Sure, it is very annoying. The thing is, you learn to deal with it. My Windows 10 does not install updates until I allow it to. You can work around the problems. Going back to Windows 7 is not the answer. Windows 7 was great, but people still bitched about it for a couple years after it came out claiming they'd never quit using Windows XP. In my job I have to work with Windows, LINUX, and macOS. I don't bitch about any of them because that won't solve anything. I just learn how to deal with the stupid crap that each OS throws at me. Open tickets with the company that makes the OS when you find an issue. Either they'll fix it or they won't. If they don't, find your own workaround and get on with your life. I won't install 1803 until I feel its stable. If you're still pissed off, give yourself a hug... it might help.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here the very definition of Stockholm syndrome. The slave being punished and beaten daily but has learned to love his tormentors, perhaps even worship them, because....... well, Stockholm syndrome.
Meanwhile, have fun with that. You are still in the age where getting your computer to simply work is your version of a participation trophy. Yay for you! You're needing that hug, man,
that show the Windows loading screen and then a blank screen after this upgrade. We have Dell's highest level of support, and they don't even have a solution other than to reformat and reinstall Windows. It's not just not ready for prime time. It's simply not ready.
But you have to admit they were really secure after that update.
When you push out the revisions twice a year, somethings will always go wrong for some devices.
Riddle me this: how does Linux manage to push out revisions at more than ten times that rate while almost never regressing on any device? Not to mention that Linux tends to support devices forever, unlike Windows.
Exactly, even though My Linux and MacOS machines let me decide when to run updates, I could let them auto-update. I have had exactly one Mac update that made the computer a little flakey - but still functional - and no problems with any Linux updates
Meanwhile BOHICA Microsoft bitches something up with each W10 update.
I guess the fans can console themselves with the knowledge of their beloved large installed user base when their machine BSODs, loses half it's drivers, or doesn't boot after an update
No version of Windows was ever ready for prime time..
Well, XP functioned pretty well, and Windows 7 is pretty stable.
But Windows 10 is the biggest steaming pile of shit of an OS, the only thing it does well is make Vista and Windows 8 look good.
Even then, it could be salvageable if Microsoft ditched it's BOHICA based update process. I have a network of Windows 10 machines that has functioned well for a couple years now. Then again, it is airgapped by several miles, and hasn't been updated - which means no Microsoft mandated failures.
Yours is the second post mentioning advertising non existent jobs? Wtf?
Can you explain why they would do this?
A lot of companies are recruiting people in fishing expeditions. If a really excellent canditate interviews, they'll try to figure out a position for them. But basically, no, there isn't an actual job opening.
And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident.
Nobody.
If the car just hits the brakes when there it senses an obstacle ahead, then nobody can sue the
manufacturer since that will always be a legally acceptable choice.
Amusing - what it slamming on the brakes will cause you to be killed by the guy tailgating you at 80 mph?
Humans must make these choices, just slamming on the brakes is one of many. Since I have occasionally avoided accidents by speeding up, hitting the brakes hard might be the worst possible decision.
I gave you one link already from the people who might be writing the software or involved with self driving cars, here's one from the auto industry https://www.inverse.com/articl...
You might want to call Ford and maybe MIT to let them know that you have solved the problem - Hit the brakes and hope.Who knew the answer was so simple, and the ethical dilemma solved by a random guy on Slashdot?
There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.
Like what?
Robocars only need one rule: if there is an obstacle ahead (any obstacle) and there isn't time to safely drive around it, then hit the brakes and hope for the best.
Way overly simplified
There is an ethical dillemma that pops up from time to time that occurs in driving. The unavoidable accident where there is no good decision, where each decision will lead to death of people. Humans caught in such a dilemma have to make these decisions - and slamming on the brakes might be the worst possible decision Maybe hitting the two bicyclists coming the other way will kill less people than running into the10 bicyclists in your lane as you round the blind corner. Maybe driving off the cliff will only kill you. Which will it be?
Sorry muchacho, through all of this wordsmithing back and forth, my point still stands.
If you think so. Sure. But based on your inability to read I can see why you think why.
You have the ability to choose what you will be. So for some reason you chose to be an asshole. I think you can do much better than that, but as you keep saying, I'm quite wrong.
Sorry muchacho, through all of this wordsmithing back and forth, my point still stands.
You merely don't accept words like Superhuman ability, and infinite ability and claiming that anyone against it is so stupid they don't realize it and are therefore wrong - AKA Dunning Kruger - or "ridiculously safe" as examples of what my original point was. My original point was that people are expounding just how safe AV technology is. Hyperbole and insults. Well okay, some people don't see such words as anything but normal discourse..
And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident. Does the car hit and kill the pedestrian, or drive off the cliff with you in it? Do you want the ability to choose who the car kills?
Noted that you ignored the question the first time I asked it. this is a big issue that many proponents want to go away, to turn AV's into a sort of video game. Perhaps you would like to explain your position to the family of the dead pedestrian.
My point is not how safe, how few bloody corpses per million miles - hype words inserted for your benefit - but that many of the proponents have displayed a marked level of hubris about the AV subject. Hubris in the mix seldom works out.well. You end up dismissing a dead person's life.
That doesn't mean self-driving cars aren't safe. The self-driving car failed due to willful stupidity, not by any inherent flaw in computer control systems.
As Gallager said - Drive safe on the way home folks, getting killed only counts if its a holiday.
And even worse. What if you type in McDonalds and instead it only will take you to Burger King. Think about it.
Pay enough, and no doubt this will happen at some point.
But I've always wondered about say, getting a call from home, and your SO tells you to stop off at school to pick up one of the kids in the middle of your ride. Are you going to have to get real specific about the school? Are you going to have to pre-plan every day's travel? Things that we do automatically without a thought will have to be planned out and programmed meticulously, and changes will have to be as seamless as getting told to pick up the children, or bread, or whatever. And for the automation is simply superior to humans, will the machinery always translate whet you say perfectly?
I don't want to trade driving for the pain in the ass that turning simple trips with simple changes might end up turning into.
You could use veam's free windows client to backup to a usb, NAS, or separate internal drive. It will create bootable media for you to restore from. You can even include distinct credentials for the NAS, so malware won't cross over to it.
Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?
No. Not at all. Because no one ever did. What they did say was that with consistency, repeatability, not wavering, not sleeping, and the ability to continuously improve they *will be* far safer than human drivers can ever hope to be. But absolutely no one has made a universal claim like you just have, not even really silly people.
Here's some reading material for the no one ever said that crowd:
Some of the words: "Driverless cars are designed to have almost a superhuman-like ability to recognize the world around them. This is because they use loads of sensors to gather tons of data about their environment so that they can seamlessly operate in a constantly changing environment."
"The more data we feed it the more vocabulary it has and the more it can recognize what a pedestrian is. And we do the same thing with bicyclists, cars, trucks, and we do it at all times of day and different weather conditions. So again, essentially it has this infinite capability to build up a memory and understanding of what all of these different types of things could encounter would look like," he said.
"Superhuman", "Infinite ability" just non-committal words, and no doubt.
So safe it is ridiculous - That must be superhumanly and infinitely safe, n'est-ce pas?
Did you know that if you don't believe tht, you are suffering from Dunning - Kruger effect? Right there in the article. Jebuz Kryst - I save that insult for 1 step below inviting someone into the parking lot for a fistfight, and yet this calm rational person sticks it in his article. I suspect he really feels strongly positive about that there autonomous vehicle technology to call anyone who disagrees not smart enough to differ in opinion. Those stupid luddites, we'll nave no opposing opinions.
If you want more, you can google it, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining - People on the internet, and people in here have long been insulting others if they don't believe in the brave and safe new world that will be ours, if only we eliminate the incompetent asses behind the wheel.
By they way - in a situation where the automobile must make adecision on who to kill in an unavoidable accident - are you willing to have your car kill you to save others? There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.
Do you want a switch that will tell the car in such instances that you want it to save you and purposely kill others? Enjoy.
So, keeping Uber off the roads should reduce pedestrian fatalities by, oh, 0.07% this year, eh?
Based on the number of people killed by cars with drivers in 2017, of course. No statistics available for the whole country for 2018 yet....
I'll repeat - Remember when people were saying how safe these self driving cars were? After all, the software is not fallible as a human.
I wonder what the pedestrain fatalities per mile driven were compared to the unsafe human driven cars?
Regardless, the point stands - Driverless cars indeed also kill pedestrians, so sorry - they are dangerous as well. Or does getting killed only count when a human is behind the wheel?
Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?
Guber driverless vehicles should be required to have a flashing light in order to let pedestrians know that as in all things, Guber doesn't follow rules, so you've been warned citizens.
If that's the case you should have a spare HD with a cloned image, or take regular images with an appropriate tool. I used to use a pxe boot server and image systems to samba share. A real easy way is to use this guyWhen you boot back to windows, that space is invisible and unaccessible to malware. You can always boot back to linux and restore your system.
And you hope that there isn't malware on that clone. the concept of re-cloning every time you get an update - which for the number of programs I have would mean every day - is not a solution, it's masochism.
I suppose for people that only have the basics of Microsoft office, a peripheral or two and it wouldn't matter.
On my Mac, Time Machine can reinstall everything, but even that takes a good while. On my PC's, I just plan on nucing it from orbit in the unulikely event it gets pwned.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it is very annoying. The thing is, you learn to deal with it. My Windows 10 does not install updates until I allow it to. You can work around the problems. Going back to Windows 7 is not the answer. Windows 7 was great, but people still bitched about it for a couple years after it came out claiming they'd never quit using Windows XP. In my job I have to work with Windows, LINUX, and macOS. I don't bitch about any of them because that won't solve anything. I just learn how to deal with the stupid crap that each OS throws at me. Open tickets with the company that makes the OS when you find an issue. Either they'll fix it or they won't. If they don't, find your own workaround and get on with your life. I won't install 1803 until I feel its stable. If you're still pissed off, give yourself a hug... it might help.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here the very definition of Stockholm syndrome. The slave being punished and beaten daily but has learned to love his tormentors, perhaps even worship them, because ....... well, Stockholm syndrome.
Meanwhile, have fun with that. You are still in the age where getting your computer to simply work is your version of a participation trophy. Yay for you! You're needing that hug, man,
that show the Windows loading screen and then a blank screen after this upgrade. We have Dell's highest level of support, and they don't even have a solution other than to reformat and reinstall Windows. It's not just not ready for prime time. It's simply not ready.
But you have to admit they were really secure after that update.
When you push out the revisions twice a year, somethings will always go wrong for some devices.
Riddle me this: how does Linux manage to push out revisions at more than ten times that rate while almost never regressing on any device? Not to mention that Linux tends to support devices forever, unlike Windows.
Exactly, even though My Linux and MacOS machines let me decide when to run updates, I could let them auto-update. I have had exactly one Mac update that made the computer a little flakey - but still functional - and no problems with any Linux updates
Meanwhile BOHICA Microsoft bitches something up with each W10 update.
I guess the fans can console themselves with the knowledge of their beloved large installed user base when their machine BSODs, loses half it's drivers, or doesn't boot after an update
Security through inoperability..
I'm a Linux user ( ~ 99% of the time) and I mostly agree with him.
They are suffering badly from Stockholm Syndrome.
Windows have reached the terminal stage,
No, only Linux and MacOS have Terminal. Windows has Command Prompt. I'm not certain many Windows users know about it.
No version of Windows was ever ready for prime time..
Well, XP functioned pretty well, and Windows 7 is pretty stable.
But Windows 10 is the biggest steaming pile of shit of an OS, the only thing it does well is make Vista and Windows 8 look good.
Even then, it could be salvageable if Microsoft ditched it's BOHICA based update process. I have a network of Windows 10 machines that has functioned well for a couple years now. Then again, it is airgapped by several miles, and hasn't been updated - which means no Microsoft mandated failures.
Yours is the second post mentioning advertising non existent jobs? Wtf?
Can you explain why they would do this?
A lot of companies are recruiting people in fishing expeditions. If a really excellent canditate interviews, they'll try to figure out a position for them. But basically, no, there isn't an actual job opening.
Where I worked, that was SOP.
And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident.
Nobody.
If the car just hits the brakes when there it senses an obstacle ahead, then nobody can sue the manufacturer since that will always be a legally acceptable choice.
Amusing - what it slamming on the brakes will cause you to be killed by the guy tailgating you at 80 mph?
Humans must make these choices, just slamming on the brakes is one of many. Since I have occasionally avoided accidents by speeding up, hitting the brakes hard might be the worst possible decision.
I gave you one link already from the people who might be writing the software or involved with self driving cars, here's one from the auto industry https://www.inverse.com/articl...
You might want to call Ford and maybe MIT to let them know that you have solved the problem - Hit the brakes and hope.Who knew the answer was so simple, and the ethical dilemma solved by a random guy on Slashdot?
There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.
Like what? Robocars only need one rule: if there is an obstacle ahead (any obstacle) and there isn't time to safely drive around it, then hit the brakes and hope for the best.
Way overly simplified There is an ethical dillemma that pops up from time to time that occurs in driving. The unavoidable accident where there is no good decision, where each decision will lead to death of people. Humans caught in such a dilemma have to make these decisions - and slamming on the brakes might be the worst possible decision Maybe hitting the two bicyclists coming the other way will kill less people than running into the10 bicyclists in your lane as you round the blind corner. Maybe driving off the cliff will only kill you. Which will it be?
MIT has a good read on this: https://www.technologyreview.c...
That is why you buy TWO! The second one being a mirror of the first one.
I say this in reference to the 128 TB SD card of course.
And talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. 128 TB is a lot of data to lose at one time.
That is why you buy TWO! The second one being a mirror of the first one.
Mirroring a 128 TB SD crd, eh? Sounds like fun
Sorry muchacho, through all of this wordsmithing back and forth, my point still stands.
If you think so. Sure. But based on your inability to read I can see why you think why.
You have the ability to choose what you will be. So for some reason you chose to be an asshole. I think you can do much better than that, but as you keep saying, I'm quite wrong.
You merely don't accept words like Superhuman ability, and infinite ability and claiming that anyone against it is so stupid they don't realize it and are therefore wrong - AKA Dunning Kruger - or "ridiculously safe" as examples of what my original point was. My original point was that people are expounding just how safe AV technology is. Hyperbole and insults. Well okay, some people don't see such words as anything but normal discourse..
And you still haven't told me who you want to car to purposefully kill in the event of an unavoidable accident. Does the car hit and kill the pedestrian, or drive off the cliff with you in it? Do you want the ability to choose who the car kills?
Noted that you ignored the question the first time I asked it. this is a big issue that many proponents want to go away, to turn AV's into a sort of video game. Perhaps you would like to explain your position to the family of the dead pedestrian.
My point is not how safe, how few bloody corpses per million miles - hype words inserted for your benefit - but that many of the proponents have displayed a marked level of hubris about the AV subject. Hubris in the mix seldom works out.well. You end up dismissing a dead person's life.
That doesn't mean self-driving cars aren't safe. The self-driving car failed due to willful stupidity, not by any inherent flaw in computer control systems.
As Gallager said - Drive safe on the way home folks, getting killed only counts if its a holiday.
Ad hominem by intentionally misnaming a person or group is childish and doesn't help your argument.
I was talking to you, Guber.
And even worse. What if you type in McDonalds and instead it only will take you to Burger King. Think about it.
Pay enough, and no doubt this will happen at some point.
But I've always wondered about say, getting a call from home, and your SO tells you to stop off at school to pick up one of the kids in the middle of your ride. Are you going to have to get real specific about the school? Are you going to have to pre-plan every day's travel? Things that we do automatically without a thought will have to be planned out and programmed meticulously, and changes will have to be as seamless as getting told to pick up the children, or bread, or whatever. And for the automation is simply superior to humans, will the machinery always translate whet you say perfectly?
I don't want to trade driving for the pain in the ass that turning simple trips with simple changes might end up turning into.
You could use veam's free windows client to backup to a usb, NAS, or separate internal drive. It will create bootable media for you to restore from. You can even include distinct credentials for the NAS, so malware won't cross over to it.
Just like Grandma does.
Remember when people were strutting around expounding how safe these self driving vehicles were?
No. Not at all. Because no one ever did. What they did say was that with consistency, repeatability, not wavering, not sleeping, and the ability to continuously improve they *will be* far safer than human drivers can ever hope to be. But absolutely no one has made a universal claim like you just have, not even really silly people.
Here's some reading material for the no one ever said that crowd:
Some of the words: "Driverless cars are designed to have almost a superhuman-like ability to recognize the world around them. This is because they use loads of sensors to gather tons of data about their environment so that they can seamlessly operate in a constantly changing environment."
"The more data we feed it the more vocabulary it has and the more it can recognize what a pedestrian is. And we do the same thing with bicyclists, cars, trucks, and we do it at all times of day and different weather conditions. So again, essentially it has this infinite capability to build up a memory and understanding of what all of these different types of things could encounter would look like," he said.
"Superhuman", "Infinite ability" just non-committal words, and no doubt.
This one gives AV lovers hard-ons The headline? "Google's Self-Driving Cars Are Ridiculously Safe' https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/...
So safe it is ridiculous - That must be superhumanly and infinitely safe, n'est-ce pas? Did you know that if you don't believe tht, you are suffering from Dunning - Kruger effect? Right there in the article. Jebuz Kryst - I save that insult for 1 step below inviting someone into the parking lot for a fistfight, and yet this calm rational person sticks it in his article. I suspect he really feels strongly positive about that there autonomous vehicle technology to call anyone who disagrees not smart enough to differ in opinion. Those stupid luddites, we'll nave no opposing opinions.
If you want more, you can google it, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining - People on the internet, and people in here have long been insulting others if they don't believe in the brave and safe new world that will be ours, if only we eliminate the incompetent asses behind the wheel.
By they way - in a situation where the automobile must make adecision on who to kill in an unavoidable accident - are you willing to have your car kill you to save others? There will be situations where the autonomy must deliberately kill people.
Do you want a switch that will tell the car in such instances that you want it to save you and purposely kill others? Enjoy.
So, keeping Uber off the roads should reduce pedestrian fatalities by, oh, 0.07% this year, eh?
Based on the number of people killed by cars with drivers in 2017, of course. No statistics available for the whole country for 2018 yet....
I'll repeat - Remember when people were saying how safe these self driving cars were? After all, the software is not fallible as a human.
I wonder what the pedestrain fatalities per mile driven were compared to the unsafe human driven cars?
Regardless, the point stands - Driverless cars indeed also kill pedestrians, so sorry - they are dangerous as well. Or does getting killed only count when a human is behind the wheel?
Guber driverless vehicles should be required to have a flashing light in order to let pedestrians know that as in all things, Guber doesn't follow rules, so you've been warned citizens.
If that's the case you should have a spare HD with a cloned image, or take regular images with an appropriate tool. I used to use a pxe boot server and image systems to samba share. A real easy way is to use this guyWhen you boot back to windows, that space is invisible and unaccessible to malware. You can always boot back to linux and restore your system.
And you hope that there isn't malware on that clone. the concept of re-cloning every time you get an update - which for the number of programs I have would mean every day - is not a solution, it's masochism.
I suppose for people that only have the basics of Microsoft office, a peripheral or two and it wouldn't matter.
On my Mac, Time Machine can reinstall everything, but even that takes a good while. On my PC's, I just plan on nucing it from orbit in the unulikely event it gets pwned.
I check my Wireshark logs a lot too. Probably 1 out of every 500 users will do that sort of thing.
I would bet that's closer to one in every 500,000 users. Even security researchers don't do that (of course some do).
I suppose some would call me paranoid, but I just kind of enjoy it. And people would be surprised at what they find.
It all started when I was having issues with brittle networking software coupled with bad documentation. Then I got hooked.
"I wonder if they replace the engine every time they need to change oil?"
Now you're just being silly. We replace the car since you never know if any of the oil managed to get out and stuck to something else.
Gotta think ahead. That's why linux users will never see their year on the desktop.
ahhh, my bad!
Here is an idea... if the legit copy doesn't work, then don't support them with money until they can produce something that does work? Crazy, I know.
The problem of course, is that you don't know until you try it after you buy it.
Not true. I am porting it to Linux. You can get it from the Gentoo Github (while stocks last).
Thank you, you are doing a good thing. This will be the year of Linux getting the malware they need.
He was only responding with a smart assed remark since you posted your own smart assed remark.
You're way too serious, old man.
PS, fuck your lawn.
ps.. Not exactly serious - more like enjoying trolling some folks. Jes sayin'