I honestly don't recall that ever being a problem. It may have happened to me, but it must have been so long ago and so infrequent I seriously can't recollect not finding something I was expecting to find.
It represents the people, but in a horrible proportion unlike the house. In what world does that make sense?
The Senate makes sense in this http://www.thisamericanlife.or... world (summary: a city where the majority of the people want to send their children to private school, so they actively sabotage the public school system).
For a law to get passed the majority of people have to agree upon it (the House), and the majority of different kinds of people have to agree upon it (the Senate). So what the Senate does is protect the minority. Ideally there might be some way to repurpose the Senate to be based on race or socio-economic situation, but I don't now how realistic that would be to implement. So the Senate is based on geographic location. Texans are different than Californians which are different than New Jersians, etc. I realize it's not ideal for every possible representation for every "kind" of person, but it is something.
In the first few decades after the American Revolution, there were some bad examples of a 51% majority abusing the 49% minority. So the idea of a bicameral legislation was created to be a forcing function to prevent the current 51% majority from creating abusive laws.
It is not a government's job to educate its citizens about values that it wants to promote.
I can see that being a good thing. Citizens with experience have a better chance at knowing which values are sustainable and those which are self destructive feel that it's worthwhile to find multiple ways to inform the populace of that experience. So if they want to government to do that they can. But if the idea is to create entertainment to educate the citizens, that entertainment needs to compete with existing entertainment.
One of the CRTC jobs is to ensure Canadian TV content gets created and we are not stuck with 100% American programming and Canadian culture disappears entirely. If everyone starts watching all their TV on Netflex and similar services, Canadian TV could all but disappear.
So if Canada got rid of the CRTC they could pay less in taxes, and get to watch what they want to watch? Dear me, whatever shall we do?
Then why did they appear before the Commission at all? If they truly do not operate in Canada, then nothing the CRTC does affects them and they could blow off the whole thing with impunity.
Because they have Canadian customers (both subscribers and producers of shows), and if a deal could be worked out by talking, they might as well try to talk.
It's not about favouring Canadian production companies so much as encouraging Canadian content for cultural reasons. Being so close to the USA leaves us vulnerable to sort of being swamped, culturally.
Given that the only show I'm watching right now is Continuum (and via Netflix) should I be feeling culturally swamped by Canada right now?
The vendor is a different party. Hence you cannot buy a "HP" or "Sony" or "Samsung" or "Asus" computer without Windows on it.
Wait, what? Every single last vendor you mentioned there sells devices that run OS's which are competitors to Windows. All of those vendors sells devices with Android, some sell Chromebooks, and some even sells computers with Linux.
Really? How many people do you know (who don't read Slashdot) go shopping for Cellular service without also purchasing a phone from the Cellular provider at the same time? How many people do you know expect an ISP to provide a modem when they order 'internet' service. I would love to make it illegal to prevent the same companies from providing both the service and the device to access the service, but that never flies. When something goes both the device manufacturer and the service provider will blame the other one for why your experience isn't working.
I'm aware that there are no technical limitations preventing swapping out hardware to interface with different services, but that's not what the voting public wants.
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems?
You can. But people will freak out when that checkbox would say "Linux + $80". They would think "But Linux is free". While it is a free OS, the OEM wouldn't get subsidies from bloatware providers which help subsidies the cost of the computer.
A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.
Normal people don't like that though. Let's say that you try and sell product A to somebody that requires product B to function. This person has neither used nor ever had interest in A or B. Most people aren't interested in one or the other. Normal people want an A+B product where somebody else has worked out all of the compatibility problems.
Two reasons not to do that. First, "2." in at least some of those is a floating-point 2, so "i = 2." by itself would be ambiguous: does this assign an integer 2 and end the statement, or assign a floating-point 2. (and writing 2.0 doesn't really clarify, but rather raises the question of whether the 0 starts another statement). Second, all the old COBOL programmers who escaped that ecosystem would have something like anti-LSD-style flashbacks, and that can be dangerous.
That's still workable. A period followed by an end of line, or whitespace is the end of statement. A period that's between two numbers is a floating point number. A period surrounded by non-numbers and non-whitespace is a compilation error. I realize that the ship might have sailed as far as this is concerned, but if done originally I think it would have helped a lot of people ramp up on how to code.
Given that most PowerShell scripting is developed against live environments it seems necessary to be very explicit that you want to do a comparison instead of an assignment. A mistake we've all made in C. = and == are just too close to each other.
It's not a quirk if pretty much every fukin language does it.
Yes, but if you're learning your first programming language you wonder why the end of statement character differs from the same one that you use when writing.
My wife doesn't want to switch our ISP because her main e-mail address uses that at the domain name, and maybe a thousand friends, business contacts, and acquaintances have it as her contact info.
I've switched ISP's and my old ISP still keeps alive the email address they created for me. I don't use it for much, but it's quite possible it would be more effort for the ISP to disable the mailbox than it is for them to keep it running.
Besides, lots of people have 'connected' accounts via Facebook, gmail, or a Microsoft Account. For all of those you change your primary address, and the email address for you changes on all of your contacts.
Did he also decide to produce the Hex output that is entirely useless and without merit? I understand that's for debugging purposes, but who decided that was a good idea to leave in for a consumer-level OS? Seriously.
How is it a bad idea to present the information in a consumer-level OS? What would be better, not showing information?
Why are we modding up "I don't understand conservation of energy"? The only kinetic energy weapon that could sort of replace nuclear bombs would be bombardment with large asteroids, which no one currently has the capability to do and if they did would take ages to arrive. The kinetic rods would make great orbital armor or bunker piercing weapons, but there's no way they'll replace nuclear weapons.
I think it is getting modded up because they're an option now. 50 years ago certain targets were only really attainable via nuclear strikes. But now we have some really strong conventional weapons that don't replace a nuclear weapon in absolute magnitude, but they are strong enough to take out the target, and not leave you with the ethical dilemma of using a nuclear weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
The localization of some of the folder names makes things break
Is it software in Windows that breaks or crappy programs? And if its crappy programs, why are you using those programs?
I honestly don't recall that ever being a problem. It may have happened to me, but it must have been so long ago and so infrequent I seriously can't recollect not finding something I was expecting to find.
but that's simply not addressable unless Windows kills all non-standard installers and forces them to play by Microsoft's rule
But Microsoft can't do that. Microsoft lets users do whatever they want to with their computers.
... because it's illegal.
Nothing else matters at all. If it's against the law, then it is what it is.
So the American Revolution was illegal and should have never happened because nothing else matters?
It represents the people, but in a horrible proportion unlike the house. In what world does that make sense?
The Senate makes sense in this http://www.thisamericanlife.or... world (summary: a city where the majority of the people want to send their children to private school, so they actively sabotage the public school system).
For a law to get passed the majority of people have to agree upon it (the House), and the majority of different kinds of people have to agree upon it (the Senate). So what the Senate does is protect the minority. Ideally there might be some way to repurpose the Senate to be based on race or socio-economic situation, but I don't now how realistic that would be to implement. So the Senate is based on geographic location. Texans are different than Californians which are different than New Jersians, etc. I realize it's not ideal for every possible representation for every "kind" of person, but it is something.
In the first few decades after the American Revolution, there were some bad examples of a 51% majority abusing the 49% minority. So the idea of a bicameral legislation was created to be a forcing function to prevent the current 51% majority from creating abusive laws.
It is not a government's job to educate its citizens about values that it wants to promote.
I can see that being a good thing. Citizens with experience have a better chance at knowing which values are sustainable and those which are self destructive feel that it's worthwhile to find multiple ways to inform the populace of that experience. So if they want to government to do that they can. But if the idea is to create entertainment to educate the citizens, that entertainment needs to compete with existing entertainment.
One of the CRTC jobs is to ensure Canadian TV content gets created and we are not stuck with 100% American programming and Canadian culture disappears entirely. If everyone starts watching all their TV on Netflex and similar services, Canadian TV could all but disappear.
So if Canada got rid of the CRTC they could pay less in taxes, and get to watch what they want to watch? Dear me, whatever shall we do?
Then why did they appear before the Commission at all? If they truly do not operate in Canada, then nothing the CRTC does affects them and they could blow off the whole thing with impunity.
Because they have Canadian customers (both subscribers and producers of shows), and if a deal could be worked out by talking, they might as well try to talk.
It's not about favouring Canadian production companies so much as encouraging Canadian content for cultural reasons. Being so close to the USA leaves us vulnerable to sort of being swamped, culturally.
Given that the only show I'm watching right now is Continuum (and via Netflix) should I be feeling culturally swamped by Canada right now?
I don't want to interact with music. I want it playing in the background, and about half of the time I want to shut my eyes.
bluefoxlucid is implying that the NSA and US military are the terrorists.
The vendor is a different party. Hence you cannot buy a "HP" or "Sony" or "Samsung" or "Asus" computer without Windows on it.
Wait, what? Every single last vendor you mentioned there sells devices that run OS's which are competitors to Windows. All of those vendors sells devices with Android, some sell Chromebooks, and some even sells computers with Linux.
Most people do not. Keep trolling for Microsoft.
Really? How many people do you know (who don't read Slashdot) go shopping for Cellular service without also purchasing a phone from the Cellular provider at the same time? How many people do you know expect an ISP to provide a modem when they order 'internet' service. I would love to make it illegal to prevent the same companies from providing both the service and the device to access the service, but that never flies. When something goes both the device manufacturer and the service provider will blame the other one for why your experience isn't working.
I'm aware that there are no technical limitations preventing swapping out hardware to interface with different services, but that's not what the voting public wants.
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems?
You can. But people will freak out when that checkbox would say "Linux + $80". They would think "But Linux is free". While it is a free OS, the OEM wouldn't get subsidies from bloatware providers which help subsidies the cost of the computer.
If Google decides to discontinue all Google services in Germany as a result, would that really be a "win" for the German consumer?
It can be, if German consumers are left with options that do conform to the law.
But do they make their money back though ads and forcing users to use Google Search and Google email, etc.. Or do they make money licencing their OS?
They actually pay vendors to put Android on devices, because of the increased revenue they get from active Android users.
A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.
Normal people don't like that though. Let's say that you try and sell product A to somebody that requires product B to function. This person has neither used nor ever had interest in A or B. Most people aren't interested in one or the other. Normal people want an A+B product where somebody else has worked out all of the compatibility problems.
I'm honestly surprised that scientists arn't yet being marched into concentration camps at gunpoint.
We're planning that for this weekend.
Two reasons not to do that. First, "2." in at least some of those is a floating-point 2, so "i = 2." by itself would be ambiguous: does this assign an integer 2 and end the statement, or assign a floating-point 2. (and writing 2.0 doesn't really clarify, but rather raises the question of whether the 0 starts another statement). Second, all the old COBOL programmers who escaped that ecosystem would have something like anti-LSD-style flashbacks, and that can be dangerous.
That's still workable. A period followed by an end of line, or whitespace is the end of statement. A period that's between two numbers is a floating point number. A period surrounded by non-numbers and non-whitespace is a compilation error. I realize that the ship might have sailed as far as this is concerned, but if done originally I think it would have helped a lot of people ramp up on how to code.
Given that most PowerShell scripting is developed against live environments it seems necessary to be very explicit that you want to do a comparison instead of an assignment. A mistake we've all made in C. = and == are just too close to each other.
It's not a quirk if pretty much every fukin language does it.
Yes, but if you're learning your first programming language you wonder why the end of statement character differs from the same one that you use when writing.
That pesky ";" statement terminator... I guess you had to uses something, but it causes me the most trouble..
C, C++, Pascal, Perl, Java, C#, bash/sh, ksh, JavaScript..... The list goes on..
They should have used the '.' character to end a statement. It's the same one used in written language.
My wife doesn't want to switch our ISP because her main e-mail address uses that at the domain name, and maybe a thousand friends, business contacts, and acquaintances have it as her contact info.
I've switched ISP's and my old ISP still keeps alive the email address they created for me. I don't use it for much, but it's quite possible it would be more effort for the ISP to disable the mailbox than it is for them to keep it running.
Besides, lots of people have 'connected' accounts via Facebook, gmail, or a Microsoft Account. For all of those you change your primary address, and the email address for you changes on all of your contacts.
Did he also decide to produce the Hex output that is entirely useless and without merit? I understand that's for debugging purposes, but who decided that was a good idea to leave in for a consumer-level OS? Seriously.
How is it a bad idea to present the information in a consumer-level OS? What would be better, not showing information?
Why are we modding up "I don't understand conservation of energy"? The only kinetic energy weapon that could sort of replace nuclear bombs would be bombardment with large asteroids, which no one currently has the capability to do and if they did would take ages to arrive. The kinetic rods would make great orbital armor or bunker piercing weapons, but there's no way they'll replace nuclear weapons.
I think it is getting modded up because they're an option now. 50 years ago certain targets were only really attainable via nuclear strikes. But now we have some really strong conventional weapons that don't replace a nuclear weapon in absolute magnitude, but they are strong enough to take out the target, and not leave you with the ethical dilemma of using a nuclear weapon.