Both of those are significant because Russian personnel were at the airbase. Russian pilots also fly Syrian aircraft.
If you look at the CNN coverage of the jet shootdown they were warning rather excitedly of the risk of a US/Russia war over that, which of course never happened. And at the same time they're obsessed with the idea that Trump is or was colluding with the Russians, with collusion being an ill defined term. See for example the Wikileaks collusion story. Which had one major flaw - the email with the Wikileaks codes came from a supporter after Wikileaks had gone public. CNN ran with the story because they were too lazy to check the dates.
Then again they were accusing him of being a Neo Nazi at the same time as saying moving the US Embassy to Israel - something Bush and Obama said they'd do when campaigning but didn't do in office - would provoke violence from the Palestinians. I.e. Trump was being too pro Israel.
I.e. CNN don't make no sense. Either Trump is a Putin stooge, or he's trying to provoke a war with Russia. Either he's a Neo Nazi or he's too pro Israel.
Funny thing is Trump's media management isn't all that good. He hasn't got much done legislatively. It should be easy to attack him. CNN lack the attention to detail to attack him without making themselves look like idiots to the point where now if they did find some sort of smoking gun who'd even pay attention? They've cried wolf too many times to be credible.
People often point out that Fox viewers are old, but CNN's aren't that much younger. 68 vs 60
My comment was bitching about them charging $200 for 8GB DDR4 2133 for a Macbook Pro. That costs $200 because you have to buy it from them when you buy the device, not because it's ECC.
32GB 32GB of 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory Configurable to 64GB or 128GB
I'm guessing configuring it to 64GB or 128GB is going to cost you a lot of cash per GB. If Apple charge $200 for 8GB of non ECC memory for a Macbook Pro, how much will they charge for 32 or 96GB of ECC stuff for an iMac Pro?
And, in true Apple fashion the Ram on the iMac Pro isn't upgradeable unlike in the 5K iMac, so you need to order the device with the maximum amount of memory you think it will need over its life.
Apple has announced that the iMac Pro will be available beginning Thursday, Dec. 14 starting at $5,000 for an 8-core Xeon procession, 32GB of RAM, an 8GB Radeon Pro Vega GPU and 1TB SSD. That's a lot of machine, but itâ(TM)s hardly maxed out. Customers will be able to customize the iMac Pro up to an 18-core Xeon chip, 128GB of RAM, 16GB GPU, and 4TB hard drive.
But as Marques Brownlee points out, you might want to pony up some extra cash up front. Brownlee got a chance to play with the new 10-core machine for a week, and while he praises the speed, he notes that the iMac Pro isn't user upgradeable. Even the RAM door that is on the back of the 5K iMac is gone, which will surely upset power users.
This model is powered by a 14 nm, 64-bit "Seventh Generation" Intel Mobile Core i5 "Kaby Lake" (I5-7360U) processor which includes two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip with 64 MB of eDRAM embedded on the processor die. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 4 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).
Maybe Apple will even let you upgrade this system...!
We've heard that one of our customers bought some bad Ram or SSD or something and had a bad experience and also they like thin machines. So we've decided to solder it all down.
Still for a hefty premium you can order the machine with extra Ram.
So why is it it $400? Other than that you've got me over a barrel.
And, more to the point if the system were upgradeable I could buy the unupgraded version now and buy more Ram and a larger SSD later when/if I need them. At which point they'll will be cheaper.
Like I did with my Macbook Pro 2012. That was about $1200. Now for a future proof machine I need to pony up $1699.
Suddenly Windows 10 doesn't seem so bad. I bet I could even get XCode running in a VM on an Asus laptop if I had to.
In response to an obvious manip of Dominic Monaghan hanging out at Crystal's house, shinigami_co commented, "Not to mention the whole "MY HED IZ PASTEDE ON YAY" effect. He really should have that checked." The phrase was swept up by the masses of people who found it hilarious, the single, deliberately misspelled sentence coming to embody the entire situation and its perceived associated ridiculousness.
It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US and free speech is a wider concept than speech protected by the First Amendment. And if it's a moral argument not a legal one, shouldn't it be a wider issue than the First Amendment?
Actually Net Neutrality is very narrow issue - it's whether ISPs should be regulated under Title II or not.
And it turns out you can make a pro NN argument for not regulating ISPs under Title II
I believe the term is disputing. Litigating would be if we took it to the Male Privilege court. Then again if it went to the Male Privilege court we'd just say something like 'Your honour, the defendant has always been a bit high strung. Difficult. See you in the Men's Club after the case is dismissed? I've got a fine filly you might enjoy breaking in'.
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nationâ(TM)s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
The FCC ruled against them and they said they'd move to different mechanisms to handle 'high bandwidth customers'.
TELUS: In 2005, Canadaâ(TM)s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
This is bad. On the other hand Google and Facebook have also blocked content on political grounds on Youtube and Facebook and everyone told me 'private company, First Amendment doesn't apply'.
Obviously it's Canada so the First Amendment doesn't apply, and neither do FCC rules. It seems very bad though
AT&T: From 2007â"2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such âoeover-the-topâ voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
Apple operate a walled garden and if AT&T convinced them to block apps from their store, they can do that. Net Neutrality doesn't affect this
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstreamâ(TM)s own search portal and results.
They were exposed in the press and backed off the change.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizonâ(TM)s court challenge against the FCCâ(TM)s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agencyâ(TM)s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
The service seems pretty terrible but who cares? It's not like you don't have a choice of other mobile carriers if you don't like it.
So Google and Facebook are push NN out of the goodness of their hearts? I find that very hard to believe. Particularly as both of them were involved in the non Net Neutral Internet Basics in India
They obviously see NN as being a plus in the US where they're don't own the ISPs. In other places, they're trying to own the ISPs and don't want Net Neutrality.
I'd say the Internet worked pretty well with light touch regulation. Net Neutrality was only a legal requirement from 2015 when Wheeler was FCC chair. It was suspended in 2017 when Pai was chair. That period is too short to say it's 'better for 95% of humanity'.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. He Tomahawked an airbase in Syria after a chemical attack, something Obama didn't do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And he shot down a Syrian jet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/0...
Both of those are significant because Russian personnel were at the airbase. Russian pilots also fly Syrian aircraft.
If you look at the CNN coverage of the jet shootdown they were warning rather excitedly of the risk of a US/Russia war over that, which of course never happened. And at the same time they're obsessed with the idea that Trump is or was colluding with the Russians, with collusion being an ill defined term. See for example the Wikileaks collusion story. Which had one major flaw - the email with the Wikileaks codes came from a supporter after Wikileaks had gone public. CNN ran with the story because they were too lazy to check the dates.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Then again they were accusing him of being a Neo Nazi at the same time as saying moving the US Embassy to Israel - something Bush and Obama said they'd do when campaigning but didn't do in office - would provoke violence from the Palestinians. I.e. Trump was being too pro Israel.
I.e. CNN don't make no sense. Either Trump is a Putin stooge, or he's trying to provoke a war with Russia. Either he's a Neo Nazi or he's too pro Israel.
Funny thing is Trump's media management isn't all that good. He hasn't got much done legislatively. It should be easy to attack him. CNN lack the attention to detail to attack him without making themselves look like idiots to the point where now if they did find some sort of smoking gun who'd even pay attention? They've cried wolf too many times to be credible.
People often point out that Fox viewers are old, but CNN's aren't that much younger. 68 vs 60
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Given people tend to become more conservative as they get older, it's not that surprising Fox has a higher average age.
Neither Fox nor CNN have any programs I'd personally watch. Both of them are straight up propaganda for the RNC and DNC respectively.
You better hope the Daily Stormer starts running tornado warnings or you're gonna be fucked.
I read Stormfront.org for the weather coverage.
My comment was bitching about them charging $200 for 8GB DDR4 2133 for a Macbook Pro. That costs $200 because you have to buy it from them when you buy the device, not because it's ECC.
32GB
32GB of 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory
Configurable to 64GB or 128GB
I'm guessing configuring it to 64GB or 128GB is going to cost you a lot of cash per GB. If Apple charge $200 for 8GB of non ECC memory for a Macbook Pro, how much will they charge for 32 or 96GB of ECC stuff for an iMac Pro?
And, in true Apple fashion the Ram on the iMac Pro isn't upgradeable unlike in the 5K iMac, so you need to order the device with the maximum amount of memory you think it will need over its life.
https://www.macworld.com/artic...
Apple has announced that the iMac Pro will be available beginning Thursday, Dec. 14 starting at $5,000 for an 8-core Xeon procession, 32GB of RAM, an 8GB Radeon Pro Vega GPU and 1TB SSD. That's a lot of machine, but itâ(TM)s hardly maxed out. Customers will be able to customize the iMac Pro up to an 18-core Xeon chip, 128GB of RAM, 16GB GPU, and 4TB hard drive.
But as Marques Brownlee points out, you might want to pony up some extra cash up front. Brownlee got a chance to play with the new 10-core machine for a week, and while he praises the speed, he notes that the iMac Pro isn't user upgradeable. Even the RAM door that is on the back of the 5K iMac is gone, which will surely upset power users.
I believe it's actually ECC RAM, which is much more expensive than the conventional desktop variety.
'Snot true
https://everymac.com/systems/a...
This model is powered by a 14 nm, 64-bit "Seventh Generation" Intel Mobile Core i5 "Kaby Lake" (I5-7360U) processor which includes two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip with 64 MB of eDRAM embedded on the processor die. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 4 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).
https://ark.intel.com/products...
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) : 32 GB
Memory Types : DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866, DDR3L-1600
Max # of Memory Channels : 2
Max Memory Bandwidth : 34.1 GB/s
ECC Memory Supported : No
Maybe Apple will even let you upgrade this system...!
We've heard that one of our customers bought some bad Ram or SSD or something and had a bad experience and also they like thin machines. So we've decided to solder it all down.
Still for a hefty premium you can order the machine with extra Ram.
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy...
How does $400 for an extra 8GB Ram and 128GB of SSD sound like?
Now you'll say "That sounds expensive. I could buy the RAM for $91.76
https://www.newegg.com/Product...
And a 128GB SSD for about $133
https://www.newegg.com/Product...
Presumably Apple buy stuff cheaper than I do. E.g. look at the spot prices for NAND and SSDs here
http://www.dramexchange.com/
So why is it it $400? Other than that you've got me over a barrel.
And, more to the point if the system were upgradeable I could buy the unupgraded version now and buy more Ram and a larger SSD later when/if I need them. At which point they'll will be cheaper.
Like I did with my Macbook Pro 2012. That was about $1200. Now for a future proof machine I need to pony up $1699.
Suddenly Windows 10 doesn't seem so bad. I bet I could even get XCode running in a VM on an Asus laptop if I had to.
My money's on zxchim being a chupacabra, the famous Mexican Goatsucker.
Yes you are money, AC! Yes your are!
Careful dude. Saying that sort of thing around here is inviting an attack by pedants.
You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus!
I played that. You unpack it and they nuke themselves out of existence after a couple of zooplars. That Trump guy is funny though.
BeauHD is probably a disgruntled, neglected cryptid
This Sci Fi story based on 'The Thing' has a great closing line
http://clarkesworldmagazine.co...
Cats don't care about collateral damage. They'd eat the whole mouse race if they could.
"Bad actors" are those Hollywood types who keep banging on about politics when they obviously know nothing about it.
Can you get on Reddit and promote this? If you could convince Redditors to get off the Internet, that'd be great.
https://fanlore.org/wiki/My_he...
In response to an obvious manip of Dominic Monaghan hanging out at Crystal's house, shinigami_co commented, "Not to mention the whole "MY HED IZ PASTEDE ON YAY" effect. He really should have that checked." The phrase was swept up by the masses of people who found it hilarious, the single, deliberately misspelled sentence coming to embody the entire situation and its perceived associated ridiculousness.
Comcast needs to make people pass a literacy test before they allow them to have an Internet connection.
Hey, I agreed with that. And him killing bin Laden.
As Deng Xiaoping observed "Who cares if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At least he's not sending people to The Games.
It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US and free speech is a wider concept than speech protected by the First Amendment. And if it's a moral argument not a legal one, shouldn't it be a wider issue than the First Amendment?
Actually Net Neutrality is very narrow issue - it's whether ISPs should be regulated under Title II or not.
And it turns out you can make a pro NN argument for not regulating ISPs under Title II
E.g.
https://stratechery.com/2017/p...
I believe the term is disputing. Litigating would be if we took it to the Male Privilege court. Then again if it went to the Male Privilege court we'd just say something like 'Your honour, the defendant has always been a bit high strung. Difficult. See you in the Men's Club after the case is dismissed? I've got a fine filly you might enjoy breaking in'.
And that would be that.
Gee I can't win here can I?
"How do we know you're not a shill!"
"Well no one pays me to post my opinions"
"Ha, that proves your opinions are worthless".
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
So they got fined by the FCC and stopped doing it
https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...
COMCAST: In 2005, the nationâ(TM)s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
The FCC ruled against them and they said they'd move to different mechanisms to handle 'high bandwidth customers'.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
TELUS: In 2005, Canadaâ(TM)s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
This is bad. On the other hand Google and Facebook have also blocked content on political grounds on Youtube and Facebook and everyone told me 'private company, First Amendment doesn't apply'.
Obviously it's Canada so the First Amendment doesn't apply, and neither do FCC rules. It seems very bad though
https://thetyee.ca/News/2005/0...
AT&T: From 2007â"2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such âoeover-the-topâ voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
Apple operate a walled garden and if AT&T convinced them to block apps from their store, they can do that. Net Neutrality doesn't affect this
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstreamâ(TM)s own search portal and results.
They were exposed in the press and backed off the change.
https://www.dslreports.com/sho...
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizonâ(TM)s court challenge against the FCCâ(TM)s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agencyâ(TM)s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
The service seems pretty terrible but who cares? It's not like you don't have a choice of other mobile carriers if you don't like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" Slate's Farhad Manjoo panned the service by suggesting that MetroPCS was able to
So Google and Facebook are push NN out of the goodness of their hearts? I find that very hard to believe. Particularly as both of them were involved in the non Net Neutral Internet Basics in India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They obviously see NN as being a plus in the US where they're don't own the ISPs. In other places, they're trying to own the ISPs and don't want Net Neutrality.
I'd say the Internet worked pretty well with light touch regulation. Net Neutrality was only a legal requirement from 2015 when Wheeler was FCC chair. It was suspended in 2017 when Pai was chair. That period is too short to say it's 'better for 95% of humanity'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Google obviously see it as good for them.