Libertarians are conservative, and they have little interest in a drug war. True conservatives diminish the power and control of government.
>"[blah blah religious far right, blah blah Trump, blah blah what I think is racist talk is not free speech, blah blah cakes, blah blah I deny all the studies ]"
No desire to continue... Besides, time for bed!
>"but being conservative means "opposed to change". "
That is ONE definition of conservative. Others might be "being cautious" with change or "sticking to the Constitution" or "opposing change that reduces freedom". Example- we have RUNAWAY spending and a MASSIVE debt. A conservative would typically want to rework that existing system to reduce the debt and deficit. That obviously requires change.
>"In America the people we call conservative aren't. They're in favor of sweeping changes to social order. "
? You pretty much described liberals, at least how they are now. They typically seem to want sweeping changes that control people's lives- taking and giving them money, telling them what they can or can't say or do. Conservatives typically want LESS government intervention in people's lives, smaller government, less centralized-government, fewer laws, less spending. Things have moved so far left in the last 50 years that any move back towards fiscal and personal responsibility does amount to change.
>"What I'm saying is, maybe if ya'all would stop buddying up with the racists us lefties would stop callin' ya racists. Your words don't matter, your actions do."
That is a cop out. There are bad/extreme people who are attracted to a conservative platform (as there are on the liberal platform) but for the wrong reasons or with warped perspectives. I have seen PLENTY of condemnation of racism by high profile conservatives. Plus there are different TYPES of conservatives. Lumping them all together isn't any more fair than lumping Communists in with liberals.
>"Your words don't matter, your actions do."
If that were true, then "the left" would immediately condemn things like affirmative action- whose WORDS claim one thing like "equality" and "fairness", but actions end up being absolutely racist by forcing discrimination based on race. Or whose words defend things like "free speech" and whose actions support banning speech they think is "offensive". Or whose words say they support "freedom of religion" but whose actions try to force people to do things against their own religious views. Or whose words claim they support the Constitution, personal freedom, and safety but whose actions enact tons of increasingly draconian "gun control" laws that do nothing to stop bad people yet restrict good people in very bad ways, which INCREASES crime (as proven in dozens of high profile studies).
>"In fact technically "liberal" comes from french and in terms of politics and philosophy refers to someone who believes in equal rights and the right to self determination"
And those can be achieved both though liberal and conservative means. Perfect "reverse" example is that hiring quotas, mostly supported by liberals, *are* racist. And most suppression of free speech nowadays seems to be coming from the left (traditionally defined as "liberal"). So it really depends on perspective, terms, and definitions. And on that topic, what used to be "liberal" in the USA is barely recognizable- it has fractured in some wild ways that don't at all resemble classic liberalism (things like identity politics, so-called "hate speech", and "equal outcomes"). Of course, that has happened with what used to be "conservative" also... although considerably less.
>"A separate axis is where you find conservative vs progressive. Essentially a conservative is risk-averse and fearful in dedication to maintaining things as they are while a progressive is open to taking risks in exchange for at minimum an equivalent benefit."
Right back to my point about terms. Now you are throwing in "progressive". I could just as easily describe progressive as just wanting change for change's sake and conservative as not wanting to make changes that remove liberty or try to force "equal outcomes". That doesn't quite fit, either.
>"The opposite on this axis is an authoritarian."
And yet authoritarianism is not conservativism.
>"Oddly the vast apparent majority of those who refer to themselves as "conservatives" tend to want to make radical changes and reforms."
And perhaps some of those changes they want to make are to revert things back to a more conservative state with regards to fiscal responsibility, for example?
What I was saying in my first reply is that ascribing blanket terms like "racism" to conservatives is not only factually incorrect and very poor form, but it is exactly the type of hyper-polarization and demonization, being fueled by the mass-media, that is causing such conflict and misunderstanding. Half the country is not racist and intolerant. And, on that same level, the other half of the country is not fiscally irresponsible and anti-constitutional.
Plus, very few people fit neatly on a single dot on one, linear scale. This is precisely why I think our two-party system is so hopelessly out of touch with what we want and need.... as if there are only two ways to address a problem, or only two sides to any complex issue.
>"But, shees, make it an option. (I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm part of a small minority, but I'd like to have all the Linux utilities that output timestamps include an option to use "yyyy-mm-dd" for the dates.)"
You are not a small minority on Slashdot, I suspect. I know, for one, I wish ALL DATES were yyyy-mm-dd. It is the ONLY date format that actually makes sense. mm-dd-yyyy and dd-mm-yyyy are absolutely crazy. And because half the world uses one and half uses the other, it makes trying to determine what something like 08-03-2018 is, impossible. And, really, I think that with a push, most non-technical users would quickly see the advantage and adapt to it without much pain.
The ONLY thing worse was post Y2K systems that still used a F'ing 2 year date, then you end up with something like 10-09-11. What the F*** date *is* THAT??!!! And yes, I have had to put up with such junk!!!!!! (Can you tell?)
>"More and more of our customers are switching to Outlook, so it's a pain to train people to save the file and run tnef at the command line. Yes, it's proprietary, but Microsoft is pushing it hard so the problem is just going to get worse."
We had the same nightmare when using Claws.... until Claws developers added a nice plugin (years and years ago) to handle those horrible TNEF things. I *hate* such "defacto" standards like what MS did with TNEF!
>"What we really need is for the major webmail platforms to implement GPG in a way that is basically transparent to users."
I couldn't agree more. But it needs to be standards that work on all Email, not just webmail. Encryption is just a nightmare of complexity for "normal users" when it comes to Email. There are "solutions" now for just certain platforms, which make them not really standards and hostile to anyone not using those platforms.
OpenPFP/GPG is as close as we have to this. But it is not easy to set up and maintain; and typical users just can't handle it.
>"I havn't really found an email client for PC that I really like. "
Have you tried Claws? It is powerful, local, loads instantly, operates very fast, very configurable, very keyboard friendly (although fully GUI), and has lots of nice features. Plugins allow it to do spell checking, view HTML, encrypt, handle TNEF, antispam, scripting, calendar, and lots of other nice things.
Although it doesn't compose HTML Email, but I think of that as a FEATURE. I have 150 people using it at work, and it really does a good job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Portland is "liberal", rest of the state not so much. In fact, it's been known for its racism and intolerance in the past"
Being "liberal" doesn't mean non-racist and tolerant. And being "conservative" doesn't mean being racist or intolerant. In fact, I see many, many, many cases where there is a reverse of what you said/implied and other cases where there is no relation whatsoever. Perhaps you didn't mean for it to sound like what you just said?
>"Only too 3.5 years and fucking with hardware and software to artificially obsolete Win7!"
You forgot to mention them also trying over and over again to force it down users' throats with unrequested (and usually unwanted) "upgrades" from 7 to 10.
>"They weren't the first with that."
That is why I said they were "among the first"...