Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's OK for Apple but not Microsoft? (Score 5, Insightful) 571

by rsmith-mac (#46753547) Attached to: Microsoft Confirms It Is Dropping Windows 8.1 Support

Well you're comparing phones/appliances to computers, so yes.

Windows has for many years now used a multiple-tier support strategy (the Windows Lifecycle policy). Microsoft supports an OS for 10 years, and during that period if they issue a service pack then they support the previous sub-version of Windows for 2 years. Windows 8.1 Update is about 30% of a service pack; the update contains a number of feature enhancements and on a code level it becomes a "base" OS that all future updates are built against. So unlike a normal security update, you can't skip Windows 8.1 Update and still get other security updates. This in turn can be interpreted as a violation of the Lifecycle Policy, as it's functionally a service pack and therefore Microsoft should continue providing security updates for Windows 8.1 (sans Update) for 2 years.

iOS on the other hand offers no such policy. You are expected to use the most recent version of the OS and Apple has never said any differently, full stop.

Never mind the huge difference between an OS for a disposable device, and an OS for computers that is expected to last for a decade or more and is interfaced with massive amounts of custom hardware and software. Unsurprisingly, the type of device and the expected use case for it is a big factor in how long an OS is supported and how OS updates are handled.

Comment: Re:It's a crutch... (Score 1) 62

by pudge (#46721619) Attached to: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist

The fact that you had to distort the meaning of a word ...

Wow. You think I distorted the meaning of "elected" by pointing out the fact that Carter was elected.

You're a completely pathetic liar.

(And no, I didn't read the rest of your comment. It's a shame you spent so much time on it and no one will read it.)

Comment: Order Of Events (Score 2, Interesting) 133

It would probably be useful to specify the order of events in TFS, as the current summary implies they received campaign contributions after they started investigating the merger.

TFA is focusing on past campaign contributions - that is contributions before the investigation, seeing as how the investigation just started. Everyone on the committee has received a campaign contribution at some point in the past, even Al Franken. Which is more a statement on the fact that Comcast pretty much contributes to every incumbent's congressional campaign, rather than this being a case of where these senators were specifically targeted.

Which to be clear, still isn't a good thing by any means. This means everyone on that committee has received a contribution at some point. But it's not the same thing as giving contributions to someone when an active investigation is going on, something that would be far shadier.

Comment: Re:It's a crutch... (Score 1) 62

by pudge (#46719209) Attached to: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist

I showed where you were wrong

You're lying. And it's obvious you're lying. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. Barack Obama is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. They are both elected Democrats in every possible sense of the words. You're wrong. And you know you're wrong; we know this because instead of pointing to the meanings of the words, you waffled and said "no reasonable person would" use the words that way. You didn't point to the actual common definitions of the words because you know they don't back you up. You know you're wrong.

You're lying. As usual.

Why exactly did you come to this discussion and mention me by name, when you are not capable of participating in a discussion with me without accusing me of lying?

You're lying. I am capable of not accusing you of lying, but I choose to point out the fact that you are lying.

And no, accusing me of lying, or lying about lying - or any other such nonsense - is not a sufficient answer to that question.

Bullshit. If you're lying -- which I've proven you are -- then that is necessarily a sufficient answer to the question of why I accused you of lying.

Not entirely different from most of your appearances from the past year or so, you have introduced yourself into a discussion where I was already present, and made yourself look like a total idiot. Well done.

I wonder why you think that someone else pointing out the fact that you are lying is the one who looks bad.

It's really weird, but then again, it's minor compared to your other issues. Like, for example, the fact that you chose to make this discussion about very specific wording of a "challenge" that, despite repeated implicit and explicit requests, you never actually cited.

Comment: Re:Hank Aaron was ... (Score 1) 25

by pudge (#46718073) Attached to: Facts are not evidence, to some

Words mean nothing

False. It's true that words have no inherent meaning, but people have meanings for those words; or, put another way, those words mean things to people. This is obviously and nearly self-evidently true, and it is also clear that you believe it to be true.

[Words] can be safely ignored.

False.

I concern myself with what they do.

And the words they use actually have consequences. The people do things through those words. In this case, they continue to disinform and polarize the electorate to strengthen their own positions. That should concern you, since it is what they do.

Since you apparently place more importance on words than actions

You're lying. Nothing I have ever said or done makes such an untrue thing in any way "apparent." You cannot even come up with a remotely reasonable argument for how that would be "apparent."

(as illustrated by the fact that you have picked sides)

Picked sides in what? I picked sides in whether words mean things, yes, as have you, although you misstate which side you are on. I picked sides in whether I think Reid is an asshole, as you did, and you're on my side. I picked sides in whether Democrats often use false charges of racism to distract people from their own failings and valid criticisms of their policies and actions.

None of that even remotely implies that I put more importance on words than actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G4zkxFpBrc

Comment: Re:It's a crutch... (Score 1) 62

by pudge (#46716539) Attached to: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist

you are playing with words

You're a liar. There is no sense in which Jimmy Carter is not an elected Democrat. You're just lying ... as usual.

It is understood that when you refer to someone as an elected official

You're a liar. You didn't. You said "elected Democrat." You're just lying ... as usual.

No reasonable person would refer to George W Bush currently as an elected president

And no one did. You're lying by implying "Democrat" is the same as "official" or "President."

just as no reasonable person would refer to Jimmy Carter currently as an elected politician

Um. Except that definitionally, he is. Stop lying.

You failed to read the question

You're a liar.

You have not provided an example yet of an elected democrat responding to someone criticizing President Obama by calling that person racist.

You're a liar. And I correctly predicted you would state this lie.

Of course, that's not much different than predicting that the Earth will spin around ... liars lie, it's not tough to call it.

Comment: Re:It's a crutch... (Score 1) 62

by pudge (#46716197) Attached to: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist

I'm sorry that you are struggling with reading comprehension today. Jimmy Carter was not an elected democrat when he said that.

Um. Actually, yes, in fact, he was. He was a Democrat, and he was elected. He was no longer serving in office, but you didn't ask for that: you asked for someone who had been elected. President Obama is -- by the exact same standard -- not an elected Democrat. He was elected. He is not currently being elected. Same thing with Carter.

If you meant a Democrat currently serving in office, you should have said so. Instead, you're lying about what your words mean. As usual.

Comment: Re:Hank Aaron was ... (Score 1) 25

by pudge (#46715529) Attached to: Facts are not evidence, to some

Eh, so Reid is an asshole. Find another way of acquiring the kind of power he has, especially in the absence of charisma.

George Mitchell did it. Bill Frist did it. Mitch McConnell did it.

I am not saying they were never assholes behind the scenes ... I am saying, they are not nearly the assholes in public that Reid constantly is. The guy tells baldfaced, defamatory, bullshit lies to the public pretty much every time he opens his mouth in front of a microphone.

Comment: Re:It's a crutch... (Score 1) 62

by pudge (#46715105) Attached to: Propaganda 'Truth': Opposition to Obama is Racist

... I am telling you about it now.

I do not believe anything you say, so the fact that you claim it is not evidence the "challenge" was ever made, or accepted.

You gave a whole bunch of sweeping generalizations, and not a single actual example.

I gave you a specific example of Jimmy Carter, though I didn't quote or cite it. But why would I? It doesn't meet your mythical "challenge," so as best I can tell, you don't care about it.

Can you show us a time when an elected democrat was responding to someone criticizing Obama by calling that person racist?

Yes. Jimmy Carter said Joe Wilson's "you lie!" was based on racism.

But I do not accept your mythical "challenge." But, you can no longer claim no evidence has been presented.

(Prediction: you will dishonestly claim that no evidence has been presented.)

You ... seem convinced that it happens a lot.

You're a liar. Quote me implying that.

Comment: Re:Hank Aaron was ... (Score 1) 25

by pudge (#46714921) Attached to: Facts are not evidence, to some

I was thinking of elected officials. But yes, I still would put him below Reid, but probably closer to .8 or above, both because of his policies, his lies that the policies he attacks are racist, his race-respective enforcement of policies, his refusal to accept the valid oversight of Congress, his lies about Fast and Furious, his responsibility for the death of Paul Walker ...

Ohwait.

But still, the other stuff.

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...