This wouldn't happen to Republicans, because at this point, there's really nothing of interest to leak. If everything that has been said by Trump (and the parts of GOP that are backing him) in the past year is not sufficient for someone to change their mind about him, no leak will do so.
Just because Hitler comparison is used so often for its shock value, doesn't mean that it's never appropriate.
As a Russian, when I look at what's going on at the Trump rallies, what I'm seeing it a very similar sentiment to one that gave Putin power. And no, Putin is not Hitler, either. But he already did a lot of nasty things, and is on the course to do even more.
There's a conspiracy theory floating around that says that it's #1, and the reason is that he's basically scamming his supporters out of money. It all centers around the fact that he loaned his personal money to his campaign, and it also pays him a very hefty salary and expenses... but the campaign is still in debt to him personally, and if it is declared bankrupt eventually, any personal donations from people would go mostly into repaying that debt.
No idea how plausible it is. I mean, it's Trump. Everything is possible.
The states can't regulate which trucking companies operate on the interstate highways either.
The states definitely can regulate the trucking companies that are located within the state. This includes matters such as licensing the drivers and requiring insurance - and not allowing drivers without a license or insurance to drive on the roads, including interstate highways.
If you expected Sanders to be non-compromising, you clearly haven't done your research on him. The man has a solid track record of a pragmatic idealist - he has clear ideals that he strives to fulfill, but at the same time, he is perfectly able and willing to work with people whom he disagrees with, so long as it gets him one step closer to his goals. Look at what he did in Congress - constant scheming to add riders to bills. Go even further back, and look at what he did as a mayor.
And it's exactly what made Sanders such an awesome presidential candidate. Most "revolutionaries" dismiss incremental change outright. This guy realized that it's the only chance that he and his platform has, and mastered it. I actually put more faith in his ability to navigate through the gridlock in Congress as a president, than Hillary's. Alas...
I don't think that it is actually a tactic, in a sense that he's not consciously trolling. If that were the case, he would not be doing it when the story-of-the-day is in his favor - but that's not what's happening. Remember that judge thing? Everyone was talking about Clinton's emails then, and it was a good thing for Trump - and if he were the master troll that some claim him to be, he'd be throwing gasoline onto that fire. But instead, he made a bunch of stupid remarks that shifted attention elsewhere.
No, I really think he's just a child emotionally, in a near-constant tantrum mode whenever there's any visibility afforded to him at all.
and then they have to go and add a full Ubuntu kernel as a subsystem.
There's no Ubuntu kernel there. It's the other way around - the kernel is still NT, with a Linux syscall emulation layer. The userland is full Ubuntu sans the kernel.
All in all, very similar to FreeBSD Linux emulation that has been around for a while in principle, if not in low-level architecture.
There's no "extend" here - the Linux that runs on top of WSL does not gain any additional functionality, whereas the whole point of "extend" is to create a more attractive fork.
When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly. Any attempt to challenge that will have to run against an extremely high barrier to entry established by said monopoly. It doesn't mean that it can't be unseated - but doing so requires immense resources, and even then would take many years.
In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote, rather than the one that our monopolist decided to tell them. An idealistic libertarian would say that, by choosing FB, they implicitly give permission for such screening. A pragmatist would acknowledge that vast majority of FB users didn't actually think about it at all, and didn't realize that they're setting themselves up for an information bubble. A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.
If you're primarily a Linux dev, you're not running Windows anyway, so it doesn't matter to you. Except perhaps in an indirect way, since it expands your potential userbase.
If you're primarily a Windows dev, and want to port your program to Linux, this is immensely useful, especially since VS is also getting some integration with all that stuff (cross-compilation with Clang, and debugging via gdb).
If you're primarily a Windows user, you just get access to some programs that weren't readily available.
The "smoking gun" that you've mentioned is sufficient to see a number of things in a new light. For example, the debate schedule. It was long claimed by Sanders supporters that it was intentional to undermine him, but before the DNC email leak, the party could always (rightly) say "prove it". Now that the leaks have demonstrated general bias, as well as specific desire of at least some of the members to actually translate that to actions, the reasonable default assumption, on the balance of probabilities, is that the schedule was, indeed, intentionally skewed; and DNC has to do something to prove it otherwise.
The problem with SFU was that it implemented some sort of a generic Unix system - it wasn't Linux, or BSD, or anything else specifically, just something POSIX'ish. So it only had source-level compatibility, not binaries - you had to recompile - and then compatibility only extended to those Unix and POSIX APIs that SFU implemented.
SFL, on the other hand, implements Linux kernel ABI (syscalls and device nodes). Which then allows to just put glibc on top of that, and getting full compatibility with userspace Linux APIs for free; your choice of distro (though only Ubuntu is officially supported).
Since it emulates an actual OS, and does so on binary level, this is much, much more useful than SFU ever was.
You should be able to, yes. Running GUI apps is still a bit of a hassle right now, since the emulation layer doesn't extend to graphics drivers and X. But you can run an X server for Windows (e.g. Xming), and tell your Linux apps to use that.
It's effectively a Linux syscall emulation layer + ELF loader, and Ubuntu running on top of that.
So kernelspace is entirely Windows (including drivers, filesystem support etc), but it presents Linux kernel ABI to the userspace. So userspace is just regular Linux. So there's no special "knowledge" between the two parts, aside from the ABI.
Filesystem is effectively shared, with a mapping system in place (Linux "partition" is in reality just an NTFS folder, while Windows drive letters are exposed as mount points in Linux).
Because the implementation sits directly on top of the NT kernel, side-by-side with Win32 (and not on top of it, like Cygwin does), it can efficiently provide proper semantics for things like fork().
Technically speaking, Georgia didn't comply, in a sense that it admitted the decision to be valid. The people affected were pardoned, which is basically saying "you're still guilty, but we'll let you go just because". They did not repeal the law in question.
In any case, the president can push as far as they think they can get away with. In case of Trump, based on his track record and temperament, he might decide to push all the way into a genuine constitutional crisis. And what then? What happens if an executive issues an unconstitutional order, SCOTUS declares it such, but top of executive demands that it be carried out people under him anyway? In theory, that's when Congress is supposed to impeach; but will a Republican Congress actually do so? And even if it does, what if the president refuses to vacate? Push far enough, and this is something that could only be resolved by use of force. If both sides use it, we're talking about a coup, and potentially a civil war.
If the Russians wanted to help Trump, they would indeed do so - a week or two before the polls in November.
More likely is that they have enough materials to keep things interesting for the rest of the race by staggering the release. WL has already said they have more damaging DNC emails, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if they released them after Sanders finishes speaking today.
Slashdot Mirror
This wouldn't happen to Republicans, because at this point, there's really nothing of interest to leak. If everything that has been said by Trump (and the parts of GOP that are backing him) in the past year is not sufficient for someone to change their mind about him, no leak will do so.
Just because Hitler comparison is used so often for its shock value, doesn't mean that it's never appropriate.
As a Russian, when I look at what's going on at the Trump rallies, what I'm seeing it a very similar sentiment to one that gave Putin power. And no, Putin is not Hitler, either. But he already did a lot of nasty things, and is on the course to do even more.
"Voluntary" is a funny word. With enough brainwashing from the early age, you can make people voluntarily choose all kinds of nasty things.
There's a conspiracy theory floating around that says that it's #1, and the reason is that he's basically scamming his supporters out of money. It all centers around the fact that he loaned his personal money to his campaign, and it also pays him a very hefty salary and expenses... but the campaign is still in debt to him personally, and if it is declared bankrupt eventually, any personal donations from people would go mostly into repaying that debt.
No idea how plausible it is. I mean, it's Trump. Everything is possible.
They just start to claim that fact-checkers themselves are biased and lying.
You wanna have some fun, run this through Google Translate:
http://www.mk.ru/politics/2016...
The states can't regulate which trucking companies operate on the interstate highways either.
The states definitely can regulate the trucking companies that are located within the state. This includes matters such as licensing the drivers and requiring insurance - and not allowing drivers without a license or insurance to drive on the roads, including interstate highways.
The generals are always preparing for the last war.
Get Trump elected, and suddenly engaging Russia or even China full on over some minor spat doesn't sound all that unlikely.
And if you have to pack 49 days worth of closing, you will see why 7.5" does not qualify as a laptop.
Sounds ridiculous? Yeah, it is. So is what you wrote, and for the same reason.
If you expected Sanders to be non-compromising, you clearly haven't done your research on him. The man has a solid track record of a pragmatic idealist - he has clear ideals that he strives to fulfill, but at the same time, he is perfectly able and willing to work with people whom he disagrees with, so long as it gets him one step closer to his goals. Look at what he did in Congress - constant scheming to add riders to bills. Go even further back, and look at what he did as a mayor.
And it's exactly what made Sanders such an awesome presidential candidate. Most "revolutionaries" dismiss incremental change outright. This guy realized that it's the only chance that he and his platform has, and mastered it. I actually put more faith in his ability to navigate through the gridlock in Congress as a president, than Hillary's. Alas...
She has standing to sue them for fraud, and probably malicious litigation (or whatever the name of that was). But not for copyright infringement.
I don't think that it is actually a tactic, in a sense that he's not consciously trolling. If that were the case, he would not be doing it when the story-of-the-day is in his favor - but that's not what's happening. Remember that judge thing? Everyone was talking about Clinton's emails then, and it was a good thing for Trump - and if he were the master troll that some claim him to be, he'd be throwing gasoline onto that fire. But instead, he made a bunch of stupid remarks that shifted attention elsewhere.
No, I really think he's just a child emotionally, in a near-constant tantrum mode whenever there's any visibility afforded to him at all.
and then they have to go and add a full Ubuntu kernel as a subsystem.
There's no Ubuntu kernel there. It's the other way around - the kernel is still NT, with a Linux syscall emulation layer. The userland is full Ubuntu sans the kernel.
All in all, very similar to FreeBSD Linux emulation that has been around for a while in principle, if not in low-level architecture.
There's no "extend" here - the Linux that runs on top of WSL does not gain any additional functionality, whereas the whole point of "extend" is to create a more attractive fork.
Welcome to insanity.
When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly. Any attempt to challenge that will have to run against an extremely high barrier to entry established by said monopoly. It doesn't mean that it can't be unseated - but doing so requires immense resources, and even then would take many years.
In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote, rather than the one that our monopolist decided to tell them. An idealistic libertarian would say that, by choosing FB, they implicitly give permission for such screening. A pragmatist would acknowledge that vast majority of FB users didn't actually think about it at all, and didn't realize that they're setting themselves up for an information bubble. A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.
If you're primarily a Linux dev, you're not running Windows anyway, so it doesn't matter to you. Except perhaps in an indirect way, since it expands your potential userbase.
If you're primarily a Windows dev, and want to port your program to Linux, this is immensely useful, especially since VS is also getting some integration with all that stuff (cross-compilation with Clang, and debugging via gdb).
If you're primarily a Windows user, you just get access to some programs that weren't readily available.
The "smoking gun" that you've mentioned is sufficient to see a number of things in a new light. For example, the debate schedule. It was long claimed by Sanders supporters that it was intentional to undermine him, but before the DNC email leak, the party could always (rightly) say "prove it". Now that the leaks have demonstrated general bias, as well as specific desire of at least some of the members to actually translate that to actions, the reasonable default assumption, on the balance of probabilities, is that the schedule was, indeed, intentionally skewed; and DNC has to do something to prove it otherwise.
The problem with SFU was that it implemented some sort of a generic Unix system - it wasn't Linux, or BSD, or anything else specifically, just something POSIX'ish. So it only had source-level compatibility, not binaries - you had to recompile - and then compatibility only extended to those Unix and POSIX APIs that SFU implemented.
SFL, on the other hand, implements Linux kernel ABI (syscalls and device nodes). Which then allows to just put glibc on top of that, and getting full compatibility with userspace Linux APIs for free; your choice of distro (though only Ubuntu is officially supported).
Since it emulates an actual OS, and does so on binary level, this is much, much more useful than SFU ever was.
You should be able to, yes. Running GUI apps is still a bit of a hassle right now, since the emulation layer doesn't extend to graphics drivers and X. But you can run an X server for Windows (e.g. Xming), and tell your Linux apps to use that.
It's effectively a Linux syscall emulation layer + ELF loader, and Ubuntu running on top of that.
So kernelspace is entirely Windows (including drivers, filesystem support etc), but it presents Linux kernel ABI to the userspace. So userspace is just regular Linux. So there's no special "knowledge" between the two parts, aside from the ABI.
Filesystem is effectively shared, with a mapping system in place (Linux "partition" is in reality just an NTFS folder, while Windows drive letters are exposed as mount points in Linux).
Because the implementation sits directly on top of the NT kernel, side-by-side with Win32 (and not on top of it, like Cygwin does), it can efficiently provide proper semantics for things like fork().
Windows Subsystem for Linux (aka "Bash for Windows", but that's a horrible misnomer IMO) is a big deal for power users.
Technically speaking, Georgia didn't comply, in a sense that it admitted the decision to be valid. The people affected were pardoned, which is basically saying "you're still guilty, but we'll let you go just because". They did not repeal the law in question.
In any case, the president can push as far as they think they can get away with. In case of Trump, based on his track record and temperament, he might decide to push all the way into a genuine constitutional crisis. And what then? What happens if an executive issues an unconstitutional order, SCOTUS declares it such, but top of executive demands that it be carried out people under him anyway? In theory, that's when Congress is supposed to impeach; but will a Republican Congress actually do so? And even if it does, what if the president refuses to vacate? Push far enough, and this is something that could only be resolved by use of force. If both sides use it, we're talking about a coup, and potentially a civil war.
There's a lot of chatter that Nusra is imminently going to break with al-Qaeda.
Given their platform and their activities, would it really change much?
The fact that DNC has not stated so, even though they've had plenty of opportunities by now?
The fact that several people have already apologized for their emails?
If the Russians wanted to help Trump, they would indeed do so - a week or two before the polls in November.
More likely is that they have enough materials to keep things interesting for the rest of the race by staggering the release. WL has already said they have more damaging DNC emails, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if they released them after Sanders finishes speaking today.