Psh. The truth is in the Venn diagram where they intersect. Everything else requires further research. If a right wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is terrible and C is already happening, and a left wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is great, and D will happen, your conclusions are "A happened" and "pundits agree that B will happen". If you care about C and D, whether the pundits are mislead about B, or the merits of B, you need to keep reading.
In this specific case, the new guy. Look at the agenda pieces: they all involve things that will happen in *years*, not days. What's the point of negotiating on, say, price caps, if they'll never be implemented?
This is the problem, sadly. There are companies that are reliably worth preordering from, if you are into their stuff. Preordering a Nintendo product has never left me disappointed- they all turn out pretty similar to what you expect, within reason. But in the general case, a preorder is a huge mistake. Most ESPECIALLY with Linux support. The Linux community is small but very passionate, and will organically boost anything that is pro-Linux. While Linux gamers don't control any section of any market, they are absolutely a decent amount of free advertising. So a top tier cross platform anything will get more press, and more positive press, if it promises to support Linux. In general, I strongly recommend you don't preorder a Linux thing unless a very similar product from the very same team launched day 1 on Linux in the past. Because if not, what are the odds that they will succeed on their launch? If anything goes wrong, they'll pull the Linux devs to handle their "real" launch on Windows, and put Linux off until later. If the product doesn't succeed to whatever bean counting standard is desired, they won't ever bother finishing it.
Basically, the industry *as a whole* has a long and consistent habit of lying about day 1 Linux support. In general, you should always assume it is a lie. Just wait for the real launch, then buy it if it works in Linux. Much easier, doesn't let you get ripped off, and doesn't incentivize bad actors.
> Most of the computers Apple sell only have built-in Intel graphics.
Is this true? More importantly, is it important? If you are looking to use VR or other 3D stuff on your Apple, you bought an Apple computer with some 3D capability. The same is true of desktops and laptops in the rest of the PC world.
I think we'll see some bigger boxes announced from Apple at some point here. If they don't update the Mac Pro within a couple months, they will really begin bleeding power users and devs within the next couple years. It's clear that they aren't trying to keep up with that market much, but there's a big difference between keeping up with it and totally ignoring it.
Linux supports all the best hardware, so not having on Linux is a simple market decision- there are way more Windows customers.
Mac is a different beast. While smaller than the PC market, almost everyone with a Mac has some money to spare, and their ecosystem is rich in people who would use VR to create, view, etc. Additionally, there are some die-hard Mac gamers (seriously lol), who, like the much smaller Linux base, buy cool game related stuff at a higher rate than the equivalent section of the PC market. The problem with Mac isn't that such a thing wouldn't be profitable or worth the effort, it is the general lack of 3D hardware on the Mac.
Bringing it to the Mac then implies that either the new Macintoshes are suddenly deemed strong enough for VR, or that there will be Macs with better computation within the next year or two. Perhaps a new Mac pro, or strong cards on an iMac, who knows. That implication is pretty interesting to me.
The big reason for this is usually that something in the soda that is there for flavor, also is bitter. So sugar is added until it is sweet. The net effect usually is, there's way too much sugar for its level of sweetness.
I use soda exclusively as a mixer for alcohol. I probably average about two cans a week- it's been weeks since I had any, but I can recall a week where I had whiskey-cokes several times, so that's my guess.
These predictions brought to you buy the same types of people who swore Trump wouldn't be the Republican nominee, and wouldn't be elected president. So take them with a grain of salt: everyone has been completely wrong about Trump so far regarding every material prediction.
If net neutrality would last exactly until a Republican gets in office... I mean, did you think there would never again be a Republican in office? Like, ever?
Valuable takeaways from the summary include:
"It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC" and
"Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine"
It's reasonable and probable that Trump has barely thought about the issue.
> The election had two possibilities last night: either Trump ran the table by winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania (which he did) or Hillary ends the election by winning Florida (which she didn't).
Blue Florida is still a Trump win. Blue Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is still a Trump win. Blue Ohio and Michigan is still a Trump win.
So it seems there were more possibilities than you said. Also remember that in addition to the really close red states, there are a couple really close blue states too.
> and the electoral college to vote for Hillary (still possible).
You should go on record with this prediction, so you can have a perfect 0% batting average on election predictions this year. You've been going out of your way to gaslight anyone who disagrees with you in here. For MONTHS.
Lets review some of your gems:
(Claim) Trump has added new swing states. (You) That doesn't seem likely. Reality: Absolutely yes he did!
(You)Trump made the electoral college relevant and not in his favor Reality: Trump's electoral victory is both large, and the only reason he won. He made the electoral college relevant and very much in his favor.
(You) He will need 70% of the white male vote to overcome the minority and women vote. Reality: Trump got around 63% of the white male vote, and won.
(You) overcome the minority and women vote. Interesting and relevant: Less women, both absolute and by percent, voted for Hillary than voted for Obama. Hispanic support for Hillary was less than for Obama. Hispanic support for Trump was higher than for Romney.
(You) If Hillary wins Florida, the election is over. Interesting: Flipping Florida to blue still wouldn't let Hillary win. However, you MAY have been saying it would start a trend, or something, and that if Trump won Florida it would be correlated with the voting that had occurred in other states. It's still overly terse and meant to electioneer, so it gets a mention.
(You) "Given a choice between crooked and crazy, the American people will always vote for crooked." (You) The electoral college map for 2016 is identical to 2008 and 2012. (You) Hillary started off 268 electoral votes. (You) Like everything else in this election, he blew that off too and will lose in a landslide. (You) Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the election (You) Hillary could drop dead but Trump still won't win the election. Reality: WRONG
Yea. Play Clinton games, win Clinton prizes. You absolutely can't blame the mainline Democrats for Hillary, it is firmly in the hands of the DNC and superdelegates. Not if you've read reporting on any of them emails.
It's a monumentally stupid idea. And it is the worst day to ask about it.
The obvious reason is that whomever controls what is presented as facts, suddenly is perceived as having an ironclad grip on truth, and is by default perceived as unbiased. We've just seen (only by accident!) what happens when the media is trusted with this. Because this is election day, this will be a controversial statement, but in the light of several years, it will not be.
There are plenty of other problems- it means that referencing a site with some outlandish claim will ultimately result in a ping back to someone tracking all this. This is oppositional research- you'll know, based on the aggregate data, which sites are opposing the "truth", and you can just hand this data to someone behind the seen, for principle, power, or profit. It also means that the same types of weirdos who currently stomp around wikipedia will be given even more power to shape a narrative.
If you read this and immediately started to think of reasons why I'm wrong- again, this is ONLY because it is election season. Flip the script and assume that the media is colluding with whatever group you personally find distasteful, and you should see why it is a bad idea for everyone.
> The capability to do something, is not the same as ACTUALLY DOING IT.
This arguments works for cars and guns and knives. But pretend you had a magical pen that erased a person from existence and memory. You write their name, and they are unmade. You could claim you were never going to use this pen, or that you would document your uses, and only use it for good. But NO ONE WOULD KNOW.
Censorship is more dangerous than the magic pen, because it doesn't magically erase people, it actually erases ideas, and even truth itself. And no one can prove it happened- the perfect crime.
My point, however, is that it can look simple in any distro, actually be complex, and is entirely different from distro to distro. I've seen issues updating initramfs, and issues doing whatever kernel dance is required- and in the cases where it works, it isn't because of nvidia, it's because of good packaging for that distro by someone.
> Now, I can add "respects my privacy".
The Linux version still does, though it may simply be by accident or an unwillingness to find a way to spy in each and every distro. Still, the general feeling is that the open source AMD driver is miles better than the open source nvidia driver (a fact not the fault of the open source devs, who nvidia treats like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit). Obviously, if a future version has telemetry nonsense somehow, I simply won't buy the card, but that's an issue for a future me.
Installing nvidia has always been a bit of a pain in Linux, with each distro having their own way of packaging the closed source drivers. I guess even THAT is a feature in backwards 2016.
It's absolutely legit to blame everyone who is complicit, if you feel that the Saudis are a problem. Bush being a jackass doesn't magically make everyone with a (D) after their names exonerated because he has an (R) after his.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets talk about Fedora Core 25, and the upsides and downsides of defaul Wayland in some of the desktops.
I mean, it's only fair. Every Fedora release thread is filled with people whining about SystemD. Works both ways, right?
https://xkcd.com/386/
> Is anyone seriously planning on attacking British warships
Right now? No, they still have ship to ship missiles.
There's more on that tree than those cherries you picked.
Maybe America's idea of center should be represented more in American media?
Psh. The truth is in the Venn diagram where they intersect. Everything else requires further research. If a right wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is terrible and C is already happening, and a left wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is great, and D will happen, your conclusions are "A happened" and "pundits agree that B will happen". If you care about C and D, whether the pundits are mislead about B, or the merits of B, you need to keep reading.
In this specific case, the new guy. Look at the agenda pieces: they all involve things that will happen in *years*, not days. What's the point of negotiating on, say, price caps, if they'll never be implemented?
> I am one of those guys who preordered Vive
This is the problem, sadly. There are companies that are reliably worth preordering from, if you are into their stuff. Preordering a Nintendo product has never left me disappointed- they all turn out pretty similar to what you expect, within reason. But in the general case, a preorder is a huge mistake. Most ESPECIALLY with Linux support. The Linux community is small but very passionate, and will organically boost anything that is pro-Linux. While Linux gamers don't control any section of any market, they are absolutely a decent amount of free advertising. So a top tier cross platform anything will get more press, and more positive press, if it promises to support Linux. In general, I strongly recommend you don't preorder a Linux thing unless a very similar product from the very same team launched day 1 on Linux in the past. Because if not, what are the odds that they will succeed on their launch? If anything goes wrong, they'll pull the Linux devs to handle their "real" launch on Windows, and put Linux off until later. If the product doesn't succeed to whatever bean counting standard is desired, they won't ever bother finishing it.
Basically, the industry *as a whole* has a long and consistent habit of lying about day 1 Linux support. In general, you should always assume it is a lie. Just wait for the real launch, then buy it if it works in Linux. Much easier, doesn't let you get ripped off, and doesn't incentivize bad actors.
> Most of the computers Apple sell only have built-in Intel graphics.
Is this true? More importantly, is it important? If you are looking to use VR or other 3D stuff on your Apple, you bought an Apple computer with some 3D capability. The same is true of desktops and laptops in the rest of the PC world.
I think we'll see some bigger boxes announced from Apple at some point here. If they don't update the Mac Pro within a couple months, they will really begin bleeding power users and devs within the next couple years. It's clear that they aren't trying to keep up with that market much, but there's a big difference between keeping up with it and totally ignoring it.
Linux supports all the best hardware, so not having on Linux is a simple market decision- there are way more Windows customers.
Mac is a different beast. While smaller than the PC market, almost everyone with a Mac has some money to spare, and their ecosystem is rich in people who would use VR to create, view, etc. Additionally, there are some die-hard Mac gamers (seriously lol), who, like the much smaller Linux base, buy cool game related stuff at a higher rate than the equivalent section of the PC market. The problem with Mac isn't that such a thing wouldn't be profitable or worth the effort, it is the general lack of 3D hardware on the Mac.
Bringing it to the Mac then implies that either the new Macintoshes are suddenly deemed strong enough for VR, or that there will be Macs with better computation within the next year or two. Perhaps a new Mac pro, or strong cards on an iMac, who knows. That implication is pretty interesting to me.
> Based on data PRIOR TO THE ELECTION
No, "data" based on a subset of data chosen specifically to back Clinton, purported to show that.
> Trump only had one path to win: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. He got all three and won the election.
Trump had several paths to win. He could have won without any one of those that you listed, as I pointed out.
The data was all spin. It was all made up. It never reflected reality in any way.
The big reason for this is usually that something in the soda that is there for flavor, also is bitter. So sugar is added until it is sweet. The net effect usually is, there's way too much sugar for its level of sweetness.
I use soda exclusively as a mixer for alcohol. I probably average about two cans a week- it's been weeks since I had any, but I can recall a week where I had whiskey-cokes several times, so that's my guess.
These predictions brought to you buy the same types of people who swore Trump wouldn't be the Republican nominee, and wouldn't be elected president. So take them with a grain of salt: everyone has been completely wrong about Trump so far regarding every material prediction.
If net neutrality would last exactly until a Republican gets in office... I mean, did you think there would never again be a Republican in office? Like, ever?
Valuable takeaways from the summary include:
"It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC"
and
"Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine"
It's reasonable and probable that Trump has barely thought about the issue.
> The election had two possibilities last night: either Trump ran the table by winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania (which he did) or Hillary ends the election by winning Florida (which she didn't).
Blue Florida is still a Trump win.
Blue Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is still a Trump win.
Blue Ohio and Michigan is still a Trump win.
So it seems there were more possibilities than you said. Also remember that in addition to the really close red states, there are a couple really close blue states too.
> and the electoral college to vote for Hillary (still possible).
You should go on record with this prediction, so you can have a perfect 0% batting average on election predictions this year. You've been going out of your way to gaslight anyone who disagrees with you in here. For MONTHS.
Lets review some of your gems:
(Claim) Trump has added new swing states.
(You) That doesn't seem likely.
Reality: Absolutely yes he did!
(You)Trump made the electoral college relevant and not in his favor
Reality: Trump's electoral victory is both large, and the only reason he won. He made the electoral college relevant and very much in his favor.
(You) He will need 70% of the white male vote to overcome the minority and women vote.
Reality: Trump got around 63% of the white male vote, and won.
(You) overcome the minority and women vote.
Interesting and relevant: Less women, both absolute and by percent, voted for Hillary than voted for Obama. Hispanic support for Hillary was less than for Obama. Hispanic support for Trump was higher than for Romney.
(You) If Hillary wins Florida, the election is over.
Interesting: Flipping Florida to blue still wouldn't let Hillary win. However, you MAY have been saying it would start a trend, or something, and that if Trump won Florida it would be correlated with the voting that had occurred in other states. It's still overly terse and meant to electioneer, so it gets a mention.
(You) "Given a choice between crooked and crazy, the American people will always vote for crooked."
(You) The electoral college map for 2016 is identical to 2008 and 2012.
(You) Hillary started off 268 electoral votes.
(You) Like everything else in this election, he blew that off too and will lose in a landslide.
(You) Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the election
(You) Hillary could drop dead but Trump still won't win the election.
Reality: WRONG
> Dear DNC and superdelegates
Yea. Play Clinton games, win Clinton prizes. You absolutely can't blame the mainline Democrats for Hillary, it is firmly in the hands of the DNC and superdelegates. Not if you've read reporting on any of them emails.
> Hillary starts off at 268 electoral votes
Press F5 to refresh map.
Yup. And let ABC or an anti-ABC super PAC chime in, and you can have it dance however you like.
It's a monumentally stupid idea. And it is the worst day to ask about it.
The obvious reason is that whomever controls what is presented as facts, suddenly is perceived as having an ironclad grip on truth, and is by default perceived as unbiased. We've just seen (only by accident!) what happens when the media is trusted with this. Because this is election day, this will be a controversial statement, but in the light of several years, it will not be.
There are plenty of other problems- it means that referencing a site with some outlandish claim will ultimately result in a ping back to someone tracking all this. This is oppositional research- you'll know, based on the aggregate data, which sites are opposing the "truth", and you can just hand this data to someone behind the seen, for principle, power, or profit. It also means that the same types of weirdos who currently stomp around wikipedia will be given even more power to shape a narrative.
If you read this and immediately started to think of reasons why I'm wrong- again, this is ONLY because it is election season. Flip the script and assume that the media is colluding with whatever group you personally find distasteful, and you should see why it is a bad idea for everyone.
> The capability to do something, is not the same as ACTUALLY DOING IT.
This arguments works for cars and guns and knives. But pretend you had a magical pen that erased a person from existence and memory. You write their name, and they are unmade. You could claim you were never going to use this pen, or that you would document your uses, and only use it for good. But NO ONE WOULD KNOW.
Censorship is more dangerous than the magic pen, because it doesn't magically erase people, it actually erases ideas, and even truth itself. And no one can prove it happened- the perfect crime.
> And we still measure times and dates the same day, not in kiloseconds or whatever.
Not for lack of trying!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> apt-get install nvidia-current
This can break you if your card doesn't work with the current version, I'm pretty sure.
https://linuxconfig.org/how-to...
My point, however, is that it can look simple in any distro, actually be complex, and is entirely different from distro to distro. I've seen issues updating initramfs, and issues doing whatever kernel dance is required- and in the cases where it works, it isn't because of nvidia, it's because of good packaging for that distro by someone.
> Now, I can add "respects my privacy".
The Linux version still does, though it may simply be by accident or an unwillingness to find a way to spy in each and every distro. Still, the general feeling is that the open source AMD driver is miles better than the open source nvidia driver (a fact not the fault of the open source devs, who nvidia treats like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit). Obviously, if a future version has telemetry nonsense somehow, I simply won't buy the card, but that's an issue for a future me.
Installing nvidia has always been a bit of a pain in Linux, with each distro having their own way of packaging the closed source drivers. I guess even THAT is a feature in backwards 2016.
> Both parties want to support that evil regime
It's absolutely legit to blame everyone who is complicit, if you feel that the Saudis are a problem. Bush being a jackass doesn't magically make everyone with a (D) after their names exonerated because he has an (R) after his.
Before you go, can you link to some of the comments defending it?