Like making it feel physically impossible to jump on to railway lines Infront of an oncoming train? With transport, where big heavy objects are moving fast, having an additional barrier would be excellent. There are protective possibilities that are valid.
You honestly believe virtually jumping in front of an oncoming virtual train causes any damage?
That's funny. Where I am, everybody knows that if the traffic lights are all off, it becomes an "all-way stop" and the traffic alternates: one row from one side, one row from the next side.
That sounds awfully vague. How long is a row?
It works really well if the people know what to do.
Do they, in practice? Didn't think so.
If the people know to use that stop sign when the light is off... they already know they have to do something different when the light fails, and they already know what it is. The sign is redundant.
I can't follow your logic on this one. Where's the redundancy? A stop sign next to traffic lights means something different than a yield sign next to traffic lights, which means something different than a right-of-way sign next to traffic lights, which in turn means something different than no sign next to traffic lights.
Well, smart gubbermints might put signage up in case the traffic lights fail.
Where I live, it's very common to see stop signs on the same pole that holds the traffic lights. It is understood that the signage only applies in case the traffic lights are off/broken/obscured. For that matter, if there is no signage, we fall through to 'left yields to the right'. For that matter, if there's a traffic controlling cop on the intersection, that takes precedence over all signage and light signals.
Glad I could provide you with a little insight on the matter, 60 years seem an awfully long time to forget "details" like this.
I think we have different definitions of 'ease of use'. The moment something doesn't work, you're SOL. Googling generic error messages, trying to fiddle with the blackbox. You can't trace anything, you can't debug anything, there are no straightforward logs, sometimes no logs whatsoever. Fuck that absolute nightmare.
Of course, if "trying random things until it eventually kinda sorta works" is your general approach to administration, then I see why you would defend that concept. Sorry to break it to you, but you're incompetent.
Can confirm -- what worked for me (surprisingly fast) was getting into the habit of checking every now and then whether I'm able to breathe through my nose while I held it closed (obviously do it in a discreet manner at work or wherever). Unfortunately, the first time I actually did this while dreaming, I got so excited about it that I woke up. Took a few more nights for the first actual lucid dream.
PROTIP: Make a plan what to do in your (lucid) dream, in advance. If you end up there not knowing what to do/dream next, the whole place becomes blurry and you wake up.
another protip: When you do wake up from a lucid dream (or even from a regular dream, after having practiced it for a while), don't blindly believe you've actually woken up. It's very common to *dream* of waking up, and it can be sort of spooky. Easy solution: After waking up, look at the clock, look away, look at the clock again. If you get the same reading twice, you've probably woken up. If not, use the realization for yet another lucid dream, if you're in the mood.
final protip: Sleep paralysis *is* scary. Don't shit yourself, it goes away.
Assembly allows Macros and Variables as well as Pragmas. The translation is not 1 to 1. There are two types of languages, interpreted and compiled. Unless you claim Assembly is interpreted you either don't understand that our you conceed it is compiled.
This is as wrong as your above comment about assembly being compiled.
First of all, the translation is 1:1. Yes, there might be a text-substituting preprocessing stage. Those constructs aren't part of the language.
That said, whether a language is being compiled or interpreted is not a property of the language, so your "two types of languages" really aren't. There are C interpreters and javascript compilers. There are bizarre hybrids (think JITs). Eventually, even your "compiled" machine code is interpreted on the microcode level.
23.6.1 Why GNU `su' does not support the `wheel' group
(This section is by Richard Stallman.)
Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)
However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual `su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.
I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.
Do you still agree? This is the reason for removal of a security mechanism from GNU.
Why is this at -1? The data is encrypted, and Windows users presumably don't get to look at the keys. So literally people have to take MS's word for it. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
...you honestly believe jumping in front of a train is murder?
Like making it feel physically impossible to jump on to railway lines Infront of an oncoming train? With transport, where big heavy objects are moving fast, having an additional barrier would be excellent. There are protective possibilities that are valid.
You honestly believe virtually jumping in front of an oncoming virtual train causes any damage?
A bold prediction to make...in April.
That's funny. Where I am, everybody knows that if the traffic lights are all off, it becomes an "all-way stop" and the traffic alternates: one row from one side, one row from the next side.
That sounds awfully vague. How long is a row?
It works really well if the people know what to do.
Do they, in practice? Didn't think so.
If the people know to use that stop sign when the light is off... they already know they have to do something different when the light fails, and they already know what it is. The sign is redundant.
I can't follow your logic on this one. Where's the redundancy? A stop sign next to traffic lights means something different than a yield sign next to traffic lights, which means something different than a right-of-way sign next to traffic lights, which in turn means something different than no sign next to traffic lights.
Well, smart gubbermints might put signage up in case the traffic lights fail.
Where I live, it's very common to see stop signs on the same pole that holds the traffic lights. It is understood that the signage only applies in case the traffic lights are off/broken/obscured. For that matter, if there is no signage, we fall through to 'left yields to the right'.
For that matter, if there's a traffic controlling cop on the intersection, that takes precedence over all signage and light signals.
Glad I could provide you with a little insight on the matter, 60 years seem an awfully long time to forget "details" like this.
bullshit.
if you're not aware of the situation, please stay off the roads.
so if you see a stop sign next to a green traffic light, you automatically stop?
I think we have different definitions of 'ease of use'. The moment something doesn't work, you're SOL. Googling generic error messages, trying to fiddle with the blackbox. You can't trace anything, you can't debug anything, there are no straightforward logs, sometimes no logs whatsoever. Fuck that absolute nightmare.
Of course, if "trying random things until it eventually kinda sorta works" is your general approach to administration, then I see why you would defend that concept. Sorry to break it to you, but you're incompetent.
Don't forget the free sex.
"Group policy" is a fucking nightmare on its own, as well as a Windows-specific concept.
Also, it's spelled cronjob. Thanks for playing.
Can confirm -- what worked for me (surprisingly fast) was getting into the habit of checking every now and then whether I'm able to breathe through my nose while I held it closed (obviously do it in a discreet manner at work or wherever). Unfortunately, the first time I actually did this while dreaming, I got so excited about it that I woke up. Took a few more nights for the first actual lucid dream.
PROTIP: Make a plan what to do in your (lucid) dream, in advance. If you end up there not knowing what to do/dream next, the whole place becomes blurry and you wake up.
another protip: When you do wake up from a lucid dream (or even from a regular dream, after having practiced it for a while), don't blindly believe you've actually woken up. It's very common to *dream* of waking up, and it can be sort of spooky. Easy solution: After waking up, look at the clock, look away, look at the clock again. If you get the same reading twice, you've probably woken up. If not, use the realization for yet another lucid dream, if you're in the mood.
final protip: Sleep paralysis *is* scary. Don't shit yourself, it goes away.
MP/h and KM/h.
+5, Troll
True words. +1, would fork.
The FBI would love to swap in a fake touch ID sensor to break into your phone. Not going to happen.
...because obviously *that* would be the attack vector the FBI uses, right. The home button.
What frequency goes through the milky way? Because that's where they have to look, for something black no less.
Repeating this several times can cause small failures in the connections
...that have poor solder joints, as AC pointed out. Decent solder joints are strong enough to withstand those thermal cycles.
Please try contributing anything worthwhile to the conversation. Or, even better, just shut the hell up.
You won't desolder shit before it's around 200-300 degC.
Assembly allows Macros and Variables as well as Pragmas. The translation is not 1 to 1. There are two types of languages, interpreted and compiled. Unless you claim Assembly is interpreted you either don't understand that our you conceed it is compiled.
This is as wrong as your above comment about assembly being compiled.
First of all, the translation is 1:1. Yes, there might be a text-substituting preprocessing stage. Those constructs aren't part of the language.
That said, whether a language is being compiled or interpreted is not a property of the language, so your "two types of languages" really aren't. There are C interpreters and javascript compilers. There are bizarre hybrids (think JITs). Eventually, even your "compiled" machine code is interpreted on the microcode level.
IOW get a clue.
$ info su
23.6.1 Why GNU `su' does not support the `wheel' group
(This section is by Richard Stallman.)
Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the
rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to
seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and
keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup
and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't
know how to do that in Unix.)
However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual
`su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes
with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The "wheel
group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of
the rulers.
I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are
used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you
might find this idea strange at first.
Do you still agree? This is the reason for removal of a security mechanism from GNU.
Why is this at -1? The data is encrypted, and Windows users presumably don't get to look at the keys.
So literally people have to take MS's word for it. Oh well.
You think wrong.
Dunno, the 1000+ pages of data sheet/ref are anything but tiny
We'll be there in 2048.
(That said, STMs are a giant clusterfuck)
What does that have to do with anything? Also, what currency are you referring to when saying buck? Because at $18 for the evaluation board and $12 for the programmer, your numbers seem slightly off.