That's abusing the terminology a little bit, but used as a slur against a "centrist Republican" I guess it gets the point across. I see "So-and-so insufficiently conservative Republican is so far to the left, he may as well be a Democrat." That's pretty much the same thing.

Normally the position refers to someone who is a little to the left on economic issues and pretty far to the left on social issues. Think about where Hillary Clinton falls, compared to Elizabeth Warren on the left and Ted Cruz on the right.

I know, but that isn't what I said. Neither the stated philosophies of the Democrats nor the Republicans are the center point. You can be a little to the right of the Democrats and still be left wing. (That philosophy is called "Classical Liberalism.") Similarly, you could be a little to the left of the stated position of the Republicans and still be right wing. "Failure to advocate for out and out socialism" isn't the dividing line for right wing versus left wing. If you talk like it is, you're being deliberately unclear.

Also of note, the guy who started this whole argument off wants to vote** for Bernie Sanders, who is a Democrat in the sense that he's running for the Democratic nomination, but who is not a Democrat in the sense that he's been registered with the Socialist part for most* of his career.

*I assume that you need to register as a Democrat to run in the Democratic primary, and thus Sanders is registered as a Democrat now. If he doesn't, he's probably still registered with the Socialists. I haven't actually checked, mostly because "Bernie Sanders is a Socialist" is a well known fact.

**The guy says he wants to vote for Sanders twice. So he may well be a Democrat, just one of the ones on the left wing of that party.

I didn't call the Democrats socialists. I just pointed out that neoliberalism is to the left of classical liberalism, and thus is a left wing philosophy. (See the example I gave to the other guy about how it's wrong, generally speaking, to call Democrats communists.) Socialism is a different left wing philosophy. It falls to the left of neoliberalism and the far left of classical liberalism. But the existence of socialists doesn't make liberalism "not a left wing philosophy."

Also, if you think there aren't left wing authoritarians making decisions in the American public square, you're not paying attention.

Sorry, you're wrong. Classical Liberalism is pretty much the closest to Centrist of the left wing ideologies. Neoliberalism, as practiced by the Democratic party, is to the left of that. So they're on the left hand side of the spectrum. They're not terribly far left... For example, if you were to randomly select a registered Democrat, call them up, yell "COMMIE!" and slam the phone down, you'd probably be wrong.

You're telling me I'd have a better batting average with British Tories? I'd buy that, as there are more leftists per capita in Britain. But the existence of a party further to your left doesn't make you a centrist, and certainly not right wing.

In way C, the Democrats and Republicans usually claim to be on the SAME side before not fixing the problem. I'm sure if you asked them, they'd claim to be for "government transparency."

Look up who implemented and benefitted from Jim Crow laws. Hell, think through how ballot box stuffing (election fraud) disenfranchises legitimate voters.

Normal people use words with well-understood definitions to communicate with other people. If you use a word with a well understood meaning in a way contrary to that meaning, you aren't looking to convey your idea. You're looking to piss people off. Trolling, essentially.

The Democratic Party represents the ideology of neo-Liberalism, which is a left-wing ideology. There are more extreme left-wing ideologies (and corresponding parties), but the fact that Democrats aren't far enough to the left for your crazy tastes does not make them right wing.

This sucks for Apple especially since the target demographic for this product is poor decision makers, like people who get wrist tattoos or buy Apple stuff.

You're shifting goalposts here. In lieu of a new OS in 2003, MS provided XP support (including service packs, which were free) long past the service life of the 2001-era hardware we're talking about. Sounds like they complied with the second part of the contract, which I bolded above.

Yelling at each other over dumb shit is a popular topic on Slashdot.

The Super Bowl isn't on cable.

Of note, "must carry" is the broacaster's option. The broadcaster can demand a cable operator carry a broadcast network, OR the broadcaster can waive that right and ask for payment/consideration.

Disney invented the practice of waiving must carry. Every ABC station in the country waives must carry, but will give a cable company the signal for free if they put the whole ESPN thing on basic cable.

Microsoft plans to distribute a key generator for Device Guard. You can take a binary of a commercial (or open source) program and SIGN IT YOURSELF and it will work with Device Guard. (Also, Device Guard is intended for Enterprise situations, where the IT department is blocking unapproved software based on their corporation's policy. This isn't a consumer thing anyway.)

It's not. CDs and DVDs won their wars and became universal formats. You still see more DVDs sold than Blu-Rays, and realistically, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both lost out to direct streaming (Netflix et al.)

Well, keep in mind, the government just threw up dumb roadblocks to something that Comcast wanted to do because Comcast didn't pay the Leftist executive branch regulators a big enough bribe. Comcast's last big entry into politics was Net Neutrality*, where the institutional Left demagogued against Comcast, despite the fact that like the institutional left, Comcast was supporting the so-called Net Neutrality plan. A plan based on "Comcast will lobby the government to do the right thing" is obviously not going to work at the moment.

*Also, once the government pretended to unveil the "Net Neutrality" rules and word started leaking out that the government's plan wasn't really Net Neutrality, but wholesale regulation of the ISP based on ex post facto rulings (see: Future Conduct Standard) the conventional wisdom on Slashdot switched to "ISPs have to be a monopoly because they're a natural monopoly."