windows doesnt "lose" the case of the filename, dumbass - someone would have had to change it. Unless maybe its win3.1, in which case its the fucking devs fault for being a cheap shit.
That's why I said "windows of a certain age" dumbass.
What possible reason could one have for differentiating 2 files on nothing but case?
1) Programmer copies files from linux box to windows box of a certain age.
2) Programmer makes some changes in windows land.
3) Windows loses the case of the filenames
4) Programmer copies files back to the same directory in linux land. Now there are two different files README and Readme.
Your experience was much different than mine. I was in college when Carter was President, and he stopped food stamp benefits for poor college kids. I often went hungry. I'd voted for him, voted against his reelection.
Under Reagan I worked for Disney. Reagan slashed the capital gains tax, which unleashed an orgy of hostile corporate takeovers, one of which was unleashed on my employer, who took a big financial hit from its defense and cut everyone's hours. I had trouble paying my bills for a while. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these hostile takeovers and takeover attempts. Of course, a recession followed this but none of the pundits connected the dots and they treated Reagan like a demigod.
We moved back to Illinois when Leila was born, and it took well over a year to find a job. Thanks for the recession, Ronnie.
I got a job finally, in 1987, but half the people I knew were looking for work until the nineties. That was Reagan's fault, but Bush did nothing to alleviate the situation.
There was something about Clinton I just didn't like; he came across as a sleaze and I think I voted Libertarian that election, I don't really remember, but it wasn't a vote for Clinton.
I was wrong about him; he put 100,000 new cops on the street, and my crime-ridden neighborhood got a neighborhood cop and crime plummeted. He signed PWORA which ended generational welfare. I voted for his reelection.
As to Bush II, can you name a single positive thing he accomplished? I can't.
As to Obama, my opinion of his mediocre President went up a little when he started opening Cuba; it's long overdue. We've had relations with China and Russia for years, it should have happened when the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR split up.
Unless you've ever interacted with the cops you really have no reason to say anything about anything. Many people have this romantic idealized notion of the cops (or FBI) giving a f*ck when they usually do not.
One troll threatening another on the Internet is probably not enough to get them interested.
These people have important things to do and they have their careers to think about. They aren't going to waste their time chasing their tails over every random piece of bullsh*t. Sorry, but YOU and your problem are probably not important enough for them.
A threat against a school is probably something that they are more interested in. Better collar. More interesting media potential.
No. It looks like a coward backed down as soon as things got interesting. She fancies herself as some sort of activist but as soon as things "got real", she ran away like a frightened child.
She's just like the trolls that everyone is supposed to be so afraid of.
As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.
I agree. No additional rights because you have pooled your money.
As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.
Except, corporations are allowed to participate in elections to an extent and in ways that private citizens cannot.
Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.
Right. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets the same campaign finance limit (and citizens only). That's simple. Corporations, unions, etc are not citizens. They cannot vote or run for office. Why should they be allowed to participate in politics financially?
And if it was all about "rights" why has Citizens United allowed corporate donors anonymity in political finance when individuals are not allowed to be anonymous in the same way?
You make the mistake of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You have an image living in your head that is not real.
The "corruption" angle of this is far more pervasive than just games or game reviews. It was an interesting coincidence that a Jewish reporter in Israel was complaining about media corruption from a different angle when this story was being broken.
Her perspective was that inconvenient facts and stories are not published. Things that don't support the dogma that your editors want to push are suppressed. Reality doesn't matter. The media wants to push it's view of things and "the news" is really just a work of fiction. Anything that doesn't support the narrative they want to present is ignored.
I'm not sure if it's shared ideology driven by the state of journalism academia or if it's mainly more crass corporate considerations but there's a definite group think at work.
Professional journalism at this point can be at best described as a form of political propaganda.
If you troll all of your customers, don't be surprised if you end up with a few wing nuts going off the deep end.
The "journalism" response to this entire affair has been shameless pandering to some notion of political correctness and shameless exploitation of the situation. That's been true pretty much across the entire media spectrum starting with the very first set of trolling click-bait articles generated by the gaming and tech press.
Anyone that disagrees is branded as some sort of anti-feminist misogynistic scum who's opinions don't matter.
It's a perfect example of the "liberal media" that tea baggers like to whine about. The dogma behind the narrative is more important than anything else.
Being a victim requires actual harm. What actual harm does a threat from some chickenshit web troll really do you?
If anything, the so-called victims here are happily basking in the glow of the spotlight happy to be the center of attention.
The real victims are people that have bought into all of this nonsense and have had the view of their own real world warped by it. There's the real psychological harm.
A group of people does not lose its free speech rights by forming the group. Full stop.
Nor do they gain additional rights, which is the current situation under Citizens United.
I understand that you weren't trying to make a serious point, but no, the government is not a person, either. The government has no constitutional rights.
Yeah, you're probably right. I hadn't thought of it that way.
Those employees and shareholders already have their individual rights. Do you believe that the corporation should confer upon them additional rights? So that people who own stock have rights to certain speech that others do not? Because that's exactly the current situation.
Nossir. Corporate personhood was a legal shorthand that has gone out of control. It will be looked upon by history with embarrassment.
We're all holding our collective breath waiting to hear your practical, commercially and technically feasible alternative.
Maybe he should try to find shelter in a country with sensible copyright laws. Yes, they do (still) exist over here in Euroland.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
