Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Can't install OSX Mavericks 30

Journal by smitty_one_each
I've only got 40GB or so of disk space, and that's apparently insufficient.
Most of the time, Apple's "Trust us, we're like the government, only different" approach is OK, but now and then the total lack of (a) feedback or (b) breadcrumbs leaves one felling caught in a Benghazi firefight, screaming for help.

(Gratuitous political ref for damn_registrars, of course, who will be as unable to see the affection implied as Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods were unable to get anything useful from OccupyResoluteDesk.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can't install OSX Mavericks

Comments Filter:
  • You stated

    as Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods were unable to get anything useful

    The shortest distance between DC and Benghazi is over 5,000 miles. A US Air Force C130 at maximum speed [wikipedia.org] would take over 15 hours to get there - ignoring the fact that 5000 miles is well beyond its range. Even if we departed from a base near Rome, Italy it would be more than 2 hours by air, that is is ignoring the amount of time to load the plane with the relevant materials for the fight. Furthermore if you want President Lawnchair to personally authorize action against it, that means that a p

    • What could have been done?

      Could've told the truth about what went on; could still permit the exposure of truth via a special prosecutor (HR36). Why do you H8 truth?

      • What could have been done?

        Could've told the truth about what went on;

        Can you stick to just one narrative? You stated in this JE that they didn't get useful help (even though Washington would have been unlikely to provide any in time). Now you're back to your old fact-free narrative. Which one do you want to hang President Lawnchair over?

        That said, do you have reason to believe that the current narrative is not factual? Can you show a reason to believe that they knew the original narrative to be false when they told it? I showed you the actual timeline before; they on

        • It hasn't received a vote yet in the conservative-dominated chamber.

          Which, itself, points to the greater problem. A proper investigation is going to reveal much, and could purge much evil from our government. Are you prepared to make them stand and deliver, irrespective of which end of the Progressive Party they are connected to, or will you just keep running interference?

          • It hasn't received a vote yet in the conservative-dominated chamber.

            Which, itself, points to the greater problem.

            In what way? Are you suggesting that someone in the house is covering their own hindquarters over this?

            A proper investigation is going to reveal much

            You are very certain of that, yet you have given no reason to support your belief. Does that mean you would discard as "improper" any investigation that does not lead to throwing out the president and everyone else with a (D) after their names?

            and could purge much evil from our government

            Yeah, we know you believe President Lawnchair is evil. We get that, loud and clear. You can't stand the idea of someone with a (D) in the whitehouse, even if

            • I have shared my views plainly, repeated, and succinctly. You refuse to take them at face value.
              • I have shared my views plainly, repeated, and succinctly

                Sharing your views is one thing. You have done that, indeed. What you have repeatedly failed to share is why you hold those beliefs. You believe that the Lawnchair administration is lying about Benghazi but you refuse to state why. That is like saying that you believe in the flying spaghetti monster because you like marinara.

                You refuse to take them at face value.

                No, I do take your beliefs at face value. I accept that you hate the president and every politician with a (D) after their name. I accept that you want President Lawnchair throw

                • You believe that the Lawnchair administration is lying about Benghazi but you refuse to state why. That is like saying that you believe in the flying spaghetti monster because you like marinara.

                  Based upon the system, diabolical malfeasance of the Affordable Care Act, coupled with the known, public lying concerning Benghazi, your commitment to giving the Benghazi the Full Alfred E. Neuman makes as much sense as being a flat-Earther. But please: stay beautiful.

                  Now you seem to have a mission to destroy the democratic party at all costs, constitutionality be damned.

                  I am on a mission to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
                  Political parties, themselves, are part of the problem, to the extent you can slide a piece of paper between the Progressiv

                  • diabolical malfeasance of the Affordable Care Act

                    Don't try to pretend that you're the only one who doesn't like the health care bailout act of 2010. Don't pretend that it has anything to do with Benghazi, either.

                    coupled with the known, public lying concerning Benghazi

                    I have asked you many, many, many, many, many times to show this "known, public lying". Not once have you even attempted an answer to the request. Not. One. Single. Time. This does not do anything to lend credibility to your claim.

                    your commitment to giving the Benghazi the Full Alfred E. Neuman

                    Why are you accusing me of this? Have you actually read what I have written? I would have to conclude the

                    • Don't pretend that it has anything to do with Benghazi, either.

                      I'm saying the dishonesty in both cases forms an overlap.

                      Not once have you even attempted an answer to the request. Not. One. Single. Time. This does not do anything to lend credibility to your claim.

                      For roughly the bazillionth time, Ambassador Rice was sent to lie to the American people. Furthermore, the dishonestly cannot be said to have been without effect upon the election itself. Need to hook a turbine to your spinning anatomy and generate some A/C here.

                      Why are you accusing me of this? Have you actually read what I have written?

                      You've got enough smoke screen going on for a three-state wildfire, boss.

                      You don't have an actual policy argument against President Lawnchair; you hate him for being from a party other than your own. You have demonstrated that many, many, many times over.

                      You completely mischaracterize me. I H8 the ale vat that allows only the yeastiest yeast rise to the top. I realize you

                    • For roughly the bazillionth time, Ambassador Rice was sent to lie to the American people.

                      First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

                      However that isn't your biggest problem here by a long shot. As I have stated before, in order for you to demonstrate that they lied you need to provide credible evidence that they knew what they were saying to be untrue. I have asked you many times for that evidence and not once have you provided any.

                      Furthermore, the dishonestly cannot be said to have been without effect upon the election itself.

                      As I pointed out earlier, the administration officially c

                    • First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

                      Can you expound upon your theory of lying? You seem to imply that #OccupyResoluteDesk is firewalled by sending a flunky out to spew the talking points.

                      Well, you haven't made a legitimate policy claim against the president so far that is in any way different from a policy perspective than what any republican president has ever done.

                      So you're saying that because child abuse has plenty of historical instances, someone like a Jerry Sandusky should be acquitted?
                      If principles matter, they should be applied evenly. I'd rather political careers be snuffed than Ambassadors.
                      Now, I have to take the mockery for being insufficiently critical of Bush and the GOP. That's fair. But the utter bogosity

                    • First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

                      Can you expound upon your theory of lying? You seem to imply that #OccupyResoluteDesk is firewalled by sending a flunky out to spew the talking points.

                      When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying that they specifically said something they knew to not be true. It's no more complicated than that. In order to prove that someone was lying you need to show that they knew that thing to not be true.

                      If you say that person B is a mouthpiece for person A, and A sent out B to say something untrue knowing it to be untrue, you still need to show that A knew the statement to be untrue if you are aiming to show that A was lying by proxy through B. I was simp

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying that they specifically said something they knew to not be true. It's no more complicated than that. In order to prove that someone was lying you need to show that they knew that thing to not be true.

                      That's simply incorrect. It is not about knowing something to not be true, it is about merely believing it.

                      If you say that person B is a mouthpiece for person A, and A sent out B to say something untrue knowing it to be untrue, you still need to show that A knew the statement to be untrue if you are aiming to show that A was lying by proxy through B.

                      Or, that they knew they didn't have sufficient justification to think that the statement was true.

                      President Lawnchair himself lying

                      He did. It is beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, when he said on Letterman (two days after Susan Rice lied on five different Sunday shows) that the video was a cause of the attack on Benghazi, that he by that time still was unaware of the vast evidence against the video having anything to do with

                    • And that's why I refer to the no-talent rodeo clown [...] he's just a placeholder

                      That statement is counter to what you wrote earlier. You earlier tried to place a claim that he is doing terrible and dangerous things to our country, and now you are trying to claim that he is doing nothing at all. The two claims are, at the very least, completely incompatible.

                      It boils down to sins of omission vs. commission. Take ObamaCare as a sin of comission. Your choice of orifice:
                      Everything about it, from its origin as an applause line [hotair.com] to its passage [theothermccain.com], to its capstone lie about liking your plan [hotair.com], has been a steaming river of excrement. And that's merely a sampling of the rampant cronyism afoot.
                      On the omission side, consider border security. The only time Obama swings into commission mode is when swatting down States like Arizona.
                      Again, the only way to remain dispassionate

                    • And that's why I refer to the no-talent rodeo clown [...] he's just a placeholder

                      That statement is counter to what you wrote earlier. You earlier tried to place a claim that he is doing terrible and dangerous things to our country, and now you are trying to claim that he is doing nothing at all. The two claims are, at the very least, completely incompatible.

                      It boils down to sins of omission vs. commission. Take ObamaCare as a sin of comission. Your choice of orifice:

                      That doesn't really address my point. It does point out another hole in your claim, however.

                      Everything about it, from its origin as an applause line to its passage, to its capstone lie about liking your plan, has been a steaming river of excrement. And that's merely a sampling of the rampant cronyism afoot.

                      Do you remember what President Lawnchair campaigned on in 2008? He said he was going to bring universal health care. And where is universal health care in the 2010 bailout? Nowhere. Between the two contradictory sides of your argument about what he is, the health care act places him far closer to your "rodeo clown" (why did you never call him that before this summer? I'd really like to know) than it does to t

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      Even if we departed from a base near Rome, Italy it would be more than 2 hours by air, that is is ignoring the amount of time to load the plane with the relevant materials for the fight.

      DC was notified at 10 p.m. local time. The final assault was launched at 4 a.m., when mortars were dropped onto a building in the CIA annex, killing two Americans.

      Quite simply, the window of time for the attack was too short for President Lawnchair to have been able to authorize counter action and have it effectively change the outcome.

      Obviously false. If they had gotten to the CIA annex in under six hours -- a very plausible amount of time to get from Italy or somewhere else we've got troops close by -- two Americans (Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) could be alive today, and we'd have more justice done to the killers of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and information

      • Look, if we don't studiously avoid dealing with all of the facts of Benghazi, then Hillary's waltz back to the White House in 2016 will be jeopardized.
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          My favorite part about this is how damn_registrars pretends to actually have a grasp of the facts, but he knows nothing about that night except for the headlines. Until today, he didn't know anything about the second assault on the annex, didn't know the total length of time of the attacks, and so on, yet he is here pretending that he has sufficient facts to disprove your assertion. It's pathetic.

          • If the Administration's behavior wasn't enough probable cause, one's lobotomy might be acting up.
          • So after I showed that your claims don't actually reflect reality, you then dedicate a post to lying about me rather than actually approaching facts. I'm sorry that reality has such a negative effect on you and your ego.
            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              So after I showed that your claims don't actually reflect reality

              Not even you could possibly believe that. I rebutted, very specifically, every single claim you made. Not a single claim you made against what I've written has been left standing, from your opening falsehood that 2 hours was insufficient time, to your final falsehood that three hours passed between attacks, and everything in between.

              you then dedicate a post to lying about me rather than actually approaching facts

              Again, you don't even believe any of that. I made no such post, and I am the one presenting the facts, while you're the one trying to twist the few facts told to you -- by me

              • Not even you could possibly believe that. I rebutted, very specifically, every single claim you made. Not a single claim you made against what I've written has been left standing, from your opening falsehood that 2 hours was insufficient time, to your final falsehood that three hours passed between attacks, and everything in between.

                Pudge I would be interested in living in a world like yours, where utter bullshit becomes fact as a result of repetition and adherence to philosophy alone. Unfortunately I live in reality, which is not compatible with your philosophy. Your repetition of bullshit does not a meaningful argument make, nor does your insistence on your apparent god-given ability to create facts out of sheer will.

                But of course I haven't expected a reasonable argument from you for years. You make a habit out of being a tot

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  Let's see, reading your "comment" ... still no rebuttal against anything I wrote ... still none ... more ad hominems to distract from the point ... still no rebuttal.

                  Yeah, that's what we all thought.

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  I would love, by the way, to see damn_registrars tell Greg Hicks or other Westerners in Libya that night that what I said about those events is, as he called it, "bullshit." That would be most amusing.

                  • I would offer a solemn bet
                    That, despite lion-roars on the internet,
                    damn_registrars, when he leaves his house,
                    More resembles a wee church mouse.
      • DC was notified at 10 p.m. local time. The final assault was launched at 4 a.m.

        That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

        If they had gotten to the CIA annex in under six hours -- a very plausible amount of time to get from Italy or somewhere else we've got troops close by -- two Americans (Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) could be alive today

        That only makes sense if they had a reason to go there and had such a reason in time to act upon it. What characteristics of the first attack gave indication that a second attack would be launched soon on a separate building?

        and we'd have more justice done to the killers of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and information officer Sean Smith.

        That is a lot of speculation. If we had sent troops from Italy as soon as we had information on the first attack, an

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

          Not offhand, but it doesn't matter. Well before 4 a.m. (before 1:30), almost all (if not all) living Americans from the consulate were at the annex, having been rescued from there by a small rescue team (two special ops, five security contractors, from what I can tell) from Tripoli. The personnel were asking for protection and evacuation from Benghazi. If the administration had been able to mobilize a larger force, they still likely would have had plenty of time, and certainly would have had sufficient i

          • That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

            Not offhand, but it doesn't matter.

            Wrong, it does matter. As you pointed out

            They were there for nearly three hours before the 4 a.m. attack.

            Why should they have expected another attack to take place at a different location some three hours later?

            They were rescued and retreated through the streets to the annex. On what planet would they have NOT thought they were still a target?

            Why would they expect the attack to continue? Terrorism is supposed to be about being unpredictable. If people know where you are going to show up next you are not a very good terrorist.

            Keep in mind that they all knew by this time they were being attacked by al Qaeda. The black flag of al Qaeda was flown everywhere in the region, they were credibly threatened just a few months before that they would be attacked, and then they were attacked, seeing those same black flags.

            First of all, Al Qaeda is not the only organization that flies black flags. Second, when they do fly them it does not mean every time they are about to launch an attack (

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              Why should they have expected another attack to take place at a different location some three hours later?

              Um. Why would the attackers stop attacking them just because they left the consulate? The attackers were there explicitly to kill them, not just to scare them.

              First of all, Al Qaeda is not the only organization that flies black flags.

              Um. So? These were not random black flags, these were the black flags of al Qaeda, as I said. You're not making any sense.

              Second, when they do fly them it does not mean every time they are about to launch an attack

              Um. So? My point was that the attackers were flying the al Qaeda flag.

              Third, if they were flying them everywhere in the region then that makes it really hard to predict where defense against them is needed.

              No, it's actually very simple, because they said what they were going to attack. You can say that makes them not-good terrorists, but them telling us whe

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...