On the Commodore PET. On the BBC Micro not long after.
On the Commodore PET. On the BBC Micro not long after.
If memory serves, the initial attitude towards Ubuntu was positive. It was an easy to install and use distro for non-systems type users and newbs. I think the hatred set in when they adopted Gnome 3, and later, systemd.
Actually, I believe it began with Unity. That was when Canonical began pushing unripe features faster than they themselves could manage them, and the number of downstream bugs gave rise to what Shuttleworth calls the 'hate'. It wasn't hate. It was a bunch of us who just got tired of being rejected out of hand, and who couldn't get mission-critical bugs fixed through normal channels:
Canonical have stopped listening and – more importantly – working with the community. The number of defects is growing, but Canonical’s response is to make it harder for mere mortals to submit bugs. They seem to think that strong guidance is needed for their product to grow in new and interesting ways. Fair enough, but they’re confusing leadership with control. They’re simply imposing their views because they don’t value the discussion. They’re treating criticism as opposition and shutting themselves off from valid feedback.
Full disclosure: I was completely wrong in my estimation that this behaviour was going to kill the company quickly. I was not completely wrong that it rendered them irrelevant to a lot of us.
People still pay for that stuff? Why?
You do know there are streaming sites out there which remove all the commercials, offer closed captioning, and a selectable quality from 360p-1080p.
I would be totally cool with a working Netflix plugin for my linux-based Kodi installation. I have no problem handing Netflix a tenner every month just to get reliable access to the content they host.
Ballistic Disco Balls — A Tactical Threat Model
Baker S and Modesta R; RAND Corporation
Total, utter morons.
THANKS, Trump voters.
After all, this, do you STILL have no fucking clue how important email management is to us?!?
(This is so-ooo going to fail the Poe's Law test, but it was worth it.)
our new president was elected to repeal. We're going to make America Cool again!
We're tired of being cool.
There's no law against using an email alias. Why is anyone even talking about this?
Er, because the NY Attorney General is accusing Exxon of contempt of court (though it's up to the judge to rule) because they were using deliberate tactics to obscure official emails from legal discovery.
But yeah, why would anyone want to make a big deal about someone sending and receiving official emails through unofficial channels? I mean, it's not like they should be locked up for it or anything.
...there is nothing un-American about weighing such evidence as we have and leading chants of "Prosecute Her"....
Again, I would agree. If that's what they'd chanted. But it wasn't. The chanters are the people I have no truck with. I applaud anyone with a healthy scepticism toward the application of the law in America... as long as they're focused on fixing the system rather than bringing its injustice and inequity to bear on a different (class of) victim.
EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. I. KNOW. has commented on Vault#7
It is simply not being reported.
That's empirically false, as others have noted.
I think the explanation is vastly simpler than that: Hark back to the Last Week Tonight show when John Oliver warned the world that the NSA could see their dick pics. It was a magisterial take down.
What he didn't count on, though, was that the majority of the population is actually okay with total strangers seeing their dick pics. The thing that makes them nervous, uncomfortable and afraid is when their family and friends see their dick pics. The NSA so far has largely avoided that scenario, and so, apparently, have the CIA.
I'm not excusing this gross legal and constitutional overreach. I'm just saying people care, but not in the abstract. They care in the particular.
If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?
Because the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States explicitly makes this kind of fishing expedition illegal for Federal agencies, and the FBI is arguably breaking the very laws it's sworn to uphold and enforce.
But... aside from deliberate and willful lawlessness which circumvents legal protections the Founders saw fit to write into the foundational law of country... yeah, what's the problem?
Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're presumed to be innocent (in the eyes of the law). There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
NOT THE SAME as saying you ARE innocent in reality, only that as far as the law goes, you have the benefit of any doubt (and various legal protections against others acting on their own as if you were guilty).
I take your point. My problem, however, is with people leaping to the conclusion that a person is guilty and therefore that respect for the rule of law requires a conviction.
The implication, of course, is that maybe it's not conducive to civil discourse to lead chants of 'Lock Her Up' at political rallies. Because that's un-American, in the sense that it deliberately and maliciously subverts the fundamental precepts of Common Law. And I'll remind you that respect for the rule of law was the jumping off point for these rants.
But you're welcome to your niggle about other interpretations of guilt.
Regarding OJ, by the way: I have my suspicions about his guilt. But I will not entertain them in my newspaper. Nor should a political leader use such speculation as a rallying cry that has the effect of casting aspersions on him—or on black men in general.
... innocence is not a legal concept.
Presumption of Innocence is a formal concept in Common Law.
... and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.'
You're assuming that the only reason no reasonable prosecutor would take the case is her innocence.
No, for fuck sakes, I'm saying that you can't defend the rule of law, and then jump straight to a guilty verdict without passing through these interim steps.
My entire point is that it's perfectly fair to complain about the lack of consistency in prosecutorial decision-making. It's perfectly fair to question the FBI's investigative techniques. It's perfectly fair to discuss at length and in detail all of the countless deficiencies that exist in the American criminal justice system. People spend lifetimes doing just that.
But you do NOT get to say, 'That bitch is guilty' when she's never even gone to trial. Not if you stand for the rule of law.
Say, she should be prosecuted, she should be re-investigated, say that what she's doing is dodgy as fuck. I'm right beside you there. Say that she and her husband are conscience-free, calculating sociopaths. Say that she's insincere. Say whatever the fuck you want. But you still don't get to say she's guilty until she's convicted. Not if, as the poster did, you claim to support the rule of law.
Too many people think presumption of innocence is a trivial thing, that it only applies when trials run right. That's not true. Presumption of innocence is essential to a society run by laws, and it says, if you didn't get convicted by a court, you're innocent of the crime. There's not one iota of ambiguity there.
This matters to me because, as a journalist, I regularly see people accused of horrible crimes, and I see the human toll of people who are put through the ringer of social opprobrium. I've seen what happens when vigilante justice prevails, and trust me, you don't ever want to see it happen.
We have the rule of law because we as a society agree to play by the rules. That means that you stop making exceptions when someone that you don't like benefits from those rules. It sucks sometimes, but there it is.
Not locking her up is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
Not investigating and then, if necessary, pressing charges and letting a court decide is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
She was investigated, and the conclusion was that 'No reasonable prosecutor would take the case.' Hillary Clinton is, contrary to popular opinion, innocent in the eyes of the Law.
Forgetting about the presumption of innocence is really bad for the concept of Rule of Law.
Fucking selectively moral hypocrites who have already decided not to accept what their own fucking law enforcement agencies have investigated and declined to prosecute is bad for the concept of the Rule of Law. You can complain about political factors weighing on the decision; you can complain about ineptitude and willful blindness. You can complain about any fucking thing you fucking want. But you cannot dispense with essential components of the legal/judicial system whenever its suits you.
You can't claim she's guilty in the absence of a trial and still pretend to uphold the rule of law. So either shut up about the rule of law, or stop claiming she should be locked up, because you can't do both at once.
It is now pitch dark. If you proceed, you will likely fall into a pit.