Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #365819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:32 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:58 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:55 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 18:14 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 01:41 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 22:17 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 03:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 15:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:27 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:06 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 01:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 19:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:30 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:39 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 15:57 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 19:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 03:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-20 19:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:53 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 14:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 21:22 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 18:35 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 22:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 14:31 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:42 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:11 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 17:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 18:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:12 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 11:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 18:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:37 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:09 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 17:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 01:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-23 05:04 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 12:47 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:18 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-25 06:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:36 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 11:50 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:24 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:48 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:29 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:39 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 01:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:11 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:46 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:25 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 11:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:36 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 16:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:53 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 10:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:10 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:30 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:27 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:58 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 00:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 07:12 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 07:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 07:18 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:55 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgie803.a11g@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366291 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > ... >> I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of $1000 >> not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to >> weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of the >> value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the smallest of >> which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid thing I've >> ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase). > Repost snipped. We're now at the point of Snit Desperation, where he jumps into threads and reposts unrelated nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0A5BD.79D3C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366293 |
On 8/22/16, 12:38 PM, in article fhjgie803.a11g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of $1000
>>> not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to
>>> weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of the
>>> value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the smallest of
>>> which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid thing
>>> I've
>>> ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase).
>>
>
> Repost snipped. We're now at the point of Snit Desperation, where
> he jumps into threads and reposts unrelated nonsense.
>
I reposted the same content you ran from. And you will ALWAYS run... because
you realize I am right.
-----
Overwhelm? Why would it, esp. for the first few. Realistically,
depending on how hard it was to get to rooms, how big the reward,
and other factors I may have given up after X number of rooms. As
would most. Not sure I would say that was "overwhelming" - more
just boring and not worth it.
Sort of like 700 Linux distros... though with those after you look
at a few you know the pattern: the ecosystem is very limiting and
reduces choice of how you can get actual tasks done. It provides
you with the illusion of choice but in terms of actual task
completion there is actually LESS choice. This is mostly true for
the GUI, which is what most use, when you look at the CLI Linux is
as good as any... no complaints there.
The lack of real choice is one reason why desktop Linux does
poorly. The illusion of a lot of choice when those choices are
mostly meaningless is another. Systems which allow for but do not
force many choices are generally better... that is what I show
with the print / edit PDF task I show... OS X gives me more
choices. I can do it as I would on Windows and Linux of saving to
PDF and then editing and printing, or I can use different choices
depending on how I am thinking at the moment. The extra choices
are not forced on you, and someone coming from Linux or Windows
might not even know of them, but they are easy to discover without
being disruptive, and they are relatively consistent from program
to program, allowing users to put these choices to great use.
Compare that with desktop Linux where these types of choices are
less common, and when they do exist they exist more often in
isolation where their usefulness is heavily reduced.
-----
Yeah, once you were faced with that you snipped almost all context and
dropped your "thought experiment," until you decided to bring it up again
and pretend it is more important than actual experiments.
Comes down to you reject science.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdsu93.ga32@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366294 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 12:38 PM, in article fhjgie803.a11g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>> I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of $1000 >>>> not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to >>>> weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of the >>>> value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the smallest of >>>> which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid thing >>>> I've >>>> ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase). >>> >> >> Repost snipped. We're now at the point of Snit Desperation, where >> he jumps into threads and reposts unrelated nonsense. >> > I reposted the same content Yep. That's the definition of a repost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0AB8A.79D4B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366296 |
On 8/22/16, 1:01 PM, in article ghjdsu93.ga32@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 12:38 PM, in article fhjgie803.a11g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>> I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of >>>>> $1000 >>>>> not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to >>>>> weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of >>>>> the >>>>> value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the smallest >>>>> of >>>>> which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid thing >>>>> I've >>>>> ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase). >>>> >>> >>> Repost snipped. We're now at the point of Snit Desperation, where >>> he jumps into threads and reposts unrelated nonsense. >>> >> I reposted the same content > > Yep. That's the definition of a repost. > And you STILL ran. Comes down to you know you pushed a "thought experiment" to try to override or debunk science, and you failed... making desktop Linux look bad. When pointed out you snipped and ran, and when presented to you again you whined about it being presented to you again. I think we can safely say you are fully aware of how YOU showed off a weakness of desktop Linux and just do not want to admit to it. When you actually show desktop Linux you do a decent job (better than pretty much any of the "advocates")... but when it comes to actual reasoning and logic you struggle. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjsafv.mid38@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366299 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:01 PM, in article ghjdsu93.ga32@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 12:38 PM, in article fhjgie803.a11g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>> I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of >>>>>> $1000 >>>>>> not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to >>>>>> weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of >>>>>> the >>>>>> value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the smallest >>>>>> of >>>>>> which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid thing >>>>>> I've >>>>>> ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Repost snipped. We're now at the point of Snit Desperation, where >>>> he jumps into threads and reposts unrelated nonsense. >>>> >>> I reposted the same content >> >> Yep. That's the definition of a repost. >> > And you STILL ran. Comes down to you know you pushed a "thought experiment" > to try to override or debunk science, and you failed... The only science presented so far is the scientific experiment that I proposed. Aren't you the moron who tried to extrapolate results of a choice among jams for sale to be applicable to all choices of all things, even free things? JHC, psychology enthusiasts have to be about the stupidest of the stupid. Was Sophie's choice, being limited to one of two, easier than a choice of which of the 300+ Linux distribution do I try today? The main difficulty with any choice, regardless of the number of choices, is the consequences of the choice. But I guess that is too abstract of a concept to be grasped by an Assburger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B49C.79D5E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366304 |
On 8/22/16, 1:45 PM, in article fhjsafv.mid38@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 1:01 PM, in article ghjdsu93.ga32@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 12:38 PM, in article fhjgie803.a11g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian >>>>>> W. >>>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of >>>>>>> $1000 >>>>>>> not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to >>>>>>> weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the >>>>>>> smallest >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid >>>>>>> thing >>>>>>> I've >>>>>>> ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Repost snipped. We're now at the point of Snit Desperation, where >>>>> he jumps into threads and reposts unrelated nonsense. >>>>> >>>> I reposted the same content >>> >>> Yep. That's the definition of a repost. >>> >> And you STILL ran. Comes down to you know you pushed a "thought experiment" >> to try to override or debunk science, and you failed... > > The only science presented so far is the scientific experiment that > I proposed. Except for the scientific experiments about choice AND the fact your thought experiment was not actual science AND it did not back the point you wanted it to, sure. What was funny was watching you snip and run from the explanation as to why your thought experiment was very much ANTI desktop Linux, then you whined when it was posted to you again. > Aren't you the moron who tried to extrapolate results of a choice among jams > for sale to be applicable to all choices of all things, even free things? Nope... but I suspect you THINK I did based on your lack of understanding. > JHC, psychology enthusiasts have to be about the stupidest of the stupid. Was > Sophie's choice, being limited to one of two, easier than a choice of which of > the 300+ Linux distribution do I try today? Picking irrelevant things does not help your case in the slightest. > The main difficulty with any choice, regardless of the number of choices, is > the consequences of the choice. That certainly plays a role! With OS choice that comes down to, mostly, how well they handle tasks... and desktop Linux does poorly there. > But I guess that is too abstract of a concept > to be grasped by an Assburger. More of your bigoted nonsense accusations to try to turn tables. Quite predictable from you at this point. It shows your insecurity. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgsad83.22@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366308 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:45 PM, in article fhjsafv.mid38@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > ... > >> The main difficulty with any choice, regardless of the number of choices, is >> the consequences of the choice. > > That certainly plays a role! With OS choice that comes down to, mostly, how > well they handle tasks... and desktop Linux does poorly there. > Let's focus on this one. You complain that there are too many choices, but concede that with OS choice it's about how well they handle tasks. So, what if it happened to be the case that the very best of all OS choices for you was hidden among the 300 Linux distributions? Should the number of choices matter, if it's a matter of "how well they handle tasks"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0BCC5.79D70%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366314 |
On 8/22/16, 2:18 PM, in article hjgsad83.22@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 1:45 PM, in article fhjsafv.mid38@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> > ... > >> >>> The main difficulty with any choice, regardless of the number of choices, is >>> the consequences of the choice. >> >> That certainly plays a role! With OS choice that comes down to, mostly, how >> well they handle tasks... and desktop Linux does poorly there. > > Let's focus on this one. Excellent! How well systems handle tasks is certainly a big focus on mine! > You complain that there are too many choices, Nope, though I do note there are pros and cons to having lots of distros. Really, though, with desktop Linux one of my big issues is that there are too FEW meaningful choices... a bunch of distros all tied to the same very limiting ecosystem. I want the ecosystem to grow to offer MORE choice. > but concede that with OS choice it's about how well they handle tasks. I do not "concede" that, I repeatedly focus on it! > So, what if it happened to be the case that the very best of all OS choices > for you was hidden among the 300 Linux distributions? A choice that is unlikely to be found is of limited value. I touched on this in the text you repeatedly snipped when I talked about discoverability. But with Linux, for most tasks, this is unlikely given how they are all tied to the same very limited ecosystem. If you have an example I am not thinking of I would love to hear it! > Should the number of choices matter, if it's a matter of "how well they handle > tasks"? Discoverability matters, too... so yes. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgdsie873.ghu@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366315 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 2:18 PM, in article hjgsad83.22@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 1:45 PM, in article fhjsafv.mid38@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >> ... >> >>> >>>> The main difficulty with any choice, regardless of the number of choices, is >>>> the consequences of the choice. >>> >>> That certainly plays a role! With OS choice that comes down to, mostly, how >>> well they handle tasks... and desktop Linux does poorly there. >> >> Let's focus on this one. > > Excellent! How well systems handle tasks is certainly a big focus on mine! > >> You complain that there are too many choices, > > Nope, though I do note there are pros and cons to having lots of distros. > Really, though, with desktop Linux one of my big issues is that there are > too FEW meaningful choices... a bunch of distros all tied to the same very > limiting ecosystem. I want the ecosystem to grow to offer MORE choice. > >> but concede that with OS choice it's about how well they handle tasks. > > I do not "concede" that, I repeatedly focus on it! > >> So, what if it happened to be the case that the very best of all OS choices >> for you was hidden among the 300 Linux distributions? > > A choice that is unlikely to be found is of limited value. I touched on this > in the text you repeatedly snipped when I talked about discoverability. But > with Linux, for most tasks, this is unlikely given how they are all tied to > the same very limited ecosystem. If you have an example I am not thinking of > I would love to hear it! > >> Should the number of choices matter, if it's a matter of "how well they handle >> tasks"? > > Discoverability matters, too... so yes. > If you try all the choices, then discoverability is guaranteed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0C1F2.79D7D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366320 |
On 8/22/16, 2:48 PM, in article hjgdsie873.ghu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 2:18 PM, in article hjgsad83.22@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 1:45 PM, in article fhjsafv.mid38@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> ... >>> >>>> >>>>> The main difficulty with any choice, regardless of the number of choices, >>>>> is >>>>> the consequences of the choice. >>>> >>>> That certainly plays a role! With OS choice that comes down to, mostly, how >>>> well they handle tasks... and desktop Linux does poorly there. >>> >>> Let's focus on this one. >> >> Excellent! How well systems handle tasks is certainly a big focus on mine! >> >>> You complain that there are too many choices, >> >> Nope, though I do note there are pros and cons to having lots of distros. >> Really, though, with desktop Linux one of my big issues is that there are >> too FEW meaningful choices... a bunch of distros all tied to the same very >> limiting ecosystem. I want the ecosystem to grow to offer MORE choice. No comment on your fabrication about my view. Seriously, where did you get this idea? The fact you get it so wrong is one of the reasons I repeat the same text. I can show you my "brief view on desktop Linux" which I have posted many times which gives my view on this. >>> but concede that with OS choice it's about how well they handle tasks. >>> >> I do not "concede" that, I repeatedly focus on it! >> >>> So, what if it happened to be the case that the very best of all OS choices >>> for you was hidden among the 300 Linux distributions? >>> >> A choice that is unlikely to be found is of limited value. I touched on this >> in the text you repeatedly snipped when I talked about discoverability. But >> with Linux, for most tasks, this is unlikely given how they are all tied to >> the same very limited ecosystem. If you have an example I am not thinking of >> I would love to hear it! Of note: you have NO example. >>> Should the number of choices matter, if it's a matter of "how well they >>> handle tasks"? >>> >> Discoverability matters, too... so yes. > > If you try all the choices, then discoverability is guaranteed. If you mean trying every single thing on every single OS / distro, perhaps... but if you mean merely trying every distro that is just silly. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 08:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npmnuh$j4p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366252 |
On 2016-08-22 11:12 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: < snip > >> Silence noted. >> > > OMG. I missed a line! > I had thought of possibly visiting Europe in retirement. Going there > has never been something that was important to me, but when thinking > of things to do in retirement, that was a possibility. There is no > way I would consider going to that cesspool now that the moslems > have destroyed it. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3FwTtBVjk They have destroyed the left-leaning nations. Luckily, Poland is comprised of people who think the way that I do (which confirms that though I was raised in Canada, my personality is closer to that of my parents who were born and raised in Poland) and have done everything in their power to keep the sand parasites out of the country. In fact, there are many videos on Youtube showing where: 1) Muslims tried to sexually assault a woman on a Polish beach and were immediately decimated by a large amount of Polish men who came to their aid. 2) Elderly Poles who are surrounded by would-be migrants use a megaphone to insult them and convince people not to buy into their sad stories... as the migrants try to use their children to buy sympathy. 3) Polish politicians on TV were arguing as to whether it would be better to outright ban Islam or to fight there "with fire and sword." No left-wing argument was even allowed. Essentially, if you want to live in Europe, make sure you go to Poland where Muslims (and black people from what I hear) are treated like vermin. < snip > -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afc84ab9-68ac-4563-bbd3-912e76407505@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366639 |
Slimer wrote: > ...where Muslims (and black people from what I hear)... So is this YA example of 3rd party hearsay based on some cherry picked YouTubes and zero lifetime personal experience in Poland? Wondering to what degree you think that any of these complaints are any different than the last hundred years of the Roma's in Europe: any comment there? Or is it supposedly okay that those professional beggars, swindlers, pickpockets, robbers & theives are all "ok" because they profess to somehow be Christians? Similarly, what is to be said about the EU being sufficiently self confident to take in very obvious war refugees while the tenor in the USA is one of the abject fear of utter cowards that's trying to hide from toddlers & children, etc? Anyone who really wants to make Amrica great again needs to start with the soul of confidence in can-do and optimism, rather than believe the fear mongering; we've forgotten that the greatest thing to fear is fear itself ... And fear today is what gets ratings and makes money (& control) by being a tool of manipulation. -hh -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 10:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npn11j$hsk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366659 |
On 2016-08-25 9:28 AM, -hh wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> ...where Muslims (and black people from what I hear)... > > So is this YA example of 3rd party hearsay based on some > cherry picked YouTubes and zero lifetime personal experience > in Poland? It's from a friend who lives there near the country's capital. > Wondering to what degree you think that any of these complaints > are any different than the last hundred years of the Roma's in > Europe: any comment there? Or is it supposedly okay that those > professional beggars, swindlers, pickpockets, robbers & theives > are all "ok" because they profess to somehow be Christians? You mean the gypsies? Why, exactly, would I be in favour of gypsies? > Similarly, what is to be said about the EU being sufficiently > self confident to take in very obvious war refugees while the > tenor in the USA is one of the abject fear of utter cowards > that's trying to hide from toddlers & children, etc? > > Anyone who really wants to make Amrica great again needs > to start with the soul of confidence in can-do and optimism, > rather than believe the fear mongering; we've forgotten that > the greatest thing to fear is fear itself ... And fear today is what > gets ratings and makes money (& control) by being a tool of > manipulation. My question to you is: - if there are already a large amount of educated people in the United States unable to find work, how is bringing an equal amount of UNEDUCATED people who will _not_ create new businesses but who are willing to do the same work for less going to help? Similarly, if the welfare system in the United States is already going broke, how is bringing in Muslims who, in Europe, have already been shown to be welfare recipients at significant levels (80%) going to help? Think with your brain, not with your heart. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 04:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18578cda-af91-44d8-b43f-e672b4495356@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366681 |
Silver Slimer wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Slimer wrote: > > > >> ...where Muslims (and black people from what I hear)... > > > > So is this YA example of 3rd party hearsay based on some > > cherry picked YouTubes and zero lifetime personal experience > > in Poland? > > It's from a friend ... That's still third party. In the meantime, the reports are that refugee crisis didn't really begin for Europe until 2014 and Poland's rate of asylum applications in 2015 was 32 per 100K of Poland population, which means even if 2014 and 2016 were at the same rate as the 2015, the cumulative impact on Poland is approximately a 0.096% change in population (which is 1 in ~1042). > > Wondering to what degree you think that any of these complaints > > are any different than the last hundred years of the Roma's in > > Europe: any comment there? Or is it supposedly okay that those > > professional beggars, swindlers, pickpockets, robbers & theives > > are all "ok" because they profess to somehow be Christians? > > You mean the gypsies? Why, exactly, would I be in favour of gypsies? Wrong question: where's been a similarly strong opposition to them for the entirety of you life? > > Similarly, what is to be said about the EU being sufficiently > > self confident to take in very obvious war refugees while the > > tenor in the USA is one of the abject fear of utter cowards > > that's trying to hide from toddlers & children, etc? > > > > Anyone who really wants to make Amrica great again needs > > to start with the soul of confidence in can-do and optimism, > > rather than believe the fear mongering; we've forgotten that > > the greatest thing to fear is fear itself ... And fear today is what > > gets ratings and makes money (& control) by being a tool of > > manipulation. > > My question to you is: - ... is a dodge which avoids answer the above. Yet nevertheless: > if there are already a large amount of educated people in the United States > unable to find work, how is bringing an equal amount of UNEDUCATED... First, historical statistics show a trend that those who choose to (and who have the resources to) flee conflict as refugees are usually "more" educated than the average. > ... who will _not_ create new businesses .... But has not the very act of taking the initiative and risk of becoming a refugee actually an indicator of a "starter" who is more inclined to start their own business and be a hard worker? These aren't the lazy linux bums who are Mommy's basement leech. > Similarly, if the welfare system in the United States is already going > broke, ... The US system is broken because our own politicians chose to break it. Besides, the size of the USA's working population is such that one would need to invite 150,000 refugees who all want jobs (vs family, children) just to have even but an impact of 0.1% on US employment rates, a value which is basically at our noise floor's ability to actually measure. And the's recall that a notional 150K is 15x the current goal of 10K Syrian refugees which is being so vigorously opposed, so the maximum possible unemployment impact would be 0.1%/15 = 0.007% > Think with your brain, not with your heart. Oh, you mean how Germany recognized that their country actually has a strong NEED for immigrants for the past twenty years, to help offset their overall 'greying of the population' trend due to inadequate birth rates back in the late 20th Century? ... or is that too cerebral for you? Similarly, the current US illegal immigrant immigrant population (~11 million) is similarly ~1000x larger in magnitude .. and don't forget that by definition, the current illegals that we've not seen as sufficiently important to round up over the past 50+ years are all here totally unvetted, So the employment metric as they hindered the Lower/Middle class Americans has simply not been a concern or priority for our Civic leaders - - nor even a sufficiently meaningful security risk to take action on for the past 1.5 decades. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 10:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nppk5a$jmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366960 |
On 2016-08-26 7:18 AM, -hh wrote: > Silver Slimer wrote: >> -hh wrote: >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> ...where Muslims (and black people from what I hear)... >>> >>> So is this YA example of 3rd party hearsay based on some >>> cherry picked YouTubes and zero lifetime personal experience >>> in Poland? >> >> It's from a friend ... > > That's still third party. > > In the meantime, the reports are that refugee crisis didn't really begin for > Europe until 2014 and Poland's rate of asylum applications in 2015 was > 32 per 100K of Poland population, which means even if 2014 and 2016 > were at the same rate as the 2015, the cumulative impact on Poland is > approximately a 0.096% change in population (which is 1 in ~1042). All news reports suggest that refugees are not considering Poland as an option because the welfare system is not generous at all and the Poles themselves are very intolerant of anything going against the Catholic, conservative culture. Since sand parasites are not aware that their attempts to rape our women all the while being bankrolled by the taxpayers will not be effective (same as in Russia), they don't bother to go there. >>> Wondering to what degree you think that any of these complaints >>> are any different than the last hundred years of the Roma's in >>> Europe: any comment there? Or is it supposedly okay that those >>> professional beggars, swindlers, pickpockets, robbers & theives >>> are all "ok" because they profess to somehow be Christians? >> >> You mean the gypsies? Why, exactly, would I be in favour of gypsies? > > Wrong question: where's been a similarly strong opposition to them > for the entirety of you life? You won't find any Poles or Europeans for that matter with a positive opinion of gypsies. However, they don't rape and assault people te way the sand parasites do and are therefore seen as little more than a nuisance because of their culture of thievery. >>> Similarly, what is to be said about the EU being sufficiently >>> self confident to take in very obvious war refugees while the >>> tenor in the USA is one of the abject fear of utter cowards >>> that's trying to hide from toddlers & children, etc? >>> >>> Anyone who really wants to make Amrica great again needs >>> to start with the soul of confidence in can-do and optimism, >>> rather than believe the fear mongering; we've forgotten that >>> the greatest thing to fear is fear itself ... And fear today is what >>> gets ratings and makes money (& control) by being a tool of >>> manipulation. >> >> My question to you is: - > > ... is a dodge which avoids answer the above. Not at all. My question made it clear that the idiotic, liberal belief that a conservative vote is accepting "fear mongering" has no bearing in common sense. The sand parasites have already - for years and on a continuing basis - shown that they have no respect for the West, our women, our culture and our values. They rape, they assault and they demand special treatment. Insisting that they be left out of the West is not "fear," it's common sense no matter how much manipulation liberals do to make it sound otherwise. > Yet nevertheless: > >> if there are already a large amount of educated people in the United States >> unable to find work, how is bringing an equal amount of UNEDUCATED... > > First, historical statistics show a trend that those who choose to (and who > have the resources to) flee conflict as refugees are usually "more" educated > than the average. Absolutely _NONE_ of the statistics on the refugees who have invaded Europe so far supports your statement. Here's just one: https://www.rt.com/news/343753-germany-refugees-males-statistics/ . In general, Germany has already said that a majority simply cannot be employed for anything but the most menial tasks. Here's another: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/07/major-german-companies-employing/ . Your "historical statistics" are apparently worthless. >> ... who will _not_ create new businesses .... > > But has not the very act of taking the initiative and risk of becoming a > refugee actually an indicator of a "starter" who is more inclined to start > their own business and be a hard worker? These aren't the lazy linux > bums who are Mommy's basement leech. Look at what kind of "migrants" have actually invaded Europe. In most cases, it's able-bodied young men who have no intention of working and have no intelligence whatsoever (see article above). They are there to "islamicize" the continent at best and terrorize the population at worst. In neither case do they contribute positively to the local economy. >> Similarly, if the welfare system in the United States is already going >> broke, ... > > The US system is broken because our own politicians chose to break it. > > Besides, the size of the USA's working population is such that one > would need to invite 150,000 refugees who all want jobs (vs family, > children) just to have even but an impact of 0.1% on US employment rates, > a value which is basically at our noise floor's ability to actually measure. > > And the's recall that a notional 150K is 15x the current goal of 10K Syrian > refugees which is being so vigorously opposed, so the maximum possible > unemployment impact would be 0.1%/15 = 0.007% I would rather not risk having them anywhere near the continent no matter whether the impact is slightly negative or very negative. Their culture, in general, would never help us out if we were in need. If things were reversed, they would be thanking Allah and finishing the job with whoever asked for help. I know this because I know the Qu'ran very well and I have no interest in providing help that I don't need to to people who won't appreciate it... ever. Do me a favour and look up the hijrah. Then let me know whether what you are seeing in Europe sounds a lot like it. >> Think with your brain, not with your heart. > > Oh, you mean how Germany recognized that their country actually has > a strong NEED for immigrants for the past twenty years, to help offset > their overall 'greying of the population' trend due to inadequate birth > rates back in the late 20th Century? ... or is that too cerebral for you? Except that the migrants DON'T WORK! Again, think with your brain, not your heart. > Similarly, the current US illegal immigrant immigrant population (~11 million) > is similarly ~1000x larger in magnitude .. and don't forget that by definition, > the current illegals that we've not seen as sufficiently important to round up > over the past 50+ years are all here totally unvetted, So the employment > metric as they hindered the Lower/Middle class Americans has simply not > been a concern or priority for our Civic leaders - - nor even a sufficiently > meaningful security risk to take action on for the past 1.5 decades. ... -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b36b1d3-46e9-404c-8595-adad0c0a0e73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366990 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 10:36:28 AM UTC-4, Silver Slimer wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Silver Slimer wrote: > >> -hh wrote: > >>> Slimer wrote: > >>> > >>>> ...where Muslims (and black people from what I hear)... > >>> > >>> So is this YA example of 3rd party hearsay based on some > >>> cherry picked YouTubes and zero lifetime personal experience > >>> in Poland? > >> > >> It's from a friend ... > > > > That's still third party. > > > > In the meantime, the reports are that refugee crisis didn't really begin for > > Europe until 2014 and Poland's rate of asylum applications in 2015 was > > 32 per 100K of Poland population, which means even if 2014 and 2016 > > were at the same rate as the 2015, the cumulative impact on Poland is > > approximately a 0.096% change in population (which is 1 in ~1042). > > All news reports suggest that refugees are not considering Poland as an > option because the welfare system is not generous at all and the Poles > themselves are very intolerant of anything going against the Catholic, > conservative culture. Since ... So you're confirming that they're not emigrating there in large numbers ... and yet you believe your friend that the country has already been "ruined"? Care to explain that contradiction? > >>> Wondering to what degree you think that any of these complaints > >>> are any different than the last hundred years of the Roma's in > >>> Europe: any comment there? Or is it supposedly okay that those > >>> professional beggars, swindlers, pickpockets, robbers & theives > >>> are all "ok" because they profess to somehow be Christians? > >> > >> You mean the gypsies? Why, exactly, would I be in favour of gypsies? > > > > Wrong question: where's been a similarly strong opposition to them > > for the entirety of you life? > > You won't find any Poles or Europeans for that matter with a positive > opinion of gypsies. However, they don't rape and assault people te way > the sand parasites do and are therefore seen as little more than a > nuisance because of their culture of thievery. Oh, so then you're blithely excusing that for each alleged rape/assault that there's been 1,000 pickpockets? And that every park has their share of professional beggars working in shifts? And gosh golly, you're all okay with this because for some reason _they_ don't have to confirm & assimilate into society because its their "culture" of thievery. Please excuse me while I wring out my keyboard from all of the dripping satire. > >>> Similarly, what is to be said about the EU being sufficiently > >>> self confident to take in very obvious war refugees while the > >>> tenor in the USA is one of the abject fear of utter cowards > >>> that's trying to hide from toddlers & children, etc? > >>> > >>> Anyone who really wants to make Amrica great again needs > >>> to start with the soul of confidence in can-do and optimism, > >>> rather than believe the fear mongering; we've forgotten that > >>> the greatest thing to fear is fear itself ... And fear today is > >>> what gets ratings and makes money (& control) by being a tool of > >>> manipulation. > >> > >> My question to you is: - > > > > ... is a dodge which avoids answer the above. > > Not at all. My question made it clear that the idiotic, liberal > belief that a conservative vote is accepting "fear mongering" has > no bearing in common sense. Golly, another sidestep. Care to try a third time to actually understand the point which was being made? > > Yet nevertheless: > > > >> if there are already a large amount of educated people in the United States > >> unable to find work, how is bringing an equal amount of UNEDUCATED... > > > > First, historical statistics show a trend that those who choose to (and who > > have the resources to) flee conflict as refugees are usually "more" educated > > than the average. > > Absolutely _NONE_ of the statistics on the refugees who have invaded > Europe so far supports your statement. Here's just one: > https://www.rt.com/news/343753-germany-refugees-males-statistics/ . Quoted from the above: "Syrians and Iranians are often better educated. 27 percent of Syrians and 35 percent of Iranians have graduated from a university." Roughly 30% with a college degree ... so just how does that compare to the USA's demographics of college graduates? Hint: <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/08/rick-santorum/70-americans-dont-have-college-degree-rick-santoru/> And that's before you consider other factors such as how the regional strife from which they were fleeing had a chronic dearth of opportunities (including even basic employment). > Your "historical statistics" are apparently worthless. Sorry, but your own citation didn't support your claim. > >> Similarly, if the welfare system in the United States is already going > >> broke, ... > > > > The US system is broken because our own politicians chose to break it. > > > > Besides, the size of the USA's working population is such that one > > would need to invite 150,000 refugees who all want jobs (vs family, > > children) just to have even but an impact of 0.1% on US employment rates, > > a value which is basically at our noise floor's ability to actually measure. > > > > And the's recall that a notional 150K is 15x the current goal of 10K Syrian > > refugees which is being so vigorously opposed, so the maximum possible > > unemployment impact would be 0.1%/15 = 0.007% > > I would rather not risk ... FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! > > Similarly, the current US illegal immigrant immigrant population > > (~11 million) is similarly ~1000x larger in magnitude .. and don't > > forget that by definition, the current illegals that we've not > > seen as sufficiently important to round up over the past 50+ years > > are all here totally unvetted, So the employment metric as they > > hindered the Lower/Middle class Americans has simply not been a > > concern or priority for our Civic leaders - - nor even a sufficiently > > meaningful security risk to take action on for the past 1.5 decades. > > ... Yeah, thought so: try thinking with an actual brain of a mammal, instead of succumbing to reptilian fear. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 11:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nppogt$3em$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367010 |
On 2016-08-26 11:26 AM, -hh wrote: > On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 10:36:28 AM UTC-4, Silver Slimer wrote: >> -hh wrote: >>> Silver Slimer wrote: >>>> -hh wrote: >>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ...where Muslims (and black people from what I hear)... >>>>> >>>>> So is this YA example of 3rd party hearsay based on some >>>>> cherry picked YouTubes and zero lifetime personal experience >>>>> in Poland? >>>> >>>> It's from a friend ... >>> >>> That's still third party. >>> >>> In the meantime, the reports are that refugee crisis didn't really begin for >>> Europe until 2014 and Poland's rate of asylum applications in 2015 was >>> 32 per 100K of Poland population, which means even if 2014 and 2016 >>> were at the same rate as the 2015, the cumulative impact on Poland is >>> approximately a 0.096% change in population (which is 1 in ~1042). >> >> All news reports suggest that refugees are not considering Poland as an >> option because the welfare system is not generous at all and the Poles >> themselves are very intolerant of anything going against the Catholic, >> conservative culture. Since ... > > So you're confirming that they're not emigrating there in large > numbers ... and yet you believe your friend that the country > has already been "ruined"? Care to explain that contradiction? I clearly said that EUROPE was ruined by the Muslim invasion and that Poland was spared it by closing the borders and refusing to let them in. It looks like you haven't read my post at all. >>>>> Wondering to what degree you think that any of these complaints >>>>> are any different than the last hundred years of the Roma's in >>>>> Europe: any comment there? Or is it supposedly okay that those >>>>> professional beggars, swindlers, pickpockets, robbers & theives >>>>> are all "ok" because they profess to somehow be Christians? >>>> >>>> You mean the gypsies? Why, exactly, would I be in favour of gypsies? >>> >>> Wrong question: where's been a similarly strong opposition to them >>> for the entirety of you life? >> >> You won't find any Poles or Europeans for that matter with a positive >> opinion of gypsies. However, they don't rape and assault people te way >> the sand parasites do and are therefore seen as little more than a >> nuisance because of their culture of thievery. > > Oh, so then you're blithely excusing that for each alleged rape/assault > that there's been 1,000 pickpockets? And that every park has their > share of professional beggars working in shifts? And gosh golly, > you're all okay with this because for some reason _they_ don't have > to confirm & assimilate into society because its their "culture" of > thievery. Please excuse me while I wring out my keyboard from all > of the dripping satire. You're insinuating things and basing them on your own erroneous interpretation of what I wrote caused by your inability to read a clear, simple text. I'm not going to participate in your nonsense any further. >>>>> Similarly, what is to be said about the EU being sufficiently >>>>> self confident to take in very obvious war refugees while the >>>>> tenor in the USA is one of the abject fear of utter cowards >>>>> that's trying to hide from toddlers & children, etc? >>>>> >>>>> Anyone who really wants to make Amrica great again needs >>>>> to start with the soul of confidence in can-do and optimism, >>>>> rather than believe the fear mongering; we've forgotten that >>>>> the greatest thing to fear is fear itself ... And fear today is >>>>> what gets ratings and makes money (& control) by being a tool of >>>>> manipulation. >>>> >>>> My question to you is: - >>> >>> ... is a dodge which avoids answer the above. >> >> Not at all. My question made it clear that the idiotic, liberal >> belief that a conservative vote is accepting "fear mongering" has >> no bearing in common sense. > > Golly, another sidestep. Care to try a third time to actually > understand the point which was being made? ... >>> Yet nevertheless: >>> >>>> if there are already a large amount of educated people in the United States >>>> unable to find work, how is bringing an equal amount of UNEDUCATED... >>> >>> First, historical statistics show a trend that those who choose to (and who >>> have the resources to) flee conflict as refugees are usually "more" educated >>> than the average. >> >> Absolutely _NONE_ of the statistics on the refugees who have invaded >> Europe so far supports your statement. Here's just one: >> https://www.rt.com/news/343753-germany-refugees-males-statistics/ . > > Quoted from the above: > > "Syrians and Iranians are often better educated. 27 percent of Syrians > and 35 percent of Iranians have graduated from a university." > > Roughly 30% with a college degree ... so just how does that compare > to the USA's demographics of college graduates? > > Hint: > <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/08/rick-santorum/70-americans-dont-have-college-degree-rick-santoru/> > > And that's before you consider other factors such as how the > regional strife from which they were fleeing had a chronic > dearth of opportunities (including even basic employment). > > >> Your "historical statistics" are apparently worthless. > > Sorry, but your own citation didn't support your claim. Your statement: "First, historical statistics show a trend that those who choose to (and who have the resources to) flee conflict as refugees are usually "more" educated than the average." Not only did you not provide any citation for that, but your statement does not mention conveniently omits the word "some." If 27% of Syrians and 35% of Iranians graduated from a university, there's still 73% and 65% in that order who don't. Additionally, the migrants are not coming from Syria and Iran exclusively and are, in majority, coming from desolate areas of Africa. This fact is now clear to everyone who has been tracking the migrant invasion whether they are on the left or the right. Of course, you omitted these basic details to further your lie and manipulate statistics in your favour. I have no interest in discussing this topic with you further considering your lack of even basic knowledge on the matter. >>>> Similarly, if the welfare system in the United States is already going >>>> broke, ... >>> >>> The US system is broken because our own politicians chose to break it. >>> >>> Besides, the size of the USA's working population is such that one >>> would need to invite 150,000 refugees who all want jobs (vs family, >>> children) just to have even but an impact of 0.1% on US employment rates, >>> a value which is basically at our noise floor's ability to actually measure. >>> >>> And the's recall that a notional 150K is 15x the current goal of 10K Syrian >>> refugees which is being so vigorously opposed, so the maximum possible >>> unemployment impact would be 0.1%/15 = 0.007% >> >> I would rather not risk ... > > FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! Stupid liberal. < snip > -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E5B88C.7A3CE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #367027 |
On 8/26/16, 8:50 AM, in article nppogt$3em$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > Muslim invasion This is about as un-Christian of a phrase as one could imagine. You are no Christian. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjavadu.jif@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #367035 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/26/16, 8:50 AM, in article nppogt$3em$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> Muslim invasion > > This is about as un-Christian of a phrase as one could imagine. > > You are no Christian. > Says the so-called atheist who believes that Man is not part of Nature. PKB much?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E5C434.7A3EF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #367046 |
On 8/26/16, 9:24 AM, in article fhjavadu.jif@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/26/16, 8:50 AM, in article nppogt$3em$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>> Muslim invasion >> >> This is about as un-Christian of a phrase as one could imagine. >> >> You are no Christian. >> > Says the so-called atheist who believes that Man is not part of Nature. > PKB much? Ah, another debate where you got completely lost because of multiple meanings of words. That was funny... you made a complete ass of yourself. I had forgotten about it... keep in mind how simple it is! There are two meanings of the word "nature": one is in terms of natural vs. supernatural. I think all things are natural in THAT sense of the word. There is also the meaning of man vs. nature... where things are made in nature or are man-made. Things that man makes, in that sense, are not natural. Easy peasy! And completely over your head. Ah, that was a fun debate. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web