The start menu is still a crap way to organize apps.
They tried to get rid of it, but that went over so well with the users.
Functionally the current start menu isn't really better or worse than in the past, only different. But, that's only based on how I use it. I'm sure there are better interaction options, but a lot of people spent a lot of time barely learning to function with the way it was. Change it too much and they'll just not try to cope. Personally, 99% of the time I use the start menu it's to do one of a couple entirely simple things that I could do another way just as easily.
I'd say it's as much a mental crutch as anything else. My brain will sometimes just decide I don't know what I'm doing any more. I just need to look at it again to try to get myself back in line. I have the same problem with typing sometimes. I have ham hands and if I get careless I'll just lose all ability to type. I have to stop and just look at the keyboard and center myself physically and mentally to be able to start typing again.
While I too prefer Classic/Open Shell on my systems, I'm stuck using default at work. It's definitely not bad. My preferences are based on 20+ years of use and not on the actually capabilities of the new menu.
While I'm not going to rule out your experiences, it couldn't be further from true from my experiences and those of everyone I know. I've used Windows 10 across quite a variety of systems. From cheap atom based tablets on up. This includes: AMD CPUs, AMD GPU, Intel CPUs, Intel integrated GPU, Nvidia GPU. I've done inline upgrades from 7 to 10 as well as fresh installs on a number of them. I even use a PCoIP zero client to a Win 10 VM at work.
And for the record, Windows 7 has no idea what I want when I type "ote". It found no search results. So, if yours specifically is doing it.. good on you.
That old way has gone now, and even more sadly the attitude of many Americans towards their fellow humans in other countries is taking on a decidedly adversarial tone.
It's not only towards the ones in other countries....
First, as mentioned by others, from what we know Tumblr was doing their job. They just found content that wasn't present in the database. Second, Google hasn't pulled their app, only Apple. Apple is a bit militant when it comes to apps on the app store. They seem quite ready to pull apps over any controversy.
That's a pile of bullshit, within the context of this conversation. Trying to completely prevent the content is an uphill battle. The company has systems in place to restrict the content. The system just cannot catch 100% of it, 100% of the time. Take a look at anti-viruses, or spam filters, or any other number of filter systems. They aren't fucking magic.
But, think of the children!!! Really though, they're taking things too far. As you said, all tumbler and the like can do is their best. We shouldn't be faulting them for the criminals using their services.
The problem here is that there are legitimate reasons for spoofing the calling number. I'm not saying it's impossible for the system to work, but all parties involved in the entire process have to be doing things correctly or it's useless. If the receiving end is blocking calls, because the caller's telco isn't set correctly, the receiving customer is going to start getting upset with their telco. This goes doubly, if the caller is able to reach another friend whose telco doesn't filter. Customers don't tend to care if it's your fault it isn't working. They just care that it isn't working for them.
I know it's an oversimplification, but it is how things work. Unless/until the telcos are required to do it, it's in their best interest not to. Once it becomes required they will still have to deal with the upset customers, but they can at least say they legally do not have a choice in the matter.
A lot of telcos offer services to block specific callers and such. Blocking robocalls is doable, but requires a bit more finesse. The telcos don't want the liability when the filter blocks a call that the recipient really wanted to receive. Even if they weren't legally liable for it, they still don't want to fight with a paying customer when it happens. It's safer, from a business standpoint, to not filter.
Yes, your statement is pedantically correct. A "pound" can be expressed as a mass, disproving the OPs statement that a pound is a strictly a weight. But your post is also incomplete, in that it tends to imply that a pound is ONLY a mass. My intent was to point out that you were both correct.
Frankly, they're not the the pedantic one here. You are. If a person says one unit of measurement is based off of another unit of measurement, it would be proper to assume that the definition used for one of the terms of measurement was the one valid for the relational statement. It would be improper to assume the person was incorrectly using the wrong definition for one of the terms.
There is no finally anything. I said something the first time. Your choice of response makes you sound like a condescending twat that cannot take criticism.
I did mention 3 groups I'd want to see in the study, and you're right; I mis-identified the missing one.
You only mentioned wanting them to test with different vesicles. There was no mention of three groups. You then proceeded to mention they only controlled with vesicle and without vesicle. I merely corrected your interpretation. I don't know what you'd want to add to a third vesicle that would provide a known response in the test subject, as the third control would only be useful when the results are consistently known. I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting it, just pointing it out.
Half his sperm went into a lab dish with vesicles previously exposed to stress hormones. The other half was cultured with vesicles that had no contact with stress hormones.
I agree with your point, just didn't agree with deciding by age being immoral. This wouldn't be the only instance where the moral choice, in the moment, isn't the best choice overall.
>It is also immoral to evaluate lives based on worthless criteria like age, gender, political, racial, class, or religious ideology.
I agree with most of that. However, you shouldn't lump age into that. Most people would find it morally correct to save a kid over an adult. That being said, it is still best to not factor any of it in.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it's not as simple as just extending battery life. To be specific, it extends the usable age range of the battery in the overall sense as opposed to the life per charge cycle that most people mean by battery life.
For those that might need/want clarification, the issue is that the phone will shut down when the peak power draw exceeds the capability of the aged battery. This will happen, even when the phone still has what would otherwise be a decent charge left. As the battery ages, it isn't able to maintain the voltage output it used it. By putting limiters on the performance, it's preventing the phone from exceeding the capability of the battery.
Aside from referencing Ford, I don't see how that relates to my comment. However, in answer... Any company that licensed the Ford logo for that purpose would be able to legally sell a replacement. If they recovered it from a wrecked car or other licensed source, I assume it could be sold. Aside from that, it would depend on exactly how Ford handles their trademark.
No, their analogy is much closer to accurate than yours. Apple is a brand, Ford is the car brand. The Shelby would be a very particular car within the brand. Your analogy would only hold if they're trying to sell refurbished Apple batteries that don't actually meet the original specs.
dgatwood replied and explained what he was talking about. I was just simplifying my response. My point was that they were explicitly talking about being the ones doing the local storage. If you're specifically trying to do the local storage, cloud storage from another provider will never be the answer.
My current inkjet is an all-in-one that I got for like $5-10 because I had a promo gift card that needed to be used up. I've got an LED printer buried in storage that I need to buy toner for. But since I didn't want to spend a couple hours going out to my storage unit and back(plus the $15-20 in gas), and the toner costs more than the printer I bought, it was "worth" it. I've printed maybe 10 pages or so with it over the last year, and the ink is gone. Such terrible things.
Except, the average layperson refers to natural satellites as moons. The moons of . I'm not saying moonmoon is the right answer, but there will be a lay term for the moon of a moon.
If it's truly self defense, then it isn't murder. I mean, you still killed someone... but it wouldn't be murder. That doesn't mean there couldn't be murder charges brought against you, or that you cannot be found guilty of murder in court.
Slashdot Mirror
The start menu is still a crap way to organize apps.
They tried to get rid of it, but that went over so well with the users.
Functionally the current start menu isn't really better or worse than in the past, only different. But, that's only based on how I use it. I'm sure there are better interaction options, but a lot of people spent a lot of time barely learning to function with the way it was. Change it too much and they'll just not try to cope. Personally, 99% of the time I use the start menu it's to do one of a couple entirely simple things that I could do another way just as easily.
I'd say it's as much a mental crutch as anything else. My brain will sometimes just decide I don't know what I'm doing any more. I just need to look at it again to try to get myself back in line. I have the same problem with typing sometimes. I have ham hands and if I get careless I'll just lose all ability to type. I have to stop and just look at the keyboard and center myself physically and mentally to be able to start typing again.
While I too prefer Classic/Open Shell on my systems, I'm stuck using default at work. It's definitely not bad. My preferences are based on 20+ years of use and not on the actually capabilities of the new menu.
While I'm not going to rule out your experiences, it couldn't be further from true from my experiences and those of everyone I know. I've used Windows 10 across quite a variety of systems. From cheap atom based tablets on up. This includes: AMD CPUs, AMD GPU, Intel CPUs, Intel integrated GPU, Nvidia GPU. I've done inline upgrades from 7 to 10 as well as fresh installs on a number of them. I even use a PCoIP zero client to a Win 10 VM at work.
And for the record, Windows 7 has no idea what I want when I type "ote". It found no search results. So, if yours specifically is doing it.. good on you.
But, spacebar only works if it has focus.
That old way has gone now, and even more sadly the attitude of many Americans towards their fellow humans in other countries is taking on a decidedly adversarial tone.
It's not only towards the ones in other countries....
First, as mentioned by others, from what we know Tumblr was doing their job. They just found content that wasn't present in the database. Second, Google hasn't pulled their app, only Apple. Apple is a bit militant when it comes to apps on the app store. They seem quite ready to pull apps over any controversy.
That's a pile of bullshit, within the context of this conversation. Trying to completely prevent the content is an uphill battle. The company has systems in place to restrict the content. The system just cannot catch 100% of it, 100% of the time. Take a look at anti-viruses, or spam filters, or any other number of filter systems. They aren't fucking magic.
But, think of the children!!! Really though, they're taking things too far. As you said, all tumbler and the like can do is their best. We shouldn't be faulting them for the criminals using their services.
The problem here is that there are legitimate reasons for spoofing the calling number. I'm not saying it's impossible for the system to work, but all parties involved in the entire process have to be doing things correctly or it's useless. If the receiving end is blocking calls, because the caller's telco isn't set correctly, the receiving customer is going to start getting upset with their telco. This goes doubly, if the caller is able to reach another friend whose telco doesn't filter. Customers don't tend to care if it's your fault it isn't working. They just care that it isn't working for them.
I know it's an oversimplification, but it is how things work. Unless/until the telcos are required to do it, it's in their best interest not to. Once it becomes required they will still have to deal with the upset customers, but they can at least say they legally do not have a choice in the matter.
A lot of telcos offer services to block specific callers and such. Blocking robocalls is doable, but requires a bit more finesse. The telcos don't want the liability when the filter blocks a call that the recipient really wanted to receive. Even if they weren't legally liable for it, they still don't want to fight with a paying customer when it happens. It's safer, from a business standpoint, to not filter.
Yes, your statement is pedantically correct. A "pound" can be expressed as a mass, disproving the OPs statement that a pound is a strictly a weight. But your post is also incomplete, in that it tends to imply that a pound is ONLY a mass. My intent was to point out that you were both correct.
Frankly, they're not the the pedantic one here. You are. If a person says one unit of measurement is based off of another unit of measurement, it would be proper to assume that the definition used for one of the terms of measurement was the one valid for the relational statement. It would be improper to assume the person was incorrectly using the wrong definition for one of the terms.
Good job, you finally said something!
There is no finally anything. I said something the first time. Your choice of response makes you sound like a condescending twat that cannot take criticism.
I did mention 3 groups I'd want to see in the study, and you're right; I mis-identified the missing one.
You only mentioned wanting them to test with different vesicles. There was no mention of three groups. You then proceeded to mention they only controlled with vesicle and without vesicle. I merely corrected your interpretation. I don't know what you'd want to add to a third vesicle that would provide a known response in the test subject, as the third control would only be useful when the results are consistently known. I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting it, just pointing it out.
Half his sperm went into a lab dish with vesicles previously exposed to stress hormones. The other half was cultured with vesicles that had no contact with stress hormones.
The summary specifically mentioned that both groups had vesicles added. One group had stress hormones in the vesicles, one group didn't.
I agree with your point, just didn't agree with deciding by age being immoral. This wouldn't be the only instance where the moral choice, in the moment, isn't the best choice overall.
>It is also immoral to evaluate lives based on worthless criteria like age, gender, political, racial, class, or religious ideology.
I agree with most of that. However, you shouldn't lump age into that. Most people would find it morally correct to save a kid over an adult. That being said, it is still best to not factor any of it in.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it's not as simple as just extending battery life. To be specific, it extends the usable age range of the battery in the overall sense as opposed to the life per charge cycle that most people mean by battery life.
For those that might need/want clarification, the issue is that the phone will shut down when the peak power draw exceeds the capability of the aged battery. This will happen, even when the phone still has what would otherwise be a decent charge left. As the battery ages, it isn't able to maintain the voltage output it used it. By putting limiters on the performance, it's preventing the phone from exceeding the capability of the battery.
Aside from referencing Ford, I don't see how that relates to my comment. However, in answer... Any company that licensed the Ford logo for that purpose would be able to legally sell a replacement. If they recovered it from a wrecked car or other licensed source, I assume it could be sold. Aside from that, it would depend on exactly how Ford handles their trademark.
In this particular cases, it would be the US government. However, the problems jedidiah mentions are not unique to the US government.
No, their analogy is much closer to accurate than yours. Apple is a brand, Ford is the car brand. The Shelby would be a very particular car within the brand. Your analogy would only hold if they're trying to sell refurbished Apple batteries that don't actually meet the original specs.
dgatwood replied and explained what he was talking about. I was just simplifying my response. My point was that they were explicitly talking about being the ones doing the local storage. If you're specifically trying to do the local storage, cloud storage from another provider will never be the answer.
Except, they were discussing costs for being the Microsoft in your solution. It's kind of the whole point of the story.
My current inkjet is an all-in-one that I got for like $5-10 because I had a promo gift card that needed to be used up. I've got an LED printer buried in storage that I need to buy toner for. But since I didn't want to spend a couple hours going out to my storage unit and back(plus the $15-20 in gas), and the toner costs more than the printer I bought, it was "worth" it. I've printed maybe 10 pages or so with it over the last year, and the ink is gone. Such terrible things.
Except, the average layperson refers to natural satellites as moons. The moons of . I'm not saying moonmoon is the right answer, but there will be a lay term for the moon of a moon.
If it's truly self defense, then it isn't murder. I mean, you still killed someone... but it wouldn't be murder. That doesn't mean there couldn't be murder charges brought against you, or that you cannot be found guilty of murder in court.