I've pondered that but have no idea what will happen. I can assume that neither would win. It just doesn't seem likely.
I've been "throwing away my vote" for years and years. I've been voting for 40 years and in all but one of those elections, I've voted third party. Why? Well... I figure if enough of us do it then eventually they'll notice and start to urge the powers that be to run third party candidates and offer more choices. I'm not sure what it will take to get the number-crunchers to notice but there's bound to be a tipping point. The number is steadily increasing but plotted and extrapolated, it won't reach big numbers until after I'm dead and gone.
It's okay... I'll rest easy knowing that I've done my part. I'd also like to see run-off voting but that's a topic for another day. And, seeing as I'm asking for a unicorn, I'd like to see true representative voting where we do away with the Electoral College. We've the means to do so, with nary a problem, and yet we're still not (necessarily) having our votes represented accurately. I can think of a bunch of other things that I'd like to see changed, or at least given some consideration, but I'm definitely in the minority on this one.
I have no idea why I'm in the minority, I really don't. The vast majority indicates (if polls are to be believed) that the system is flawed. Yet, flawed as it is, many are of the mind that keeping on doing what we have been doing is going to result in better things than history tells us it has resulted in. (Not one of my best sentences.) It's a fine time for a rant on the subject but I'd probably be preaching to the choir and I'm already getting enough pleas from the Save the Bit Foundation.
Oh, I don't know about all that. I like Linux just fine. It works for me. I'm not really a zealot or anything. I'm not even an evangelist. I don't proselytize anything other than one use the tools that enable them to do the best job that they're able to do. If you're happy with Windows then, by all means, use it - it's a fine operating system. If you prefer OS X then that's a fine OS too.
I don't even dislike Windows or Microsoft - I was an MS MVP for about a half dozen years before I got tired of repeating myself. I switched entirely to Linux not due to any idealism but because I felt that I was no longer learning anything new. (I've got a couple of journal posts and lots of comments on this subject.) I'm not a Linux user because I'm against proprietary software. I'm a Linux user because I'm getting older and my brain was turning into mush - and I wanted to keep learning new things.
Hell, I'm bound to be switching to one of the BSD OSes soon enough. I might even give OS X a spin. I'll certainly keep poking at Open Indiana. I've got MINIX in a VM. I have ChromeOS on a USB thumb drive. I've got hundreds (literally) of versions of Linux and have actually tried many of them. My MSDN subscription has lapsed so I no longer have a pile of Windows OSes but I've even had a pile of them available. (N and K versions, going back as far as XP - they dropped 98 from MSDN due to Sun's lawsuit - and a variety of server systems, enterprise editions, pro and home, and even a tiny starter edition.)
So, I'm not exactly an OS zealot or anything. I just figured it's important that people know that there are help files available with Linux (the distro).
Now that I think about it - not only is there a help file format but it's standardized and in a single user interface. Any application can add its own man pages and many of them do. While not always as in-depth as they can be, there's often a --help switch as well. At least one distro (Mint) has a tutorial on using it that pops up when you first install or start the OS (until you disable it).
By the way, it's not like Linux is all that hard. I first started using it in the mid-1990s but didn't really do a whole lot with it. I'd install it on a separate partition and keep it up to date but hardly spent any time in it. It wasn't a difficulty thing so much as it was a matter of momentum.
Oh, absolutely. It's propaganda and control. It's like the politics scene in general. I'll use Hillary as an example...
Hillary doesn't have to appeal to the typical Democrat. They're going to vote for her regardless. She has to sway those who might otherwise vote differently. This means, sometimes, appealing to some of the lunatic fringe in rhetoric if not also in deed. So, you get what we have here. This is much the same.
The interesting thing is, as near as I can tell, the callers aren't (well) vetted. One of the shows that I am recalling seems to have people who call in on a regular basis. The host seems to know some of them and is able to recall (or reference - perhaps computationally) prior conversations. He was (seemingly) taken aback by some of their comments. It was (seemingly) unscripted. On day two, during the middle of it, the host appeared to be changing his views on it.
Do note the caveats in parenthesis. I trust 'em about as far as I can throw 'em.
I could go on and elaborate but I'd be preaching to the choir and I have a boo-boo on my finger. Yes, yes I am about as mature as a five year old. If you don't believe me, leave me unattended with a button that says, "Do not push!"
Assuming you want to buy electronics that are general compute devices, not buying Chinese-made products is not a realistic option. Hell, I am not even sure if you can buy a microwave without it having components from China. At best, you might find something assembled somewhere that is not China. I am not sure what that will net you, but you might be able to.
Find me a general use compute device with zero components sourced from China. Just one will do. I *almost* guarantee that you can not. The device you used to send your message is either exceptionally old (and I do mean very, very old) or has components that come from China, bare minimum. I'm pretty sure that it's neigh on impossible to find such a device, even if you wanted to.
Interestingly enough, this flat and small Earth concept was meant to result in a rising tide raising all ships and was a goal to aid the impoverished as well as result in greater income equality. Funny that...
> The rest of us want a secure and reliable internet.
That's amusing. It really is. This mishmash of "stuff" we call the internet is not now (nor will it ever be) secure *or* reliable. HTTPS is not going to change that. If you knew what drove and provisions the internet, well... Lemme just say, you shouldn't be pissed when it fails, you should be shocked that it works at all.
I have not crunched any numbers but I bet the folks who say this are right more often than not. How often do lab demos turn into viable commercial products?
Hmm... I don't think I've actually noticed a Linux distro that doesn't have a tutorial. It's right there in the terminal. Hell, type 'man -k man' and you've got a tutorial for everything.
Let me see if I understand you. You're developing against beta builds?
Hmm... I am no expert but I've been around the block a few times. Some years ago and for a period of about a half dozen years, I was awarded the MS MVP which meant that I had access to *all* the beta software and a unique version of MSDN subscription. You really/probably/almost certainly don't want to do this. For such a large and lumbering company, Microsoft can make some pretty nimble changes at times.
Yes, yes they'd be taking that pill but they'd be hiding it in chambers. So, it's there as an option. If anything - if it went that way, I'd expect the government to use that as an excuse to stand down and not lose face.
As for the second, that *is* my point. What authority does the judge have to issue these orders? If there's nobody charged then how, exactly, does a judge get to make these orders? Under what authority does the judge issue this writ? There's no case - so how do they get the authority to issue this order? Nobody has been able to answer that question.
As near as I can tell, judges do not have the authority to just issue orders to people when there's no court case. This is easily fixed, by the way. The government just has the dead folks indicted and charges them - at that point, the judge will probably have some say. Right now, as near as I can tell, they're just handing down orders that are without power, they had no right to issue the order. Unless, of course, someone can explain under what authority the judge issued this order.
So far, nobody has done that. "Because." Is not an answer, by the way. I can read, show me where they get this authority.
It kind of looks like that, unfortunately. As I'd mentioned before, Rubio's not completely retarded. However, he's approaching that label with this sort of thing BUT I kind of see where he's coming from. I don't agree with him but I can see it from his perspective.
Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer. He has decent views on privacy, for example. I'm not going to vote for him, not in a million years, but he's actually not that bad. It's too bad that he's gone this route and, even more unfortunately, I suspect that the root of this really is campaign funds.
I think if we take the money out of it then we might get some better results. I'm not really sure how to go about it.
I'm not a single-issue kind of person and I'm still going to support Sanders but it's unfortunate to see Rubio take this step. The Republicans are almost certainly going to end up nominating Trump - which is doubly amusing because the staunch Republicans seem to hate him. Hell, even most of the hosts on FNR hate him.
Sorry for the slow response - I wanted to read 'em and do some looking. That's asinine. Completely and totally unacceptable.
I figured you weren't shitting me - as I mentioned in the first post. I've seen enough of your posts and interacted with you enough to know you weren't making it up. Otherwise, I'd have just rolled my eyes and said, "Okay, right. Where's the proof?" I'd have then expected either no links, to be told to do my own research, or given links that didn't actually support what they were saying but to be given them a few days later when nobody is in the thread.
So, when *you* said something along those lines, I knew something had to be up. As I said, based on my observations, you are not prone to exaggeration or hyperbole. You're not one for spouting rhetoric and being all that overzealous.
Err... Quite some time ago, I started reading the usernames when reading the threads. I've forced myself to keep that as a habit. It makes reading slower but it actually makes the threads make more sense. In my effort to be polite, some folks are rather consistent with their mannerisms and behaviors. For example, I've been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt a number of things to a number of people. Some of them will actually change and express their thanks for having made it more clear. Others... Well... The majority will just drop the subject, not reply, and will show up a few days later, in a new thread, and repeating the same damned wrong information. I'm reasonably polite about it and I'm generally a polite person in general. But, it's frustrating...
So, observations told me that you're one of the more unusual folks who isn't prone to making unfounded accusations, repeating misinformation, and trying to carve reality to suit your beliefs. I figured I'd ask for more information 'cause that's kind of disturbing and you're a good source.
Which is a long-winded way of saying thanks. Thanks!
Ah - I just took a quick trip to Google. I see you're interested in the subject. You're quite interested. Is Child Snatching By The State something I might want to watch? I'm rather fond of information dense documentaries. There's only one seed. I'm guessing that seeder is you? If it's worth watching then I'll let it finish downloading and then keep it reseeding for a while. At least I'm assuming you're that "Jim?"
Hmm... I actually know, as in know personally, a handful of people who have worked at IBM and, out of that handful of people, I communicate with three of them on a weekly basis. Sometimes we are in touch more often than that.
Full disclosure: I had financial interest in IBM, quite a bit of interest - you could say, until early 2013. I own zero shares in IBM today.
Let me see if I can give you a different perspective?
I'm too lazy to go look right at the moment but the last time I looked, the shares were about half the price that they were when I sold. I sold because I'd noticed a lot of fluctuation in price, in a short amount of time, and I'd already made a decent profit on them. So, I just sold them. I want to say that they sold for about $205 each but I'm not sure. That's close enough if you're interested in the math.
The folks I know who work there are actually concerned. They're not overly concerned with their jobs as individuals, they're expecting a far greater disruption. Of all of the ones that I know, the aforementioned handful, at least half of them have indicated that they're likely to take an early retirement. They're reasonably sure they'll get an option like that. The others seem to think they'll be given the chance (if needed) to relocate and, if I'm understanding correctly, they expect to be able to keep nearly the same amount of pay - except they'll be making US wages in India or China and continuing to be managers.
That's how I understand their views. I'd like to elaborate but I do not have their permission to do so. That's the gist of it.
To go a little further, the reduction in expenses is a requirement. IBM has a huge labor pool and the powers that be see that as a cost center. For better or worse, they need to cut expenses and this is not a matter of "activist investors" or the likes. The last time I read their financial reports, it was not looking good. That was probably about a year and a half ago when I went through them - you can find 'em online if you want. Oh, they make 'em look good because they want you to buy their shares but look at the numbers from the past few years and you'll see a trend. In isolation, they look pretty good. As a trend, it's a bit more obvious.
Anyhow, they have to do something. We can speculate what that something is but they have to do something and do it without upsetting the folks who are investing. They're a skittish bunch and prone to overreaction.
But, as near as I can tell, the folks who have been there a while and are still handy to IBM aren't worried about losing their jobs - even if it means they have to move to management and relocate. Or, they're already in management and are good at their job so they'll just move to a different department. IBM seems keen on keeping a lot of managers around. There are probably more cuts, actual overall cuts, coming in the not-to-distant future. If I had to guess, I'd say Q3 - near the end of it. But that's just a guess that's inferred from conversations.
Slight point of order... The FBI doesn't have a warrant. They don't *need* a warrant. The lawful owner of the device has given them the rights to do anything they want with the phone.
However... That still doesn't obligate Apple to do a damned thing. Apple has not been hit with a warrant. They've been hit with a writ, court order, and are challenging that order. The laws, specifically the Fourth Amendment, still carry weight but probably not as much weight - they are not Apple's papers, possessions, etc... There's maybe some Fifth Amendment issue - they might be incriminating themselves, I suppose they can argue that.
If I were Apple and a lawyer, I am neither, I'd have a bunch of assistants crawling over any precedent concerning orders given where a third party was *forced* to act in accordance to a writ based on a subpoena. What everyone seems to be missing is that this is still in the early stages. So, who - specifically, has been charged? Nobody, right? So, if nobody has been charged AND this is not a warrant but is a writ, then by what authority does the judge issue this order? There's nobody being, you know, judged?
However, I'm sure they've got someone smarter than I looking at it. I'm still curious as to why nobody has approached it from that angle yet. I guess they could claim a few things (in chambers) about their possible guilt and then plead the 5th. So, between the above and the 5th, there's some possible actual Constitutional debate to be had. It is important to remember that "reasonable person" is an actual legal concept. Which is where it ties into the 5th... I think...
The 5th? Well, this is kind of sketchy and judge's don't really like weasel words and semantic arguments. But, hear me out... Apple has been marketing their devices as secure. If they show that they're not actually secure, as a reasonable person would expect, then they are subjecting themselves to potential charges for fraud, civil suits, and potentially criminal charges from violating any one of a number of statutes and regulations handed down by the FTC. I think there's a reasonable argument as a Constitutional matter.
Again, I'm not a lawyer but I do know a wee bit about the law and the procedure. Procedure is an important thing. I'm not positive but I am not sure that procedure is being followed. There has been nobody charged - at all. That's easily remedied, by the way. It would give the government a way out. "Oh, we have to charge someone..." Then the issue goes quietly into the night.
The thing is, I'd not actually be surprised to see it go into the night. No. I want this to go to court. I want this to get tossed out now. I want this to be in the courts while the public is still speaking about it. I want this to be in the courts while the people are still capable of outrage. I don't want them pushing this down the road and then continuing to proceed with the court order after we've gotten wrapped up in something else.
I don't want them to see that the public is outspoken and against this and let it drop only to find a new case down the road (and there will be) where people are less outraged because they've seen it before and are expecting it to be overturned. I forget the name but that's an actual named political strategy where they wear you down and then let it pass later on. It's usually used for the creation of laws and it'll be a damned shame (even more of one) to see it used in the in both the legislative and judicial branches.
Nope, I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. That is not legal advice. If you have any questions, consult a legal professional in your jurisdiction.
Yes, I think your right and it was Darwin. I actually did think that and then I was pretty sure it was wrong because it was too easy and the only town I can remember off the top of my head from that area of Australia. I think the Aussies were doing a retreat from Port Moresby or ended up doing one? I seem to recall that there weren't a whole lot of them and that some of them were particularly heroic.
I watch a lot of documentaries. It's pretty much all I watch and I've been watching them for many, many years. I don't really watch regular television very often - I don't even have it hooked up at my home. Which means that they're for entertainment. It's not a scholarly pursuit. Any learning is incidental and a bonus. I can usually remember the general idea, like geographic region, approximate dates, who was involved, maybe some names. I don't recall the specifics and I'm not a walking trivia book. I do admire the people who can do that. I can not. I am not even a historian.
So, yes... I think you're right. I'm way too lazy to go look.;-) There's a good series called War in the Pacific. I imagine that goes over it. There are a few, not many, documentaries about the ANZAC involvement in WWII and *just* about their involvement. I've only come across a few of them in my travels. I'd like to see some more about the ANZAC, Indians, Polish, and Canada.
Tangentially related...
My current series is "The First World War." That's actually really good. I've seen it a bunch of times. The good thing about not remembering all the dates, names, times, and places? I can watch that series a dozen times and enjoy it and learn something new every time I watch it. If I knew everything, I'd have nothing left to live for. More or less, learning really isn't the goal. Yeah, I try to learn a little but it's really just to entertain myself. I also read a lot so I do learn quite a bit and I retain some of it.
Which leads me to this: If you're curious, I'm sure there's some documentaries on the subject at YouTube. I've bumped into a few of them but not many. There are probably more out there and I've just not found them. They changed the format in TV when the laws changed, sometime around 1986 or 87. I was never big on it before but they went to something like 12 minutes of commercials per hour long program. These days, even a trimmed PBS documentary is only 52 minutes.
Anyhow, I stopped watching much TV around that time (not a hipster, not on a moral crusade - kids still watched it. So, the internet has been a virtual cornucopia of goodness for me. I can find documentaries and even just pick one and let YouTube pick the next one for me and automatically play it. I can search and tick the playlist filter and get a bunch of playlists with similar content. That's something that I really appreciate. I pay for both Netflix and Hulu+ but I've seen all the good ones at Netflix, I only pay for Hulu+ because I keep forgetting to cancel it, and I'm almost always just happy with YouTube.
So, if you're curious about more of the history, just hit YouTube to find a good documentary. I put the subject in and then filter it for long results. That usually will find me something. I often just take that title name, search for that, and then filter the results for playlists. So, first long and then name and then playlist. *nods* There's bound to be something out there. I should probably do the same. I'll put it on my mental list, I've got to finish this series before I move on to the next one.
As I mentioned above. For some unknown reason, this is all backwards. I've been listening to Fox News Radio during this - I've been listening off-and-on for a little over two weeks now. At least it feels like that long... And no, it's well known where my politics are - I'm a pretty staunch Sanders supporter.
The folks who call in, talk to the DJ, and the DJs themselves are, by a wide margin, in favor of Apple...
I did not type that wrong. The vast, vast majority of folks on Fox News Radio are against the FBI and their court order and are in favor of Apple fighting the government on this. No, I do not know why. Yes, the rest of what they're saying is largely crazy. However, for whatever reason, they are in favor of Apple and by a pretty large percentage. I've not written it down or anything but I have been keeping mental track. I'm as baffled as you are.
NPR, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. The people they have commenting in interviews, the people they have commenting, the hosts, and the callers are largely in favor of the FBI. It's starting to equal out as of yesterday and I didn't listen earlier today. So, NPR may have changed their tune since Friday morning but they were getting more people in Apple's favor come the morning show that comes on after BBC goes off and they start playing more local content.
It's like Opposite Day or something. I really have no idea what prompted the Fox News folks to make a rational choice or, at the very least, to clearly articulate a choice that I agree with.
Due to some prompting here on this very site, I've been forcing myself to listen to some Fox News Radio. I still listen to NPR and I still listen to NRP more than I listen to anything else. Make sure to keep up with that.
I'm pretty damned left. I'm like left of Sanders. Yeah... I am *LEFT* of Sanders. I'm left of him quite a bit. He'd be as left as I am but he's gotta get elected. Also, I'm on the left for very different reasons than most.
I tell you that so that you can understand that I'm being objective, or as unbiased as I can be, but I have been keeping mental track. Fox News Radio's announcers, commentators, and callers are on the side of Apple on what has to be better than 2:1 on NPR.
Yes, you heard that right and make no mistake, I'm shocked by this too. They were like this on DAY ONE. They didn't fuck around. On day one, as soon as it was announced, they had people on there being right pissed off by the government issuing this writ. They're also far more likely to call it a court order, order, or writ as opposed to a "warrant." NPR's reps are still calling it a warrant but Diane Rehm's show's email answering person sent me a reply saying thanks and the lady who was filling in has since started calling it a court order. However, she and the majority of her callers and commentators are on the side of the FBI and the government.
You have this backwards. No, I have no idea either. However, since day one - I'm not kidding, Fox News Radio has had more people speaking out against it than speaking for it. One of the day-time dudes was against it on the first day. By the second day he was changing his mind and he had changed his mind by mid-show. He's the guy that blusters and talks over anyone that calls in? I don't know his name or anything. He also kind of hates Trump but he doesn't seem to really hate Sanders as much as I'd expected.
Yes, I'm as shocked shitless as you are. I'm not bullshitting. I'm not making it up. I sure as hell have nothing to prove. It's an embarrassment to see how the left has dealt with this. I thought about it, however... Clinton is for it (though she seems keen to be wishy washy but I don't think she can backtrack on this subject) and they're pretty heavily in favor of Clinton. They really can't have a bunch of people not supporting Hillary and being given a voice. So, I hate to say it but I think the two are related.
I really was not expecting this. I was expecting the Fox News Radio crowd to be in favor of the FBI. They're not. Hell, on day one they had not just one but two (that I heard) people call in that claimed to be computer scientists - well, one was in college and the other claimed to have been in the field for "over 20 years now." I'm inclined to believe both of them - they were familiar, fluent, and both were in favor of Apple challenging the order. The younger of the two didn't really seem to understand the political process, he thought it was a warrant. The older one specifically referred to it as a court order - while everyone else (pretty much) was still running around screaming that it was a warrant.
Yup... I mentioned it to Pope and then mentioned it the following day. I'm too lazy to dig it out. They did have some lunatics who thought that Apple should give them anything they asked for. However, those are actually few and far between. Don't get me wrong, they're still largely a bunch of reckless lunatics who play politics like a team sport but on this one particular issue - they are very much in favor of Apple.
Maybe, just maybe, you should try listening to Fox New Radio too? I'm absolutely baffled. I just turned it on and they're discussion hating Trump some more. They appear to have moved on from Apple and have something new to be outraged about.
I think the mods might have mis-read the post I'm replying to. By my reading, it's factiousness and intentional - and certainly as a parody.
Err... Unless the mods think that Apple should comply? If that's the case then, never mind... And if that's the case... Well, if that's the case I think that's tantamount to -1 Disagree.
Ha! I'd a conversation with the missus earlier. It was short. She came into the bedroom and I was rooting around trying to find my keys and phone. I have a terrible memory at times, I'm okay with it. It wasn't a frustrated rooting or anything, just normal rooting for something I've lost - I'm old and kind of used to it. It always turns up eventually.
Anyhow, she tries to help me find stuff and I paused and I was working back in my head where I last so the keys and phone. I'm standing there pondering (head probably cocked sideways like a confused dog) and she asked what I was doing. I said, "I'm looking for the 'ANY' key."
Yeah, she was disgusted with me too.
I hit preview and then I realized this... Concerning your geometric shapes... "Well, it's kind of round." Or, "The Earth is not round. It's an oblate spheroid." Or, "It's round!"
Then we've got "cubism." That doesn't really count but 'kind of square' does. Don't forget, "Almost nothing is perfectly round! Ever!" (Though, I guess they're REALLY close now to a perfect sphere - it was on one of the documentaries or science shows.) "Rectangular." "It's not a cone but it sure is conical..."
You too are on to something. 'Cause someone's out there doing it with geometric shapes right this minute. Hell, they're probably posting it to Slashdot right this minute in a different thread. I'd not be surprised one bit.
And people wonder why I post such long posts. Pfft... If I don't explain every little detail then they'll say the tire's not round and think that "wins a debate" because they think "defeated" a car analogy about windshield wipers. Gotta be honest, I kind of love this place.
I could agree with that but, as near as I can tell, not too many people are even putting lip service to that. I hear nearly nobody saying that the support her policies - and I've been listening. Well, "nobody" is an exaggeration but it is slight. Very few and very far between... Hell, not even NPR is saying that, at least not often.
Then, and you know it's coming - I'm sorry to have to do this to you, how can they say such things and be truthful about it? Does anyone actually support her policies? The policies that she's enumerated, the ones of her own? She's cribbing from Sanders now and contradictory (though not quite contradicting) her previous statements. I'm okay with a politician changing their mind when they get new information. However, the only new information she has is, "People like Sanders."
Sorry, that was kind of low - however, I stand by it. I said and I own it...
Yes, I could respect people who had a legitimate belief that they supporting her because they support Hillary's policies. However, I had not a whole lot of respect for fools. When you're getting fooled, that's what you are - you're a fool. Heh, I said that too. Screw it... Seriously... There are some subset who are not fools and know how she's really acted and what she's really done. They know what she has said as compared with what she has done. Out of this smaller subset is another subset who legitimately know those things, accept those things, couldn't care about her gender and don't care about anyone but their side winning... Out of that group, surely, there's that group of people who truly know all this and support her for the "right reasons." While they're idiots, I at least respect that they have conviction and I do not begrudge them their vote.
That's about as nice as I can be on the subject. Wow, I really dislike that woman. Sanders has gotta do something. Run Independent or something. If he can do something outlandish and attention getting - I think he might be able to get third party candidacy going and put up some decent numbers. I keep going back to the outlandish idea that I mentioned to you the other day and in the above message... It'd be a riot if Sanders ran with Trump as his VP, third party, and won. I'd so vote for 'em just 'cause I'd have invested in stock in a popcorn factory and farm.
Thanks. Did they declare war officially on Japan and Italy? And yes, yes it would have been rather unfortunate if the UK hadn't decided to go to war with them. I do think that might have been a history changer - but I've never actually given it any thought as to how that might have played out. Hmm... That's gonna take some pondering.
Slashdot Mirror
I've pondered that but have no idea what will happen. I can assume that neither would win. It just doesn't seem likely.
I've been "throwing away my vote" for years and years. I've been voting for 40 years and in all but one of those elections, I've voted third party. Why? Well... I figure if enough of us do it then eventually they'll notice and start to urge the powers that be to run third party candidates and offer more choices. I'm not sure what it will take to get the number-crunchers to notice but there's bound to be a tipping point. The number is steadily increasing but plotted and extrapolated, it won't reach big numbers until after I'm dead and gone.
It's okay... I'll rest easy knowing that I've done my part. I'd also like to see run-off voting but that's a topic for another day. And, seeing as I'm asking for a unicorn, I'd like to see true representative voting where we do away with the Electoral College. We've the means to do so, with nary a problem, and yet we're still not (necessarily) having our votes represented accurately. I can think of a bunch of other things that I'd like to see changed, or at least given some consideration, but I'm definitely in the minority on this one.
I have no idea why I'm in the minority, I really don't. The vast majority indicates (if polls are to be believed) that the system is flawed. Yet, flawed as it is, many are of the mind that keeping on doing what we have been doing is going to result in better things than history tells us it has resulted in. (Not one of my best sentences.) It's a fine time for a rant on the subject but I'd probably be preaching to the choir and I'm already getting enough pleas from the Save the Bit Foundation.
Oh, I don't know about all that. I like Linux just fine. It works for me. I'm not really a zealot or anything. I'm not even an evangelist. I don't proselytize anything other than one use the tools that enable them to do the best job that they're able to do. If you're happy with Windows then, by all means, use it - it's a fine operating system. If you prefer OS X then that's a fine OS too.
I don't even dislike Windows or Microsoft - I was an MS MVP for about a half dozen years before I got tired of repeating myself. I switched entirely to Linux not due to any idealism but because I felt that I was no longer learning anything new. (I've got a couple of journal posts and lots of comments on this subject.) I'm not a Linux user because I'm against proprietary software. I'm a Linux user because I'm getting older and my brain was turning into mush - and I wanted to keep learning new things.
Hell, I'm bound to be switching to one of the BSD OSes soon enough. I might even give OS X a spin. I'll certainly keep poking at Open Indiana. I've got MINIX in a VM. I have ChromeOS on a USB thumb drive. I've got hundreds (literally) of versions of Linux and have actually tried many of them. My MSDN subscription has lapsed so I no longer have a pile of Windows OSes but I've even had a pile of them available. (N and K versions, going back as far as XP - they dropped 98 from MSDN due to Sun's lawsuit - and a variety of server systems, enterprise editions, pro and home, and even a tiny starter edition.)
So, I'm not exactly an OS zealot or anything. I just figured it's important that people know that there are help files available with Linux (the distro).
Now that I think about it - not only is there a help file format but it's standardized and in a single user interface. Any application can add its own man pages and many of them do. While not always as in-depth as they can be, there's often a --help switch as well. At least one distro (Mint) has a tutorial on using it that pops up when you first install or start the OS (until you disable it).
By the way, it's not like Linux is all that hard. I first started using it in the mid-1990s but didn't really do a whole lot with it. I'd install it on a separate partition and keep it up to date but hardly spent any time in it. It wasn't a difficulty thing so much as it was a matter of momentum.
Oh, absolutely. It's propaganda and control. It's like the politics scene in general. I'll use Hillary as an example...
Hillary doesn't have to appeal to the typical Democrat. They're going to vote for her regardless. She has to sway those who might otherwise vote differently. This means, sometimes, appealing to some of the lunatic fringe in rhetoric if not also in deed. So, you get what we have here. This is much the same.
The interesting thing is, as near as I can tell, the callers aren't (well) vetted. One of the shows that I am recalling seems to have people who call in on a regular basis. The host seems to know some of them and is able to recall (or reference - perhaps computationally) prior conversations. He was (seemingly) taken aback by some of their comments. It was (seemingly) unscripted. On day two, during the middle of it, the host appeared to be changing his views on it.
Do note the caveats in parenthesis. I trust 'em about as far as I can throw 'em.
I could go on and elaborate but I'd be preaching to the choir and I have a boo-boo on my finger. Yes, yes I am about as mature as a five year old. If you don't believe me, leave me unattended with a button that says, "Do not push!"
Assuming you want to buy electronics that are general compute devices, not buying Chinese-made products is not a realistic option. Hell, I am not even sure if you can buy a microwave without it having components from China. At best, you might find something assembled somewhere that is not China. I am not sure what that will net you, but you might be able to.
Find me a general use compute device with zero components sourced from China. Just one will do. I *almost* guarantee that you can not. The device you used to send your message is either exceptionally old (and I do mean very, very old) or has components that come from China, bare minimum. I'm pretty sure that it's neigh on impossible to find such a device, even if you wanted to.
Interestingly enough, this flat and small Earth concept was meant to result in a rising tide raising all ships and was a goal to aid the impoverished as well as result in greater income equality. Funny that...
> The rest of us want a secure and reliable internet.
That's amusing. It really is. This mishmash of "stuff" we call the internet is not now (nor will it ever be) secure *or* reliable. HTTPS is not going to change that. If you knew what drove and provisions the internet, well... Lemme just say, you shouldn't be pissed when it fails, you should be shocked that it works at all.
I have not crunched any numbers but I bet the folks who say this are right more often than not. How often do lab demos turn into viable commercial products?
Hmm... I don't think I've actually noticed a Linux distro that doesn't have a tutorial. It's right there in the terminal. Hell, type 'man -k man' and you've got a tutorial for everything.
Wait, what?
Let me see if I understand you. You're developing against beta builds?
Hmm... I am no expert but I've been around the block a few times. Some years ago and for a period of about a half dozen years, I was awarded the MS MVP which meant that I had access to *all* the beta software and a unique version of MSDN subscription. You really/probably/almost certainly don't want to do this. For such a large and lumbering company, Microsoft can make some pretty nimble changes at times.
The turn of phrase existed long before the word spade was an ethnic slur.
Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.
Citation:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
I suppose that, by some definition, you discovered it too.
Yes, yes they'd be taking that pill but they'd be hiding it in chambers. So, it's there as an option. If anything - if it went that way, I'd expect the government to use that as an excuse to stand down and not lose face.
As for the second, that *is* my point. What authority does the judge have to issue these orders? If there's nobody charged then how, exactly, does a judge get to make these orders? Under what authority does the judge issue this writ? There's no case - so how do they get the authority to issue this order? Nobody has been able to answer that question.
As near as I can tell, judges do not have the authority to just issue orders to people when there's no court case. This is easily fixed, by the way. The government just has the dead folks indicted and charges them - at that point, the judge will probably have some say. Right now, as near as I can tell, they're just handing down orders that are without power, they had no right to issue the order. Unless, of course, someone can explain under what authority the judge issued this order.
So far, nobody has done that. "Because." Is not an answer, by the way. I can read, show me where they get this authority.
It kind of looks like that, unfortunately. As I'd mentioned before, Rubio's not completely retarded. However, he's approaching that label with this sort of thing BUT I kind of see where he's coming from. I don't agree with him but I can see it from his perspective.
Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer. He has decent views on privacy, for example. I'm not going to vote for him, not in a million years, but he's actually not that bad. It's too bad that he's gone this route and, even more unfortunately, I suspect that the root of this really is campaign funds.
I think if we take the money out of it then we might get some better results. I'm not really sure how to go about it.
I'm not a single-issue kind of person and I'm still going to support Sanders but it's unfortunate to see Rubio take this step. The Republicans are almost certainly going to end up nominating Trump - which is doubly amusing because the staunch Republicans seem to hate him. Hell, even most of the hosts on FNR hate him.
Sorry for the slow response - I wanted to read 'em and do some looking. That's asinine. Completely and totally unacceptable.
I figured you weren't shitting me - as I mentioned in the first post. I've seen enough of your posts and interacted with you enough to know you weren't making it up. Otherwise, I'd have just rolled my eyes and said, "Okay, right. Where's the proof?" I'd have then expected either no links, to be told to do my own research, or given links that didn't actually support what they were saying but to be given them a few days later when nobody is in the thread.
So, when *you* said something along those lines, I knew something had to be up. As I said, based on my observations, you are not prone to exaggeration or hyperbole. You're not one for spouting rhetoric and being all that overzealous.
Err... Quite some time ago, I started reading the usernames when reading the threads. I've forced myself to keep that as a habit. It makes reading slower but it actually makes the threads make more sense. In my effort to be polite, some folks are rather consistent with their mannerisms and behaviors. For example, I've been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt a number of things to a number of people. Some of them will actually change and express their thanks for having made it more clear. Others... Well... The majority will just drop the subject, not reply, and will show up a few days later, in a new thread, and repeating the same damned wrong information. I'm reasonably polite about it and I'm generally a polite person in general. But, it's frustrating...
So, observations told me that you're one of the more unusual folks who isn't prone to making unfounded accusations, repeating misinformation, and trying to carve reality to suit your beliefs. I figured I'd ask for more information 'cause that's kind of disturbing and you're a good source.
Which is a long-winded way of saying thanks. Thanks!
Ah - I just took a quick trip to Google. I see you're interested in the subject. You're quite interested. Is Child Snatching By The State something I might want to watch? I'm rather fond of information dense documentaries. There's only one seed. I'm guessing that seeder is you? If it's worth watching then I'll let it finish downloading and then keep it reseeding for a while. At least I'm assuming you're that "Jim?"
Hmm... I actually know, as in know personally, a handful of people who have worked at IBM and, out of that handful of people, I communicate with three of them on a weekly basis. Sometimes we are in touch more often than that.
Full disclosure: I had financial interest in IBM, quite a bit of interest - you could say, until early 2013. I own zero shares in IBM today.
Let me see if I can give you a different perspective?
I'm too lazy to go look right at the moment but the last time I looked, the shares were about half the price that they were when I sold. I sold because I'd noticed a lot of fluctuation in price, in a short amount of time, and I'd already made a decent profit on them. So, I just sold them. I want to say that they sold for about $205 each but I'm not sure. That's close enough if you're interested in the math.
The folks I know who work there are actually concerned. They're not overly concerned with their jobs as individuals, they're expecting a far greater disruption. Of all of the ones that I know, the aforementioned handful, at least half of them have indicated that they're likely to take an early retirement. They're reasonably sure they'll get an option like that. The others seem to think they'll be given the chance (if needed) to relocate and, if I'm understanding correctly, they expect to be able to keep nearly the same amount of pay - except they'll be making US wages in India or China and continuing to be managers.
That's how I understand their views. I'd like to elaborate but I do not have their permission to do so. That's the gist of it.
To go a little further, the reduction in expenses is a requirement. IBM has a huge labor pool and the powers that be see that as a cost center. For better or worse, they need to cut expenses and this is not a matter of "activist investors" or the likes. The last time I read their financial reports, it was not looking good. That was probably about a year and a half ago when I went through them - you can find 'em online if you want. Oh, they make 'em look good because they want you to buy their shares but look at the numbers from the past few years and you'll see a trend. In isolation, they look pretty good. As a trend, it's a bit more obvious.
Anyhow, they have to do something. We can speculate what that something is but they have to do something and do it without upsetting the folks who are investing. They're a skittish bunch and prone to overreaction.
But, as near as I can tell, the folks who have been there a while and are still handy to IBM aren't worried about losing their jobs - even if it means they have to move to management and relocate. Or, they're already in management and are good at their job so they'll just move to a different department. IBM seems keen on keeping a lot of managers around. There are probably more cuts, actual overall cuts, coming in the not-to-distant future. If I had to guess, I'd say Q3 - near the end of it. But that's just a guess that's inferred from conversations.
So, there's a little different perspective.
I had to scroll up. They did not say it was outsourcing. And, it isn't outsourcing, you're correct. The term is, I do believe, 'off-shoring.'
Slight point of order... The FBI doesn't have a warrant. They don't *need* a warrant. The lawful owner of the device has given them the rights to do anything they want with the phone.
However... That still doesn't obligate Apple to do a damned thing. Apple has not been hit with a warrant. They've been hit with a writ, court order, and are challenging that order. The laws, specifically the Fourth Amendment, still carry weight but probably not as much weight - they are not Apple's papers, possessions, etc... There's maybe some Fifth Amendment issue - they might be incriminating themselves, I suppose they can argue that.
If I were Apple and a lawyer, I am neither, I'd have a bunch of assistants crawling over any precedent concerning orders given where a third party was *forced* to act in accordance to a writ based on a subpoena. What everyone seems to be missing is that this is still in the early stages. So, who - specifically, has been charged? Nobody, right? So, if nobody has been charged AND this is not a warrant but is a writ, then by what authority does the judge issue this order? There's nobody being, you know, judged?
However, I'm sure they've got someone smarter than I looking at it. I'm still curious as to why nobody has approached it from that angle yet. I guess they could claim a few things (in chambers) about their possible guilt and then plead the 5th. So, between the above and the 5th, there's some possible actual Constitutional debate to be had. It is important to remember that "reasonable person" is an actual legal concept. Which is where it ties into the 5th... I think...
The 5th? Well, this is kind of sketchy and judge's don't really like weasel words and semantic arguments. But, hear me out... Apple has been marketing their devices as secure. If they show that they're not actually secure, as a reasonable person would expect, then they are subjecting themselves to potential charges for fraud, civil suits, and potentially criminal charges from violating any one of a number of statutes and regulations handed down by the FTC. I think there's a reasonable argument as a Constitutional matter.
Again, I'm not a lawyer but I do know a wee bit about the law and the procedure. Procedure is an important thing. I'm not positive but I am not sure that procedure is being followed. There has been nobody charged - at all. That's easily remedied, by the way. It would give the government a way out. "Oh, we have to charge someone..." Then the issue goes quietly into the night.
The thing is, I'd not actually be surprised to see it go into the night. No. I want this to go to court. I want this to get tossed out now. I want this to be in the courts while the public is still speaking about it. I want this to be in the courts while the people are still capable of outrage. I don't want them pushing this down the road and then continuing to proceed with the court order after we've gotten wrapped up in something else.
I don't want them to see that the public is outspoken and against this and let it drop only to find a new case down the road (and there will be) where people are less outraged because they've seen it before and are expecting it to be overturned. I forget the name but that's an actual named political strategy where they wear you down and then let it pass later on. It's usually used for the creation of laws and it'll be a damned shame (even more of one) to see it used in the in both the legislative and judicial branches.
Nope, I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. That is not legal advice. If you have any questions, consult a legal professional in your jurisdiction.
Yes, I think your right and it was Darwin. I actually did think that and then I was pretty sure it was wrong because it was too easy and the only town I can remember off the top of my head from that area of Australia. I think the Aussies were doing a retreat from Port Moresby or ended up doing one? I seem to recall that there weren't a whole lot of them and that some of them were particularly heroic.
I watch a lot of documentaries. It's pretty much all I watch and I've been watching them for many, many years. I don't really watch regular television very often - I don't even have it hooked up at my home. Which means that they're for entertainment. It's not a scholarly pursuit. Any learning is incidental and a bonus. I can usually remember the general idea, like geographic region, approximate dates, who was involved, maybe some names. I don't recall the specifics and I'm not a walking trivia book. I do admire the people who can do that. I can not. I am not even a historian.
So, yes... I think you're right. I'm way too lazy to go look. ;-) There's a good series called War in the Pacific. I imagine that goes over it. There are a few, not many, documentaries about the ANZAC involvement in WWII and *just* about their involvement. I've only come across a few of them in my travels. I'd like to see some more about the ANZAC, Indians, Polish, and Canada.
Tangentially related...
My current series is "The First World War." That's actually really good. I've seen it a bunch of times. The good thing about not remembering all the dates, names, times, and places? I can watch that series a dozen times and enjoy it and learn something new every time I watch it. If I knew everything, I'd have nothing left to live for. More or less, learning really isn't the goal. Yeah, I try to learn a little but it's really just to entertain myself. I also read a lot so I do learn quite a bit and I retain some of it.
Which leads me to this: If you're curious, I'm sure there's some documentaries on the subject at YouTube. I've bumped into a few of them but not many. There are probably more out there and I've just not found them. They changed the format in TV when the laws changed, sometime around 1986 or 87. I was never big on it before but they went to something like 12 minutes of commercials per hour long program. These days, even a trimmed PBS documentary is only 52 minutes.
Anyhow, I stopped watching much TV around that time (not a hipster, not on a moral crusade - kids still watched it. So, the internet has been a virtual cornucopia of goodness for me. I can find documentaries and even just pick one and let YouTube pick the next one for me and automatically play it. I can search and tick the playlist filter and get a bunch of playlists with similar content. That's something that I really appreciate. I pay for both Netflix and Hulu+ but I've seen all the good ones at Netflix, I only pay for Hulu+ because I keep forgetting to cancel it, and I'm almost always just happy with YouTube.
So, if you're curious about more of the history, just hit YouTube to find a good documentary. I put the subject in and then filter it for long results. That usually will find me something. I often just take that title name, search for that, and then filter the results for playlists. So, first long and then name and then playlist. *nods* There's bound to be something out there. I should probably do the same. I'll put it on my mental list, I've got to finish this series before I move on to the next one.
As I mentioned above. For some unknown reason, this is all backwards. I've been listening to Fox News Radio during this - I've been listening off-and-on for a little over two weeks now. At least it feels like that long... And no, it's well known where my politics are - I'm a pretty staunch Sanders supporter.
The folks who call in, talk to the DJ, and the DJs themselves are, by a wide margin, in favor of Apple...
I did not type that wrong. The vast, vast majority of folks on Fox News Radio are against the FBI and their court order and are in favor of Apple fighting the government on this. No, I do not know why. Yes, the rest of what they're saying is largely crazy. However, for whatever reason, they are in favor of Apple and by a pretty large percentage. I've not written it down or anything but I have been keeping mental track. I'm as baffled as you are.
NPR, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. The people they have commenting in interviews, the people they have commenting, the hosts, and the callers are largely in favor of the FBI. It's starting to equal out as of yesterday and I didn't listen earlier today. So, NPR may have changed their tune since Friday morning but they were getting more people in Apple's favor come the morning show that comes on after BBC goes off and they start playing more local content.
It's like Opposite Day or something. I really have no idea what prompted the Fox News folks to make a rational choice or, at the very least, to clearly articulate a choice that I agree with.
Due to some prompting here on this very site, I've been forcing myself to listen to some Fox News Radio. I still listen to NPR and I still listen to NRP more than I listen to anything else. Make sure to keep up with that.
I'm pretty damned left. I'm like left of Sanders. Yeah... I am *LEFT* of Sanders. I'm left of him quite a bit. He'd be as left as I am but he's gotta get elected. Also, I'm on the left for very different reasons than most.
I tell you that so that you can understand that I'm being objective, or as unbiased as I can be, but I have been keeping mental track. Fox News Radio's announcers, commentators, and callers are on the side of Apple on what has to be better than 2:1 on NPR.
Yes, you heard that right and make no mistake, I'm shocked by this too. They were like this on DAY ONE. They didn't fuck around. On day one, as soon as it was announced, they had people on there being right pissed off by the government issuing this writ. They're also far more likely to call it a court order, order, or writ as opposed to a "warrant." NPR's reps are still calling it a warrant but Diane Rehm's show's email answering person sent me a reply saying thanks and the lady who was filling in has since started calling it a court order. However, she and the majority of her callers and commentators are on the side of the FBI and the government.
You have this backwards. No, I have no idea either. However, since day one - I'm not kidding, Fox News Radio has had more people speaking out against it than speaking for it. One of the day-time dudes was against it on the first day. By the second day he was changing his mind and he had changed his mind by mid-show. He's the guy that blusters and talks over anyone that calls in? I don't know his name or anything. He also kind of hates Trump but he doesn't seem to really hate Sanders as much as I'd expected.
Yes, I'm as shocked shitless as you are. I'm not bullshitting. I'm not making it up. I sure as hell have nothing to prove. It's an embarrassment to see how the left has dealt with this. I thought about it, however... Clinton is for it (though she seems keen to be wishy washy but I don't think she can backtrack on this subject) and they're pretty heavily in favor of Clinton. They really can't have a bunch of people not supporting Hillary and being given a voice. So, I hate to say it but I think the two are related.
I really was not expecting this. I was expecting the Fox News Radio crowd to be in favor of the FBI. They're not. Hell, on day one they had not just one but two (that I heard) people call in that claimed to be computer scientists - well, one was in college and the other claimed to have been in the field for "over 20 years now." I'm inclined to believe both of them - they were familiar, fluent, and both were in favor of Apple challenging the order. The younger of the two didn't really seem to understand the political process, he thought it was a warrant. The older one specifically referred to it as a court order - while everyone else (pretty much) was still running around screaming that it was a warrant.
Yup... I mentioned it to Pope and then mentioned it the following day. I'm too lazy to dig it out. They did have some lunatics who thought that Apple should give them anything they asked for. However, those are actually few and far between. Don't get me wrong, they're still largely a bunch of reckless lunatics who play politics like a team sport but on this one particular issue - they are very much in favor of Apple.
Maybe, just maybe, you should try listening to Fox New Radio too? I'm absolutely baffled. I just turned it on and they're discussion hating Trump some more. They appear to have moved on from Apple and have something new to be outraged about.
I think the mods might have mis-read the post I'm replying to. By my reading, it's factiousness and intentional - and certainly as a parody.
Err... Unless the mods think that Apple should comply? If that's the case then, never mind... And if that's the case... Well, if that's the case I think that's tantamount to -1 Disagree.
20 years ago, I'd have called you an idiot.
I'm not sure how to feel about that.
Ha! I'd a conversation with the missus earlier. It was short. She came into the bedroom and I was rooting around trying to find my keys and phone. I have a terrible memory at times, I'm okay with it. It wasn't a frustrated rooting or anything, just normal rooting for something I've lost - I'm old and kind of used to it. It always turns up eventually.
Anyhow, she tries to help me find stuff and I paused and I was working back in my head where I last so the keys and phone. I'm standing there pondering (head probably cocked sideways like a confused dog) and she asked what I was doing. I said, "I'm looking for the 'ANY' key."
Yeah, she was disgusted with me too.
I hit preview and then I realized this... Concerning your geometric shapes... "Well, it's kind of round." Or, "The Earth is not round. It's an oblate spheroid." Or, "It's round!"
Then we've got "cubism." That doesn't really count but 'kind of square' does. Don't forget, "Almost nothing is perfectly round! Ever!" (Though, I guess they're REALLY close now to a perfect sphere - it was on one of the documentaries or science shows.) "Rectangular." "It's not a cone but it sure is conical..."
You too are on to something. 'Cause someone's out there doing it with geometric shapes right this minute. Hell, they're probably posting it to Slashdot right this minute in a different thread. I'd not be surprised one bit.
And people wonder why I post such long posts. Pfft... If I don't explain every little detail then they'll say the tire's not round and think that "wins a debate" because they think "defeated" a car analogy about windshield wipers. Gotta be honest, I kind of love this place.
I could agree with that but, as near as I can tell, not too many people are even putting lip service to that. I hear nearly nobody saying that the support her policies - and I've been listening. Well, "nobody" is an exaggeration but it is slight. Very few and very far between... Hell, not even NPR is saying that, at least not often.
Then, and you know it's coming - I'm sorry to have to do this to you, how can they say such things and be truthful about it? Does anyone actually support her policies? The policies that she's enumerated, the ones of her own? She's cribbing from Sanders now and contradictory (though not quite contradicting) her previous statements. I'm okay with a politician changing their mind when they get new information. However, the only new information she has is, "People like Sanders."
Sorry, that was kind of low - however, I stand by it. I said and I own it...
Yes, I could respect people who had a legitimate belief that they supporting her because they support Hillary's policies. However, I had not a whole lot of respect for fools. When you're getting fooled, that's what you are - you're a fool. Heh, I said that too. Screw it... Seriously... There are some subset who are not fools and know how she's really acted and what she's really done. They know what she has said as compared with what she has done. Out of this smaller subset is another subset who legitimately know those things, accept those things, couldn't care about her gender and don't care about anyone but their side winning... Out of that group, surely, there's that group of people who truly know all this and support her for the "right reasons." While they're idiots, I at least respect that they have conviction and I do not begrudge them their vote.
That's about as nice as I can be on the subject. Wow, I really dislike that woman. Sanders has gotta do something. Run Independent or something. If he can do something outlandish and attention getting - I think he might be able to get third party candidacy going and put up some decent numbers. I keep going back to the outlandish idea that I mentioned to you the other day and in the above message... It'd be a riot if Sanders ran with Trump as his VP, third party, and won. I'd so vote for 'em just 'cause I'd have invested in stock in a popcorn factory and farm.
Thanks. Did they declare war officially on Japan and Italy? And yes, yes it would have been rather unfortunate if the UK hadn't decided to go to war with them. I do think that might have been a history changer - but I've never actually given it any thought as to how that might have played out. Hmm... That's gonna take some pondering.