For Bluetooth, I think you're asking for buttons on each device to be paired, which you press at the same time to pair them.
That won't work. Lots of Bluetooth devices don't have any buttons at all. All they have is a 4-digit pairing code on a label. Adding a button costs a lot of money: electromechanical devices are frequently some of the most expensive components, so it's cheaper to leave them out if they're rarely used or not really necessary.
It gives control of things to corporations, much like AOL was trying to do in the 90s. Who wants to be locked into the AOL world?
Most consumers, that's who.
Just look at all the idiots who use Facebook for absolutely everything, as if Facebook was the whole internet. They don't use email or other websites any more, they just use Facebook to communicate or even to buy stuff.
And I'd require Smart TVs to have a physical jumper at the back that's easily reached by the end consumer that can completely disable the smartness if someone so desired.
That would be stupid. If you don't want the smart TV features, why would you pay extra for the smart TV in the first place?
I'd make dumb TVs again that didn't try to make use of the wifi without my permission.
There's lots of dumb TVs still out there. Go buy one of those. If I were in the market for a TV, that's what I'd be buying. I hear the Seiki ones are pretty decent. I think Vizio still has some dumb TV models too.
These companies only sell this crap because consumers are dumb enough to buy it. It costs more to make a smart TV than a dumb TV, since the electronics are a lot more powerful. So if you don't want your TV spying on you, then don't buy one! But what'll happen is too many morons will buy the smart TVs and not enough dumb TVs, and then the mfgrs will simply stop selling the dumb ones. It hasn't gotten to that point yet (unless things have changed in the last couple of months since I last looked), but it could.
Humanity is a pleasure-seeking species of (somewhat) intelligent monkeys. It's right for us to be more interested in pleasure than in space exploration.
No, we're not. Most major religions are completely anti-sex. Oral sex has been illegal in the western world until only very recently, and it's probably still illegal in the Islamic world.
Humans are NOT pleasure-seeking. They're misery-seeking. They like to make themselves miserable, and they like to make everyone around them miserable too by creating laws to make them miserable.
Red herring. US companies in the 1960s did not behave remotely like they do now. Companies were much more long-term oriented back then. It's only been in the past couple of decades or so that everything's become all about the next quarter. It mostly coincided with 401(k) programs and regular people getting into the stock market in big numbers.
Also, US companies didn't invest in Apollo; they were paid by the government to build stuff for the program. The government used tax dollars to pay for it all. It was politically possible at the time because people wanted to beat the Russkies (esp. after they had beaten us with the first man to space and the first craft to land on the Moon (an unmanned probe)).
Things are entirely different now: American voters don't care much about space exploration, and really prefer to focus on cutting taxes to the ultra-rich. This is provably true because of who the American voters elect: Republicans dominate local and state elections as well as both houses of Congress. The Republicans would find a way to convince their constituents to go for space exploration if their corporate buddies wanted it, but the defense contractors are happy doing weapons work instead of space tech, and Elon isn't a Republican crony, so it's not likely to happen.
No, we can't do that. Too many people on this planet are hell-bent on ruining it, so that's why we need to go try to terraform a dead world. It's either that or have a giant war to exterminate all the people hell-bent on ruining this planet, but that war would ruin the planet too so it's hopeless. We need to get off-world, and just make sure the crazies don't come with us.
Unfortunately, it looks like you'll have to go back to that work-around soon. You might want to complain to Mozilla; probably they're not getting accurate user data about how many people actually use that feature.
You must be a European. Here in the US, "middle east" generally refers to Israel/Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, most of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and friends, and also Egypt (thought it's technically mostly in Africa). Afghanistan is kinda borderline. Pakistan and India are not middle east, nor anything east of these which is either "far east" (or just plain "China"), or "southeast Asia" (Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, etc.).
Egypt mainly gets grouped in because it's so entwined into the politics in that region (it was part of the 6-day war on Israel, it shares a border with Israel/Gaza, part of it is on the minor Asian side). The countries west of Egypt are not middle east, they're "north Africa".
Anyway, that's how the term seems to be used here in America. It's not a strictly defined term at all, and generally means that region of the world since it's such a political hotspot that our military and government are continually involved in.
Can't you do the same thing with multiple windows (each browser window having its own tabs), and bookmarks (bookmark all the tabs on a window, so you can reopen them later)?
Don't you mean ex-wife? I thought it was his (then-) wife that edited his script for Episode 4 and helped keep that movie from being a disaster. However, after the original trilogy, they got divorced, so of course when he got around to doing the Prequels she wasn't around to tell him how stupid his ideas and dialog were.
Mobile changed a lot about how UI should work. Not saying apple (or any mobile device) is always right, but a lot of UI principles from the 90's just don't apply today.
Yes, they absolutely DO apply. If you're using a desktop computer, nothing needs to change from the UI principles of the 90s. If you're using a mobile device, then sure, new UI principles are needed, but there is NO REASON to carry those principles over to a desktop device.
What does it say about you that you couldn't read the rest of my post? As I said before, religion gives people an easy justification for stuff: "it's written in this holy book". You can't argue with that.
Well, there were plenty of complaints about the LOTR movies, that they were too short relative to the stories, so take that as you will.
Those complaints were correct. LotR was a much, much longer story than The Hobbit, so *of course* it should warrant a lot more screen-time. The Hobbit was one shortish book, LotR was three rather long novels (and each novel was further divided into two "books"). Doesn't it make sense that 3 long novels shouldn't get the same amount of screen-time as one short children's book?
I always thought that each LotR movie should have been 2-3 times as long as it was.
The Hobbit should have been one 4-hour movie at most.
The IRA, despicable as their acts were, were fighting for their homeland against people they saw as invaders: the British. They were not immigrant in any way, shape, or form. The British were the newcomers.
It's not that different from Israel vs. Palestine. The Palestinians have been there for centuries so of course they're pissed at Israel coming in and pushing them around, since Israel is a very new country, and many Israelis are pretty new to the region (and there's even more Jews immigrating there now from Europe).
The terrorism is Europe is being done by people who are the kids of Muslim immigrants from far away. They have nothing valid to fight about: they're basically newcomers, plus they get all kinds of social welfare benefits there. But they're still pissed for various stupid reasons: Europeans don't accept them (whine whine), they don't have good jobs, their religion isn't accepted/dominant, etc. It's nothing at all like the IRA or even Palestinians. They're just a bunch of spoiled brats.
If anything, it shows that Muslim immigration is more of a long-term problem than a short-term one. The new arrivals really don't seem to cause problems, but then they pop out some kids and those kids do everything they can to destroy the society that took in their parents. Maybe Muslim immigrants should just be sterilized; that would solve the problem.
You lack a sufficient timescale to appreciate the strategy - it worked in America for pretty much every immigrant group that showed up.
No, it didn't. A century ago, there was no such thing as welfare. Irish and Italians who came here either worked their asses off, or they starved to death. Many of those who did work died on the job; there was no such thing as workers' rights, weekends off, OSHA, safety rules, ESL classes, etc. A lot of people seem to laud immigration as having built America, but what it really did was *exploit* immigrants. It worked out well for the capitalists, but it didn't work out all that well for many of the immigrants. For those lucky ones who survived the horrific work conditions and economic climate with no safety net, their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids got pretty good lives out of the deal I guess.
These days, much of that stuff doesn't apply any more. We have welfare, safety nets, etc., so the whole dynamic is changed. Immigrants no longer are forced to integrate and go to work. Do you really want to go back to the days before OSHA and social programs?
From what little I've read about systemd (I'm still on an upstart-based system myself), it looks like it was designed to actually be *easier* for administrators. The config files are simpler (instead of big long bash scripts), it has a bunch of tools to handle the log files, and it's supposedly still backwards-compatible with the old bash scripts. That doesn't sound like something designed by devs with the "we know what's best for you" attitude. Also, it seems like systemd copied a lot of concepts from SMF, which of course is the init system of Solaris, the main UNIX still in use now.
I just have the sense that most people complaining about it just doesn't want any kind of forward progress and don't like things to change. The only good criticisms I seem to see are ones that basically allege that systemd is a good idea, but they have little confidence in the developers to do it well, which is a sensible attitude considering how vital a piece of software like that is in an operating system.
Not real big, just bug fixes. One big problem I had before was that half the time, it'd forget all my music on my USB drive and have to re-index it all. This is mostly fixed now. Others complained about spontaneous reboots in older versions.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. That's been done too. On mine, I stuck XM down at the bottom plus some of those other online ones, and I put my USB drive right at the top since that's what I almost always listen to. There's a tutorial about how to edit the.js file for this (be careful, if you put in an extra comma or omit it you'll get the endless reboots I think).
Well that's the problem with CLIs: they do require a certain amount of knowledge to use and aren't inherently discoverable. These days, Google searches help a lot with that, but the apropos and man -k command help too. There's a good reason we moved to GUIs for many things, but CLIs do offer a lot of power for certain things, at the expense of initial learning curve. It's like using vi/vim instead of some regular graphical text editor. A newbie will be lost with vim, but a highly experienced vim user will run rings around the newbie using gedit.
Slashdot Mirror
They need to do something to prevent APK posting; his insane drivel/spam is drowning everything out.
For Bluetooth, I think you're asking for buttons on each device to be paired, which you press at the same time to pair them.
That won't work. Lots of Bluetooth devices don't have any buttons at all. All they have is a 4-digit pairing code on a label. Adding a button costs a lot of money: electromechanical devices are frequently some of the most expensive components, so it's cheaper to leave them out if they're rarely used or not really necessary.
It gives control of things to corporations, much like AOL was trying to do in the 90s. Who wants to be locked into the AOL world?
Most consumers, that's who.
Just look at all the idiots who use Facebook for absolutely everything, as if Facebook was the whole internet. They don't use email or other websites any more, they just use Facebook to communicate or even to buy stuff.
And I'd require Smart TVs to have a physical jumper at the back that's easily reached by the end consumer that can completely disable the smartness if someone so desired.
That would be stupid. If you don't want the smart TV features, why would you pay extra for the smart TV in the first place?
I'd make dumb TVs again that didn't try to make use of the wifi without my permission.
There's lots of dumb TVs still out there. Go buy one of those. If I were in the market for a TV, that's what I'd be buying. I hear the Seiki ones are pretty decent. I think Vizio still has some dumb TV models too.
These companies only sell this crap because consumers are dumb enough to buy it. It costs more to make a smart TV than a dumb TV, since the electronics are a lot more powerful. So if you don't want your TV spying on you, then don't buy one! But what'll happen is too many morons will buy the smart TVs and not enough dumb TVs, and then the mfgrs will simply stop selling the dumb ones. It hasn't gotten to that point yet (unless things have changed in the last couple of months since I last looked), but it could.
Good luck getting the management at Red Hat to do this. For some weird reason, they're completely convinced that the Gnome team is on the right path.
Jessica Fletcher may run into a murder plot every week, but not so much the rest of us.
You really gotta wonder what was going on in that small Maine town for it to have such a ridiculously high murder rate.
Humanity is a pleasure-seeking species of (somewhat) intelligent monkeys. It's right for us to be more interested in pleasure than in space exploration.
No, we're not. Most major religions are completely anti-sex. Oral sex has been illegal in the western world until only very recently, and it's probably still illegal in the Islamic world.
Humans are NOT pleasure-seeking. They're misery-seeking. They like to make themselves miserable, and they like to make everyone around them miserable too by creating laws to make them miserable.
Red herring. US companies in the 1960s did not behave remotely like they do now. Companies were much more long-term oriented back then. It's only been in the past couple of decades or so that everything's become all about the next quarter. It mostly coincided with 401(k) programs and regular people getting into the stock market in big numbers.
Also, US companies didn't invest in Apollo; they were paid by the government to build stuff for the program. The government used tax dollars to pay for it all. It was politically possible at the time because people wanted to beat the Russkies (esp. after they had beaten us with the first man to space and the first craft to land on the Moon (an unmanned probe)).
Things are entirely different now: American voters don't care much about space exploration, and really prefer to focus on cutting taxes to the ultra-rich. This is provably true because of who the American voters elect: Republicans dominate local and state elections as well as both houses of Congress. The Republicans would find a way to convince their constituents to go for space exploration if their corporate buddies wanted it, but the defense contractors are happy doing weapons work instead of space tech, and Elon isn't a Republican crony, so it's not likely to happen.
No, we can't do that. Too many people on this planet are hell-bent on ruining it, so that's why we need to go try to terraform a dead world. It's either that or have a giant war to exterminate all the people hell-bent on ruining this planet, but that war would ruin the planet too so it's hopeless. We need to get off-world, and just make sure the crazies don't come with us.
Such a perfectly American comment here. "I got mine, so fuck you!"
Unfortunately, it looks like you'll have to go back to that work-around soon. You might want to complain to Mozilla; probably they're not getting accurate user data about how many people actually use that feature.
You must be a European. Here in the US, "middle east" generally refers to Israel/Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, most of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and friends, and also Egypt (thought it's technically mostly in Africa). Afghanistan is kinda borderline. Pakistan and India are not middle east, nor anything east of these which is either "far east" (or just plain "China"), or "southeast Asia" (Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, etc.).
Egypt mainly gets grouped in because it's so entwined into the politics in that region (it was part of the 6-day war on Israel, it shares a border with Israel/Gaza, part of it is on the minor Asian side). The countries west of Egypt are not middle east, they're "north Africa".
Anyway, that's how the term seems to be used here in America. It's not a strictly defined term at all, and generally means that region of the world since it's such a political hotspot that our military and government are continually involved in.
Can't you do the same thing with multiple windows (each browser window having its own tabs), and bookmarks (bookmark all the tabs on a window, so you can reopen them later)?
Don't you mean ex-wife? I thought it was his (then-) wife that edited his script for Episode 4 and helped keep that movie from being a disaster. However, after the original trilogy, they got divorced, so of course when he got around to doing the Prequels she wasn't around to tell him how stupid his ideas and dialog were.
Mobile changed a lot about how UI should work. Not saying apple (or any mobile device) is always right, but a lot of UI principles from the 90's just don't apply today.
Yes, they absolutely DO apply. If you're using a desktop computer, nothing needs to change from the UI principles of the 90s. If you're using a mobile device, then sure, new UI principles are needed, but there is NO REASON to carry those principles over to a desktop device.
What does it say about you that you couldn't read the rest of my post? As I said before, religion gives people an easy justification for stuff: "it's written in this holy book". You can't argue with that.
Well, there were plenty of complaints about the LOTR movies, that they were too short relative to the stories, so take that as you will.
Those complaints were correct. LotR was a much, much longer story than The Hobbit, so *of course* it should warrant a lot more screen-time. The Hobbit was one shortish book, LotR was three rather long novels (and each novel was further divided into two "books"). Doesn't it make sense that 3 long novels shouldn't get the same amount of screen-time as one short children's book?
I always thought that each LotR movie should have been 2-3 times as long as it was.
The Hobbit should have been one 4-hour movie at most.
That plus those who just need something to hate.
Isn't it enough to hate Windows and Apple? Windows 8+ with Metro should have given them plenty to hate on; I hate Metro with a passion.
The IRA, despicable as their acts were, were fighting for their homeland against people they saw as invaders: the British. They were not immigrant in any way, shape, or form. The British were the newcomers.
It's not that different from Israel vs. Palestine. The Palestinians have been there for centuries so of course they're pissed at Israel coming in and pushing them around, since Israel is a very new country, and many Israelis are pretty new to the region (and there's even more Jews immigrating there now from Europe).
The terrorism is Europe is being done by people who are the kids of Muslim immigrants from far away. They have nothing valid to fight about: they're basically newcomers, plus they get all kinds of social welfare benefits there. But they're still pissed for various stupid reasons: Europeans don't accept them (whine whine), they don't have good jobs, their religion isn't accepted/dominant, etc. It's nothing at all like the IRA or even Palestinians. They're just a bunch of spoiled brats.
If anything, it shows that Muslim immigration is more of a long-term problem than a short-term one. The new arrivals really don't seem to cause problems, but then they pop out some kids and those kids do everything they can to destroy the society that took in their parents. Maybe Muslim immigrants should just be sterilized; that would solve the problem.
You lack a sufficient timescale to appreciate the strategy - it worked in America for pretty much every immigrant group that showed up.
No, it didn't. A century ago, there was no such thing as welfare. Irish and Italians who came here either worked their asses off, or they starved to death. Many of those who did work died on the job; there was no such thing as workers' rights, weekends off, OSHA, safety rules, ESL classes, etc. A lot of people seem to laud immigration as having built America, but what it really did was *exploit* immigrants. It worked out well for the capitalists, but it didn't work out all that well for many of the immigrants. For those lucky ones who survived the horrific work conditions and economic climate with no safety net, their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids got pretty good lives out of the deal I guess.
These days, much of that stuff doesn't apply any more. We have welfare, safety nets, etc., so the whole dynamic is changed. Immigrants no longer are forced to integrate and go to work. Do you really want to go back to the days before OSHA and social programs?
Yeah, you youngsters still have a lot to learn....
From what little I've read about systemd (I'm still on an upstart-based system myself), it looks like it was designed to actually be *easier* for administrators. The config files are simpler (instead of big long bash scripts), it has a bunch of tools to handle the log files, and it's supposedly still backwards-compatible with the old bash scripts. That doesn't sound like something designed by devs with the "we know what's best for you" attitude. Also, it seems like systemd copied a lot of concepts from SMF, which of course is the init system of Solaris, the main UNIX still in use now.
I just have the sense that most people complaining about it just doesn't want any kind of forward progress and don't like things to change. The only good criticisms I seem to see are ones that basically allege that systemd is a good idea, but they have little confidence in the developers to do it well, which is a sensible attitude considering how vital a piece of software like that is in an operating system.
Not real big, just bug fixes. One big problem I had before was that half the time, it'd forget all my music on my USB drive and have to re-index it all. This is mostly fixed now. Others complained about spontaneous reboots in older versions.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. That's been done too. On mine, I stuck XM down at the bottom plus some of those other online ones, and I put my USB drive right at the top since that's what I almost always listen to. There's a tutorial about how to edit the .js file for this (be careful, if you put in an extra comma or omit it you'll get the endless reboots I think).
Well that's the problem with CLIs: they do require a certain amount of knowledge to use and aren't inherently discoverable. These days, Google searches help a lot with that, but the apropos and man -k command help too. There's a good reason we moved to GUIs for many things, but CLIs do offer a lot of power for certain things, at the expense of initial learning curve. It's like using vi/vim instead of some regular graphical text editor. A newbie will be lost with vim, but a highly experienced vim user will run rings around the newbie using gedit.