Some idiot brings gender into a discussion on the internet.
Yep, the women should just shut the fuck up about the shit they have to deal with. I mean the fact that there's troll armies targeting %FEMALENAME trying to get them fired, has nothing to do with it. They're hurting my delicate feelings by complaining and it makes me sad.
In the criticism she replied to there was no mention of her sexual identity (gender) or biological sex. It was a gender neutral opinion piece that did not attack her as a person at all.
And yet somehow people feel the need to politely explain---in completely gender neutral ways---the utter basics to female carer veterans far more than male career veterans.
I guess the markets have spoken, and the predictions of doomsday were nothing more than the echo chamber effect of a very small and very vocal minority of people who do not appear to represent either Linux users or Linux developers as a whole.
There's no doom. It, like the system before, mostly works but it's a little bit shit, less transparent and harder to debug the more obscure cases. But it seems more convenient for distro packagers who seemed constitutionally unable to write decent shell scripts.
We were tired of the constant parade of identity politics being shoved down our throats
So tired of it that you voted for the guy who does that more than anyone.
We were tired of politicians who supported offshoring everything, resulting in the destruction of the middle class.
So you decided to vote for someone who not only supports it but actively does it.
We were tired of politicians who put the interests of other countries and peoples ahead of ours.
So you decided to vote for the guy who only puts his own interests first.
Trump ran a platform against all of that.
If you looked at any of his actions you'd know he wasn't against any of that he active is all that. The only reason you refused to acknowledge that was because you have an irrational dislike of Hillary (only one reason I can think of) and want to rationalise your decision to vote for Trump.
Sure, but it still means most of the claims about the "MSM" are utter bullshit because I'd say about 99% of people saying such things are ignoring the huge chunk of the mainstream media they happen to agree with.
What you say is true. The way they go on about Benghazi you'd think she was on sentry duty. But she somehow failed to win people over on those issues. A lawyer who can't defend herself, FFS!
Of the things that made a difference, I think there are a whole pile of reasons.
Some of it was flat out anti-estblishmentism (Trump isn't from the political establishment, though one could argue the buisness establishment is awfully close). Likewise there was an anti-dynastic element.
Some of it is some people will never accept Hillary no matter what (irrational dislike).
Some people were pissed at not getting Bernie and through a tantrum voting "anything but democrat" no matter how bad.
The late announcements by the FBI didn't help.
Trump is solidly populist and those unachievable, simplistic promises go down well when people feel things aren't going great (the wage stagnation, for example)---Hillary didn't offer any easy, simple and wrong solutions.
And finally there's the odd historical artifact of how the US president is actually selected from the votes.
Maybe she was just too old, by about 8 years.
Though Trump is a couple of years older.
The way the primary (I almost wrote primatary - Freudian slip?) was biased against Bernie probably turned some natural Dems against her too.
Yep. There's a pretty common out and out stupidity in some voters (equally present in the UK) which is if people don't get what they want they throw some sort of tantrum and vote massively against what they want in general just out of spite.
Thing is though the Democrat party (and it's the party not overall voters who select the candidate of course) was biased against Bernie since he's not a Democrat. I think the claims of unfair process however are fairly overblown partly by the irrational "never hillary" crowd which infests both sides of the political divide.
There were a few iffy things in her past - nothing proven, but mud sticks.
See this is the thing. A lot of people who said "Hillary did X so I'm voting for trump", in most cases Trump did X or worse. Yes there were iffy things in Hillary's past; Trump's past is FULL of iffy things. Hillary wasn't against offshoring; Trump has actively offshored labour. Hillary is in the pocket of big corporations; Trump IS a big corporation (that cuts out the middle man at least).
And so on.
so, I think those reasons are not actual reasons but rationalisations.
Which means there's an underlying reason.
And the whole dynasty thing, though I suspect we ain't seen nothin' yet on that front.
Everyone I've talked to who voted for him can articulate some reason why they think he is better than Hillary. It's not always a fact-based reason,
Well, that's part of the problem. Lots of people here seem to be willing to believe outright lies in order to justify the thought that Trump was less bad than Hillary. The thing is they have an irrational hatred for Hillary and won't vote for her no matter what.
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.
That's because the mainstream media don't even have a coherent "narrative". The most mainstream of mainstream media, i.e. Fox news (it's the #1 TV news channel) is completely at odds with the second most mainstream of mainstream media, CNN.
See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.
Oddly enough, buzzfeed appears to be using dubious clickbait to fund real hard hitting investigative journalism. I was quite surprised first time I saw one of those on the BBC, "in association with buzzfeed".
I was all like "5 REASONS YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE BUZZFEED DOES INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM".
On the other hand the other news sources aren't much different. Good journalism doesn't pay, clickbait (and the older print equivalents) does.
What I see on Slashdot is an awful lot of non-doctors (myself included) pontificating on this move. Is it really widely used? I don't know.
No, you don't. and you never bother to find out, because that might conflict with your pro-Trump "feelings". I think you should continue: never let a good fact get in the way of strongly held political "opinions".
I say that knowing that 90%+ of Trump's vote was actually ABC (Anybody But Clinton).
I really don't get the attitude of "we hate clinton so much we'll vote for someone far worse!".
I also don't get the hate for Clinton (actually I do). I mean she's basically another poltician and has the same sort of patina that people grudgingly accept on most other politicians. And yet she gets far, far more hate for it. I wonder why...
None of the iMac models before 2001 had CD-RW drives. Not coincidentally, before 2001 was then I encountered these things.
Secondly while the price was rapidly crashing, not only were CR-R drives expensive, CD-Rs themselves weren't cheap. Oh and a lot of machines with old/crappy CD drives which were very common couldn't read CD-RWs and sometimes even CD-Rs. Finally even surmounting those, CD writers weren't that common which means people couldn't give files to you.
And I encountered this in 2000. It was worse in every way in 1998 when Apple first did that.
So yeah the floppy drive was past due for replacement except they were still widely used because of the lack of good alternatives. Zip drives were useless if you needed to send a file to someone without one, which was pretty common with people who didn't routinely deal with large files.
well they'd go well with having a not shit keyboard and ports that most people still use.
I remember when apple dropped the floppy drive way back when. Everyone I knew who had a mac bought an external floppy drive because apple mindlessly dropped it before there was actually a replacement.
Oh yes, my mistake I forgot you're one of those rabid trumpanzees so you don't seem to use the same meanings for words as regular people. Either that or you play stupid word games to try to "prove" that Trump is indeed your god-emperor.
Imagine it's a different topic. Here's what the conversation would sound like.
Subject: FAA regulating drones You: Of course Trump knows best, the god-emperor has mastered the ability of flight. Me: WTF Trump can't fly! No human can. You: He goes in aeroplanes, that's flying. Me: That's not "trump mastering the ability of flight". Even by that definition he can't fly he has no pilots license. You: So? You don't need a pilots license to master flight. He has a private jet and can pay for someone to fly him anywhere at any time. That's more mastering of flight than any pilot. Me: you're a moron.
So basically I'm saying your definitions which no one else seems to follow are deeply stupid. The fact he's a world-expert at spreading lies on twitter does not mean he has "mastered technology" and therefore be supremely suited to rule on Network Neutrality.
You know, network neutrality? The entire topic of the story.
You're either very stupid if you think being good on twitter in any way reflects on hos knowledge of NN or you are actively trying to deceive. My bet is on the former but I won't rule out the latter because pointless word games where you rapidly flip between different meanings isn't beneath you.
We all know that Republicans are totally retarded and clueless when it comes to technology
SuperKendall replied:
If you want to look at mastery of using Technology anyone would have to admit Trump comes out vastly on top
That pretty much proves the OP's point. You, an avowed republican, seem to believe that number of likes/followers on twitter somehow equates to understanding tech.
Do you mean like the sintered metal 3D printers that some car manufacturers are already using? You can slap down your credit card and walk away with such a printer today.
No I really can't: my credit limit doesn't go anywhere near that high! I think for now the credit for one of those machines is out of reach of most people.
Says the guy constitutionally incapable of actually addressing points in a discussion. You ignored my main point every single time choosing instead to go off on a tangent.
Your mind is clearly fixed so trying to reason with you is pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Some idiot brings gender into a discussion on the internet.
Yep, the women should just shut the fuck up about the shit they have to deal with. I mean the fact that there's troll armies targeting %FEMALENAME trying to get them fired, has nothing to do with it. They're hurting my delicate feelings by complaining and it makes me sad.
In the criticism she replied to there was no mention of her sexual identity (gender) or biological sex. It was a gender neutral opinion piece that did not attack her as a person at all.
And yet somehow people feel the need to politely explain---in completely gender neutral ways---the utter basics to female carer veterans far more than male career veterans.
These exist only for XUL as webext doesn't expose sufficient APIs to allow blocking crap. Ergo, Waterfox and Firefox
Given I'm running uBlock origin and NoScript on Firefox 60, I suspect your assessment may not be accurate.
I guess the markets have spoken, and the predictions of doomsday were nothing more than the echo chamber effect of a very small and very vocal minority of people who do not appear to represent either Linux users or Linux developers as a whole.
There's no doom. It, like the system before, mostly works but it's a little bit shit, less transparent and harder to debug the more obscure cases. But it seems more convenient for distro packagers who seemed constitutionally unable to write decent shell scripts.
Mostly, it's just realy mediocre.
Well; thankyou for proving my point:
We were tired of the constant parade of identity politics being shoved down our throats
So tired of it that you voted for the guy who does that more than anyone.
We were tired of politicians who supported offshoring everything, resulting in the destruction of the middle class.
So you decided to vote for someone who not only supports it but actively does it.
We were tired of politicians who put the interests of other countries and peoples ahead of ours.
So you decided to vote for the guy who only puts his own interests first.
Trump ran a platform against all of that.
If you looked at any of his actions you'd know he wasn't against any of that he active is all that. The only reason you refused to acknowledge that was because you have an irrational dislike of Hillary (only one reason I can think of) and want to rationalise your decision to vote for Trump.
Very true:
Hillary told lies so I voted for an much bigger liar. My point exactly.
Well you have provided an excellent illustration ot my point that many Trump supporters are delusional.
This is a good thing, isn't it?
Sure, but it still means most of the claims about the "MSM" are utter bullshit because I'd say about 99% of people saying such things are ignoring the huge chunk of the mainstream media they happen to agree with.
What you say is true. The way they go on about Benghazi you'd think she was on sentry duty. But she somehow failed to win people over on those issues. A lawyer who can't defend herself, FFS!
Of the things that made a difference, I think there are a whole pile of reasons.
Some of it was flat out anti-estblishmentism (Trump isn't from the political establishment, though one could argue the buisness establishment is awfully close). Likewise there was an anti-dynastic element.
Some of it is some people will never accept Hillary no matter what (irrational dislike).
Some people were pissed at not getting Bernie and through a tantrum voting "anything but democrat" no matter how bad.
The late announcements by the FBI didn't help.
Trump is solidly populist and those unachievable, simplistic promises go down well when people feel things aren't going great (the wage stagnation, for example)---Hillary didn't offer any easy, simple and wrong solutions.
And finally there's the odd historical artifact of how the US president is actually selected from the votes.
Maybe she was just too old, by about 8 years.
Though Trump is a couple of years older.
The way the primary (I almost wrote primatary - Freudian slip?) was biased against Bernie probably turned some natural Dems against her too.
Yep. There's a pretty common out and out stupidity in some voters (equally present in the UK) which is if people don't get what they want they throw some sort of tantrum and vote massively against what they want in general just out of spite.
Thing is though the Democrat party (and it's the party not overall voters who select the candidate of course) was biased against Bernie since he's not a Democrat. I think the claims of unfair process however are fairly overblown partly by the irrational "never hillary" crowd which infests both sides of the political divide.
And Sanders is even older!
There were a few iffy things in her past - nothing proven, but mud sticks.
See this is the thing. A lot of people who said "Hillary did X so I'm voting for trump", in most cases Trump did X or worse. Yes there were iffy things in Hillary's past; Trump's past is FULL of iffy things. Hillary wasn't against offshoring; Trump has actively offshored labour. Hillary is in the pocket of big corporations; Trump IS a big corporation (that cuts out the middle man at least).
And so on.
so, I think those reasons are not actual reasons but rationalisations.
Which means there's an underlying reason.
And the whole dynasty thing, though I suspect we ain't seen nothin' yet on that front.
that is a problem in American politics for sure.
Everyone I've talked to who voted for him can articulate some reason why they think he is better than Hillary. It's not always a fact-based reason,
Well, that's part of the problem. Lots of people here seem to be willing to believe outright lies in order to justify the thought that Trump was less bad than Hillary. The thing is they have an irrational hatred for Hillary and won't vote for her no matter what.
'EVERYONE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IS RACIST!!!1' -The cry of those with out an argument.
No, it's a quote invented by right wingers to attempt to discredit left wingers.
peep! peep! hear the dog whistle?
I tell you want, you want to see some 'actual victimization'? How about you go talk about woman in Britain ...
You need to listen to less infowars.
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.
That's because the mainstream media don't even have a coherent "narrative". The most mainstream of mainstream media, i.e. Fox news (it's the #1 TV news channel) is completely at odds with the second most mainstream of mainstream media, CNN.
See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.
Oddly enough, buzzfeed appears to be using dubious clickbait to fund real hard hitting investigative journalism. I was quite surprised first time I saw one of those on the BBC, "in association with buzzfeed".
I was all like "5 REASONS YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE BUZZFEED DOES INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM".
On the other hand the other news sources aren't much different. Good journalism doesn't pay, clickbait (and the older print equivalents) does.
What I see on Slashdot is an awful lot of non-doctors (myself included) pontificating on this move. Is it really widely used? I don't know.
No, you don't. and you never bother to find out, because that might conflict with your pro-Trump "feelings". I think you should continue: never let a good fact get in the way of strongly held political "opinions".
I say that knowing that 90%+ of Trump's vote was actually ABC (Anybody But Clinton).
I really don't get the attitude of "we hate clinton so much we'll vote for someone far worse!".
I also don't get the hate for Clinton (actually I do). I mean she's basically another poltician and has the same sort of patina that people grudgingly accept on most other politicians. And yet she gets far, far more hate for it. I wonder why...
People have been predicting Apple would go out of business since 1984. They've survived this long and with much bigger mistakes, they'll be fine.
What on earth has that got to do with this thread? The presence or absence of those predictions won't make my work macbook pro any less crap.
There was a replacement, CD-RW. A CD-RW drive was standard equipment on all Apple computers of the era except the lowest end iMac desktops
No. I was there and you're mistaken.
Firstly, look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
None of the iMac models before 2001 had CD-RW drives. Not coincidentally, before 2001 was then I encountered these things.
Secondly while the price was rapidly crashing, not only were CR-R drives expensive, CD-Rs themselves weren't cheap. Oh and a lot of machines with old/crappy CD drives which were very common couldn't read CD-RWs and sometimes even CD-Rs. Finally even surmounting those, CD writers weren't that common which means people couldn't give files to you.
And I encountered this in 2000. It was worse in every way in 1998 when Apple first did that.
So yeah the floppy drive was past due for replacement except they were still widely used because of the lack of good alternatives. Zip drives were useless if you needed to send a file to someone without one, which was pretty common with people who didn't routinely deal with large files.
well they'd go well with having a not shit keyboard and ports that most people still use.
I remember when apple dropped the floppy drive way back when. Everyone I knew who had a mac bought an external floppy drive because apple mindlessly dropped it before there was actually a replacement.
Citation needed
Oh yes, my mistake I forgot you're one of those rabid trumpanzees so you don't seem to use the same meanings for words as regular people. Either that or you play stupid word games to try to "prove" that Trump is indeed your god-emperor.
Imagine it's a different topic. Here's what the conversation would sound like.
Subject: FAA regulating drones
You: Of course Trump knows best, the god-emperor has mastered the ability of flight.
Me: WTF Trump can't fly! No human can.
You: He goes in aeroplanes, that's flying.
Me: That's not "trump mastering the ability of flight". Even by that definition he can't fly he has no pilots license.
You: So? You don't need a pilots license to master flight. He has a private jet and can pay for someone to fly him anywhere at any time. That's more mastering of flight than any pilot.
Me: you're a moron.
So basically I'm saying your definitions which no one else seems to follow are deeply stupid. The fact he's a world-expert at spreading lies on twitter does not mean he has "mastered technology" and therefore be supremely suited to rule on Network Neutrality.
You know, network neutrality? The entire topic of the story.
You're either very stupid if you think being good on twitter in any way reflects on hos knowledge of NN or you are actively trying to deceive. My bet is on the former but I won't rule out the latter because pointless word games where you rapidly flip between different meanings isn't beneath you.
Neither of you seem to understand. It's not the size of your follower count, it's how you use it.
If you think that's mastery of technology (your words) then you should be supporting Kim Kardashian for president.
In the sense that the Internet and cable TV are both mechanisms for content delivery, they are just alike.
So are the roads.
Try thinking outside your narrow interpretation
Yeah I mean give the guy a break. It's not like he actually needs to know shit in order to interpret laws about it.
case in point
PigHogger said:
We all know that Republicans are totally retarded and clueless when it comes to technology
SuperKendall replied:
If you want to look at mastery of using Technology anyone would have to admit Trump comes out vastly on top
That pretty much proves the OP's point. You, an avowed republican, seem to believe that number of likes/followers on twitter somehow equates to understanding tech.
Do you mean like the sintered metal 3D printers that some car manufacturers are already using? You can slap down your credit card and walk away with such a printer today.
No I really can't: my credit limit doesn't go anywhere near that high! I think for now the credit for one of those machines is out of reach of most people.
Says the guy constitutionally incapable of actually addressing points in a discussion. You ignored my main point every single time choosing instead to go off on a tangent.
Your mind is clearly fixed so trying to reason with you is pointless.
I cannot help but notice that since the US President was elected with zero endorsements from "papers of record" or "mainstream media outlets"
TIL the most popular TV news station (Fox) isn't mainstream.