As always, Apple and a ton of other companies try to make a device too light for the weight of a usable frame, the structural integrity of the screen, and the weight and expansion of the battery.
Good. A few units failing is a small price to pay for not having to lug around useless junk no one cares about on a small toy.
Or maybe you could not compare some tiny proof of concept to a standard built out railway system. The rail engineer is completely dense in his comparison.
Especially since we know that 90% of the plastic in the ocean is deposited there from just 10 rivers.
Except it's not. 90% of the plastic that reaches the ocean FROM RIVERS comes from just 10 rivers. The actual number you're looking for is closer to 25%. We discussed this only yesterday: https://www.scientificamerican...
Yep because there's no point in taking things out of a closed system. The only affect you ever have is if you exlusively work on the single biggest input./Sarcasm.
Yeah I could see that, but they have a loooooooooong way to go before that becomes even fiesable. But ultimately I don't see a large enough group flock to abandon the Linux kernel and run Linux userland on WSL to actually have any impact in the development decisions of Linux. I see WSL as a curiosity for single purposes built ontop of Windows. The vast majority of the Linux world does not run on such curiosities but rather as large beefier servers deployed on what is required to be rock solid and mission critical base and that will continue to be developed.
I see WSL as having an affect on the Linux desktop, but even then currently it does not support a GUI and is only marginly more functional than HURD.
Because a "distro" is running without actual Linux kernel running, how simple is that.
Extremely simple and therefore not at all relevant to the future development of the kernel and in effect isolates all efforts MS is doing from having any affect on the kernel itself.
What if the package that was stolen had peanut butter in it and the person was deathly alergic ? Think they are going to be able to sue then ?
Mission Impossible: Fallout the original script: Apostles steal nuclear fuel and get radiation poisoning. The rest of the move plays out in the courts where they sue the US government.
Well you can start by not exporting your waste to these rivers to be dumped. Also doing something about a general problem rather than pointing at someone else and saying "but look they are worse" is not virtue-signalling.
but If a click simply loads new content into the same page
Then you should make it clear to the user that the context of your page has a different interface than the standard one they expect, and not change the defined behaviour of an existing system which has a different functionality.
Nope. You've broken the concept of the back button as well as the usability guidelines for some operating systems. If you want to provide functionality you should do it via the appropriate means. Changing the defined functionality of something is not appropriate.
I have noticed that the younger generation doesn't understand this
Interestingly there doesn't seem to be anyone young writing or proposing laws on this topic, only old people. Rather than misattributing blame to some arbitrary age group, why not just call them by the label they deserve: Stupid people.
But that doesn't mean it isn't fine for other people who have different views.
Those people are free not to sell their own bodies and I applaud them for their independent thinking and would greatly appreciate if they kept their independence away from everyone else.
Sadly on a closer look you're right. This was a list that the Archivers were hoping to scrape. Just doing a search around their Wiki it would seem they didn't even scratch the surface.
Cool let's go for a basic English lesson. In english you can't take sentences out of context so let's start with the context:
1. An article describing treating current users a beta testers through the remote. 2. A post saying that customers have always been beta testers. 3. My reply. Now lets analyse that one in detail: a) "A nice quip on the quality of MS software in general" A general sense of agreement that you're pandering to the crowd on the quality of windows software, not a disagreement of the fact (your first mistake). Also dismission on the core premise of your post (context: beta testing, nothing to do with quality). b) "but not constructive to the discussion. There are orders of magnitude differences in not only the quality of software but the actual business practices of MS between the DOS days and now." A reference to the fact that there are differences in quality of the software in the past vs now. No claim about one or the other (see point 5.) Along with a reference to a change in the practices (you know, the actual article here talking about actual acknowledgement that MS is pushing out updates that aren't ready. Now in case you still haven't drawn the line, the article is negative, I am reinforcing that negative, ergo the "change" I am talking about is that MS is getting worse not better. 4. And you posted: "Oh, well, no proof or evidence of that is needed for your claim at all." 5. To which I replied a reference to the sky being blue. This translated into plain english means that something is obvious. Given the context of the Slashdot crowd, general opinion of Windows 10 not only on Slashdot but the wider audience, and the article itself talking about this new thing about beta testing customers this post only with the context of the site and article it was posted against reinforced my view that MS's software quality has not only gotten worse, but also the article we are talking about where they are blatantly using users as beta testers also should imply that my initial post was talking negatively about the current state of affairs.
I don't know how you got this so wrong, but I hope you learnt something. Have a nice day.
It's amazing how willing folks are to run un-trusted code from people with strong motivation to track and monetize you.
Why is it amazing given the level of actual personal risk people face on common websites as a result of tracking? The direct impact to people's lives by corporations hoovering up their data can be likened to dying in a terrorist attack. There are literally billions of people whose data has been harvested and who are being tracked yet the vast majority don't care precisely because nearly everyone has been completely unaffected by it.
Now breaking the web by micromanaging scripts on the other hand *that* affects people. Can I interest you in my 100% proven terrorist preventing pet rock? It will prevent terrorists but you need to water it twice a day and sing it a lullaby or it doesn't work.
You surprised me, I wasn't expecting a reasoned response given Slashdot's discourse on the subject recently but let me say why I think your concerns a slightly off base.
WSL has no market share. It's alternative exists as running full blown Linux or Linux in a VM which is the current status quo and above all there's little effort beside some optimisations required to get a distribution working as a WSL distribution. That work is also not linked to any kernel capability. Remember WSL is a subsystem that sits ontop of the Windows kernel. It has zero to do with the Linux kernel and Linux capabilities and can be thought of more like the cygwin project which has been around since the dawn of man. If this kind of functionality could have any defining behaviour on the development of Linux it would have happened due to cygwin a long time before now.
Also remember the vast majority of kernel work does not affect userland APIs which is precisely what WSL emulates to work on the NT kernel, and those APIs that are affected take *years* to actually be adopted and then get in some case get hated as a result (See the reason for the Gnome dependency on systemd-logind).
In general you have well reasoned concerns but I don't see them actually applying in this case given what WSL is and isn't, and what it's market share and development model is.
Slashdot Mirror
To want to ignore the original template for every constitution in the world seems short-sighted.
He's not ignoring the Magna Carta
As always, Apple and a ton of other companies try to make a device too light for the weight of a usable frame, the structural integrity of the screen, and the weight and expansion of the battery.
Good. A few units failing is a small price to pay for not having to lug around useless junk no one cares about on a small toy.
Just build some fucking trains, America!
Or maybe you could not compare some tiny proof of concept to a standard built out railway system. The rail engineer is completely dense in his comparison.
it's not your plastic.
Actually it is our plastic. Just not all our plastic. But hey just because someone else is dirty we should just fuck the world right?
When did the developed world stop being a leader and example and start being such a worthless fingerpointer?
Especially since we know that 90% of the plastic in the ocean is deposited there from just 10 rivers.
Except it's not. 90% of the plastic that reaches the ocean FROM RIVERS comes from just 10 rivers. The actual number you're looking for is closer to 25%. We discussed this only yesterday: https://www.scientificamerican...
Yep because there's no point in taking things out of a closed system. The only affect you ever have is if you exlusively work on the single biggest input. /Sarcasm.
Okay I thought you were making some reference to the bolognese part of my post.
In TFS ;-)
Yeah I could see that, but they have a loooooooooong way to go before that becomes even fiesable. But ultimately I don't see a large enough group flock to abandon the Linux kernel and run Linux userland on WSL to actually have any impact in the development decisions of Linux. I see WSL as a curiosity for single purposes built ontop of Windows. The vast majority of the Linux world does not run on such curiosities but rather as large beefier servers deployed on what is required to be rock solid and mission critical base and that will continue to be developed.
I see WSL as having an affect on the Linux desktop, but even then currently it does not support a GUI and is only marginly more functional than HURD.
Because a "distro" is running without actual Linux kernel running, how simple is that.
Extremely simple and therefore not at all relevant to the future development of the kernel and in effect isolates all efforts MS is doing from having any affect on the kernel itself.
What if the package that was stolen had peanut butter in it and the person was deathly alergic ? Think they are going to be able to sue then ?
Mission Impossible: Fallout the original script:
Apostles steal nuclear fuel and get radiation poisoning. The rest of the move plays out in the courts where they sue the US government.
Well you can start by not exporting your waste to these rivers to be dumped. Also doing something about a general problem rather than pointing at someone else and saying "but look they are worse" is not virtue-signalling.
but If a click simply loads new content into the same page
Then you should make it clear to the user that the context of your page has a different interface than the standard one they expect, and not change the defined behaviour of an existing system which has a different functionality.
Not to trap them, but to provide functionality.
Nope. You've broken the concept of the back button as well as the usability guidelines for some operating systems. If you want to provide functionality you should do it via the appropriate means. Changing the defined functionality of something is not appropriate.
I have noticed that the younger generation doesn't understand this
Interestingly there doesn't seem to be anyone young writing or proposing laws on this topic, only old people. Rather than misattributing blame to some arbitrary age group, why not just call them by the label they deserve: Stupid people.
Sorry replied to the wrong comment. #tired #needcoffee #hotcoffeemod
But that doesn't mean it isn't fine for other people who have different views.
Those people are free not to sell their own bodies and I applaud them for their independent thinking and would greatly appreciate if they kept their independence away from everyone else.
Sadly on a closer look you're right. This was a list that the Archivers were hoping to scrape. Just doing a search around their Wiki it would seem they didn't even scratch the surface.
Cool let's go for a basic English lesson. In english you can't take sentences out of context so let's start with the context:
1. An article describing treating current users a beta testers through the remote.
2. A post saying that customers have always been beta testers.
3. My reply. Now lets analyse that one in detail:
a) "A nice quip on the quality of MS software in general" A general sense of agreement that you're pandering to the crowd on the quality of windows software, not a disagreement of the fact (your first mistake). Also dismission on the core premise of your post (context: beta testing, nothing to do with quality).
b) "but not constructive to the discussion. There are orders of magnitude differences in not only the quality of software but the actual business practices of MS between the DOS days and now." A reference to the fact that there are differences in quality of the software in the past vs now. No claim about one or the other (see point 5.) Along with a reference to a change in the practices (you know, the actual article here talking about actual acknowledgement that MS is pushing out updates that aren't ready. Now in case you still haven't drawn the line, the article is negative, I am reinforcing that negative, ergo the "change" I am talking about is that MS is getting worse not better.
4. And you posted: "Oh, well, no proof or evidence of that is needed for your claim at all."
5. To which I replied a reference to the sky being blue. This translated into plain english means that something is obvious. Given the context of the Slashdot crowd, general opinion of Windows 10 not only on Slashdot but the wider audience, and the article itself talking about this new thing about beta testing customers this post only with the context of the site and article it was posted against reinforced my view that MS's software quality has not only gotten worse, but also the article we are talking about where they are blatantly using users as beta testers also should imply that my initial post was talking negatively about the current state of affairs.
I don't know how you got this so wrong, but I hope you learnt something.
Have a nice day.
Nice modpoint whoring and playing the crowd, but no. They haven't done that even remotely. Try again but this time make a reference to KVM.
Don't you already run it in a sandbox known as your computer? Or are you playing in the cloud?
It's amazing how willing folks are to run un-trusted code from people with strong motivation to track and monetize you.
Why is it amazing given the level of actual personal risk people face on common websites as a result of tracking? The direct impact to people's lives by corporations hoovering up their data can be likened to dying in a terrorist attack. There are literally billions of people whose data has been harvested and who are being tracked yet the vast majority don't care precisely because nearly everyone has been completely unaffected by it.
Now breaking the web by micromanaging scripts on the other hand *that* affects people. Can I interest you in my 100% proven terrorist preventing pet rock? It will prevent terrorists but you need to water it twice a day and sing it a lullaby or it doesn't work.
The costs are always passed along.
I'll cry for the Advertisers a bit later tonight once I'm done with my Dr Evil laugh.
You surprised me, I wasn't expecting a reasoned response given Slashdot's discourse on the subject recently but let me say why I think your concerns a slightly off base.
WSL has no market share. It's alternative exists as running full blown Linux or Linux in a VM which is the current status quo and above all there's little effort beside some optimisations required to get a distribution working as a WSL distribution. That work is also not linked to any kernel capability. Remember WSL is a subsystem that sits ontop of the Windows kernel. It has zero to do with the Linux kernel and Linux capabilities and can be thought of more like the cygwin project which has been around since the dawn of man. If this kind of functionality could have any defining behaviour on the development of Linux it would have happened due to cygwin a long time before now.
Also remember the vast majority of kernel work does not affect userland APIs which is precisely what WSL emulates to work on the NT kernel, and those APIs that are affected take *years* to actually be adopted and then get in some case get hated as a result (See the reason for the Gnome dependency on systemd-logind).
In general you have well reasoned concerns but I don't see them actually applying in this case given what WSL is and isn't, and what it's market share and development model is.
Are you being sarcastic? Because if you are you're horrendously missing the point.