What's really funny is that even with the screwing around, the chart still clearly shows global warming. It's like a serial killer arguing that he should be acquitted of all 15 charges because the evidence clearly shows that he only killed 11 people at random.
The topic is Google chrome (which is the Google branded version of chromium). I am running it now. I downloaded it from Google. Look at this page. It clearly claims suitability for Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/openSUSE and other OSs.
If the first update will break it, they have no business offering it without a big fat warning.
Clearly, the part of your brain needed to understand the difference is missing. I don't know if it is a birth defect or injury, but there it is. The distinction is well enough understood that practically every jurisdiction treats it as an aggravation to robbery.
Debian is hardly the only distro that doesn't yet have a new enough kernel. If their target is chromiumos, then they shouldn't represent it as suitable elsewhere.
The right thing is to gracefully introduce the new capability. TSYNC isn't at all a bad thing, that's why Linus let it go in. The correct thing in userspace is to use the feature if it is there and do it the old way if it is not. Then, later on when the new kernel feature becomes universal through natural upgrade cycles you can remove the fallback.
It's a bug in all but name. The correct behavior for a new feature that isn't universally available yet is to use it if it is there and fall back if it is not.
This is just Google throwing it's weight around. It's a dick move.
And you present no evidence whatsoever, not even a reference that could be looked up on google.
And you do so as a comment to an article that further strengthens the evidence that it is actually harder for some people than it is for others. What's it like living in the dark ages with the leeches and inquisitors?
What you don't get is that you got off easy. Others, not so much. For many, eating normally for a human being is a sure recipe for weight gain.
As soon as they lighten up a bit on the crazy diet they start gaining again. It might take a year to lose but it'll only be a couple months to gain it back.
But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds. For some, it has to be to a greater degree, not just "I could eat", or "Gee, must be nearing dinner time", but unable to concentrate on anything else because your abdomen feels like it's caving in.
You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself.
Oddly, there have been a very few people who actially could forget to breath and die, but that was the result of an injury.
If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional.
Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry (and a bit weak) 24/7 even though food is at hand, I suggested a drive you may have experienced.
OK, name any time where there was a culture of success around weight loss. That is, where the normal expectation was that the weight would come off and stay off.
I asked you to try it for a week. You're asking others to try it for the rest of their existence. How long DO you think you could try my suggestion for and how happy do you expect you'll be doing it?
Slashdot Mirror
What's really funny is that even with the screwing around, the chart still clearly shows global warming. It's like a serial killer arguing that he should be acquitted of all 15 charges because the evidence clearly shows that he only killed 11 people at random.
If they're calling from India, their local laws are meaningless to me. There's no point in building a case, there will be no prosecution.
I smell burning pants!
Redefining a well understood thing and then claiming it never existed is disingenuous at best.
Hexavalent Chrome, of course.
The topic is Google chrome (which is the Google branded version of chromium). I am running it now. I downloaded it from Google. Look at this page. It clearly claims suitability for Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/openSUSE and other OSs.
If the first update will break it, they have no business offering it without a big fat warning.
Clearly, the part of your brain needed to understand the difference is missing. I don't know if it is a birth defect or injury, but there it is. The distinction is well enough understood that practically every jurisdiction treats it as an aggravation to robbery.
They missed it by a bit, but parts of Florida DO see sea water come up out of the ground from time ti time, leaving the area under water.
Not bad for the '70s when the most powerful supercomputer was less powerful than today's common desktop PC.
The problem is that for the most part others will be paying. And plenty of people will be profiting from deliberately making those 'mistakes'.
Debian is hardly the only distro that doesn't yet have a new enough kernel. If their target is chromiumos, then they shouldn't represent it as suitable elsewhere.
The right thing is to gracefully introduce the new capability. TSYNC isn't at all a bad thing, that's why Linus let it go in. The correct thing in userspace is to use the feature if it is there and do it the old way if it is not. Then, later on when the new kernel feature becomes universal through natural upgrade cycles you can remove the fallback.
So you're convinced Aunt Tillie should roll her own kernel?
It's a bug in all but name. The correct behavior for a new feature that isn't universally available yet is to use it if it is there and fall back if it is not.
This is just Google throwing it's weight around. It's a dick move.
So you're saying your post wasn't intended to have any relevance at all to the conversation?
WOW.
And you present no evidence whatsoever, not even a reference that could be looked up on google.
And you do so as a comment to an article that further strengthens the evidence that it is actually harder for some people than it is for others. What's it like living in the dark ages with the leeches and inquisitors?
Read the research on gut flora, for example. It's all over google.
OH, and ulcers aren't due to agitation and the Earth isn't flat.
What you don't get is that you got off easy. Others, not so much. For many, eating normally for a human being is a sure recipe for weight gain.
As soon as they lighten up a bit on the crazy diet they start gaining again. It might take a year to lose but it'll only be a couple months to gain it back.
Isn't that how the Terminator series got started?
But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds. For some, it has to be to a greater degree, not just "I could eat", or "Gee, must be nearing dinner time", but unable to concentrate on anything else because your abdomen feels like it's caving in.
You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself.
Oddly, there have been a very few people who actially could forget to breath and die, but that was the result of an injury.
If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional.
Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry (and a bit weak) 24/7 even though food is at hand, I suggested a drive you may have experienced.
So you deny that eating is a basic biological drive? Name anyone who died because they kept forgetting to eat.
OK, name any time where there was a culture of success around weight loss. That is, where the normal expectation was that the weight would come off and stay off.
Good luck!
I asked you to deny a basic biological drive 'just enough' but not too much. That sure does sound like dieting.
Name any period of time in modern history that any society has found long or even medium term weight loss to be easy.
I'll bet that if you find one, it will have been during a famine.
I asked you to try it for a week. You're asking others to try it for the rest of their existence. How long DO you think you could try my suggestion for and how happy do you expect you'll be doing it?
they just cast a dark shadow over China and its government.
How can they tell?