Meh, women generally can take pain better than men can. If you doubt this for a second, imagine passing something the size of a bowling ball through... well, a very small orifice in your body. That's what childbirth is, and while it's still horrible in the majority of cases without an anesthetic, most women go through it anyway without major problems.
Women complain more partially because they're allowed to without risk of social alienation, and partially because they have more to complain about - the average female body isn't exactly optimal partially because of the compromises needed to support its maternal role. It's probably because they suffer more pain as a part of ordinary living that they're better able to manage it - if every women refused to have a child because the pain would be so agonizing, humanity would have died out 50,000 years ago.
I'd be curious to know whether painkillers in general have a better affect on men then women. It seems possible: if women already have a higher threshold for pain, they're unlikely to see a massive improvement from
Nope, this is about Chrome Apps, a specific set of APIs, not HTML5 web apps. Chrome Apps are being deprecated because HTML5's capabilities now overlap pretty much 100% and Google would prefer developers use standard ways of doing things than proprietary technologies Google owns but would have to maintain forever.
What stops any of the examples you give being ported to standards-compliant HTML5 / NaCl? I would assume in the majority of cases nothing at all, with those that are left only not being ported due to business reasons (ie a desire to no longer support the product in question.)
I've read this announcement about three or four times, and from what I can figure out they're not talking about web "apps" - web pages that support the various HTML5 APIs to allow the web page to operate offline, but some Chrome APIs most people have never heard of.
I'm not saying it's a non-announcement, but most of those seriously affected are probably running bespoke corporate apps intended for Chromebooks. The stuff you find in Chrome's App Store usually consists of either HTML5 apps (unaffected) or HTML5 pages that kinda look like applications, or apps that use the Android APIs (a recent development.) What's out there intended for public use that's using the Chrome app APIs probably is in need of updating to modern standards anyway.
It isn't - I think, if I'm understanding things correctly - a big deal.
Google returns a few billion results for pretty much every search these days. That's the problem, it doesn't know when to say "There's literally nothing about this on the Internet". Google's programmers don't actually seem to understand that that is a useful answer.
That said, I haven't tried your search strings above, and for all I know every single page Google is returning is either relevant or actually contains the search term.
I guess it can work if scaled up. Take them from multiple places (one vehicle per source) to a central point, mix them up, and then fly from the hub to the multiple places.
While that sounds like it would add substantially to journey time, given these vehicles can travel line-of-sight, without stopping, in most cases the overall journey time should be shorter than by taxi.
It'd be a like mass transit with worse energy costs but with way cheaper infrastructure costs. I'd rather do mass transit, but in the US at least that has crazy opposition.
T-Mobile's existing plans are not advertised as "Unlimited". Former plans advertised as "Unlimited" do, indeed, work exactly the way described by the GP. T-Mobile's current 3G, 6G, etc plans work the way you're describing, but aren't described as "Unlimited".
They're handling it in multiple ways, many of which will not be popular amongst Slashdotters.
1. Tethering is throttled to 64kbps. You can buy "High speed data" for tethering at 5G for $15. This is a monthly add-on.
2. Binge-on is permanently switched on. You can switch it off for $25 per month.
3. T-Mobile has agreements with most of the streaming audio suppliers (Google Play Music, Rhapsody, etc) which presumably restricts how much bandwidth those can use too.
Essentially this is the logical extension of Binge On - they've throttled everything that might cause a problem, some usefully (no problem with 480p video), some terribly (is there any point in tethering at those speeds), and so there's no real reason to track the rest of your data usage.
Finally:
4. If you still manage to be a heavy user, they will "de-prioritize" you at peak periods. You'll still get full service at 3am in the morning, it's just if you use your device when lots of other people are, their devices will be given priority.
Probably nothing. As a Nokia 800 owner, I have to say Maemo always felt like a prototype of something, and it also suffered from lacking any apparent vision. Don't get me wrong, I mostly liked it, but getting my first Android phone was an "Ah! This is probably what Nokia wanted to do, they just didn't know how" moment.
It's also paranoid bullshit that this will lead to DRM. A digital port doesn't mean it doesn't eventually get converted into analog inputs for the speakers. And even if they found a way (note: they won't), putting a microphone and a speaker right next to one another will never have the same loss in quality that putting a camera in front of a TV will have. DRM will never work.
Digital line outs have nothing to do with DRM.
The other day I found myself unable to play music in my car because my analog cable to my car radio was slightly out of spec. Why was this a problem? Because virtually every cellphone now understands slight changes in voltage coming from the speaker cable as somehow meaning that the speaker cable has a remote control, with FF, RW, Pause/Play, etc buttons on it. So I would start driving and both Google Play Music and Amazon MP3 would start randomly skipping forward, or pausing, or occasionally skipping back.
The "market" has decreed that we want that fucking stupid functionality, even though you and I have never asked for it. And so they've implemented it, despite the fact that it now means the simple act of trying to pipe music to a car stereo is now impossible without functionally perfect cables, which means you and I get screwed.
A standardized digital line out will solve that problem.
All Facebook has to do is put up a wall if you're running an ad-blocker that says "You must disable your ad blocker to view this site." Ad Block Plus doesn't seem to do "workarounds" for those types of blocks, it's what other sites that absolutely insist you must see their advertising does, and most importantly it respects the preference of the user to not see ads.
Something that says "Oh, you're running an ad blocker? Well we're going to force you to view ads anyway!" is like having a concert at a park, and dealing with people who want to stand outside the park and listen to it for free by picking their pockets. If you really feel that you don't want people to see your stuff without "paying" (viewing ads or whatever), make that a condition of viewing your stuff, don't force them to pay when they don't want to.
I'm 100% with Adblock/U-block/etc on this. And as I've said before, I think they need to go nuclear on this if Facebook doesn't relent - if they continue to try to bypass ad-blocking plugins, then it's time to simulate clicks on ads so Facebook's advertisers stop wanting to advertise there. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Did you disable Windows Update? I've seen Edge reset to default under two conditions:
1. If there's a problem with my default settings, for example when I upgraded Firefox to the 64 bit version and uninstalled the 32 bit version because the two interfered. Not only would it not let me set Firefox as the default any more using the Windows 10 interface (the old Windows 7 defaults window, which is still available but hidden, worked) but it reset everything to Edge until I found the latter workaround.
2. Whenever a "Big" update occurs, such as the Fall Update and Anniversary Updates.
The first is completely understandable (minus the not being allowed to select Firefox using the Windows 10 UI). The second... not so much.
To both of you: That principle works both ways, something both of you apparently have missed.
This article is about Facebook bypassing ad blockers to force people to view ads.
Your argument would make perfect sense if we were talking about, say, Forbe's policy of banning adblocker users from viewing their site. Forbe's has the right to say "You want to run an adblocker? You don't get to view our site." It's stupid, but that's their right, and I personally avoid Forbes because I'm not going to sit here turning off my only protection against resource-hogging unwanted-audio-playing abusive websites just so I can read some crappy blogs.
That's not under discussion here. What's under discussion is forcing people to view ads. Bypassing an ad blocker in order to ensure their ads still get shown even to people who have said no.
I'd be totally fine if this were the standard thing. Like this site? Either watch ads or pay a small subscription fee.
The "We insist on force feeding you ads" mentality has to stop though. I wonder whether the right solution is that if a company is particularly obnoxious about bypassing ad-blockers, to code those ad blockers to simulate clicks on ads, preferably in a way that's detectable by the ad buyer, but not the ad seller. For example, if a click goes to:
Then exactly those links would be followed, temporarily setting any cookies, showing normal User Agents, etc, each page loaded in a hidden javascript-enabled HTML renderer, but that last link would be rewritten to include additional information:
(Javascript's location.href would show the URL sans the additional information, preventing any JS on the page designed to send feedback back to the Ad broker from revealing the secret.)
Ad *buyers* would very quickly catch on and start blocking their ads from being shown on offending websites (or else reduce the amount they're willing to pay per click, probably by several orders of magnitude given that click throughs are always low.
Curious to know why you posted this. Pretty much everyone is going to ignore it from the first sentence you composed onwards, because it's so ludicrously wrong. Why spend that much effort researching links and so on, with a post designed to appeal only to the "someone is wrong on the Internet" brigade?
- There's a review out there of one of Zoe Quinn's games, written by someone Zoe Quinn had sex with, he just knows it...
- There's a hidden message in one of Anita Sarkeesian's videos where she advocates censorship and for sexism in games to be banned, he just knows it...
- Speaking of whom, Sarkeesian is now in charge of all of EA's games, he just knows it...
- Nick Denton is paying you and I huge sums of money to post anti-gamergate comments on Twitter, he just knows it...
- @Nero was banned from Twitter for being a conservative, all other conservatives, including the The One, Donald Trump, is next, he just knows it...
- #notyourshield is made up entirely of women and minorities, he just knows it...
- Ghostbusters was a total flop at the box office, and nobody likes Female Thor, he just knows it...
When you know it in your gut, you don't need any of your fancy pants "evidence" and "facts".
Leaving aside definitions of "racism" or discussing context or whatever, there are plenty of people on Twitter who make nakedly racist comments, against groups historically discriminated against, and who aren't even making jokes, who haven't been banned.
This was never about @Nero's political opinions. The alt-right (and regular right) are heavily represented on Twitter. This was about how you use Twitter. Running a campaign against someone by forging Tweets is a surefire way to get yourself hauled off to Twitterprison, especially when you have a history of ToS violations and have used Twitter so regularly as a way to direct harassment that a popular anti-harassment tool is able to work well just by blocking people who follow you and a couple of other similar people.
Reminder: Donald Trump is still on Twitter. He isn't going anywhere.
I was under the impression it was something specific to the attacks on Leslie Jones, specifically @Nero forging tweets from her and posting "screenshots" of them in order to whip up hysteria against her.
There was, obviously, a pattern of harassment, but there were very specific actions Yiannopoulos engaged it that were ban-worthy by themselves. The pattern merely contributed to the decision to make the ban pseudo-permanent.
Most of us know about Cygwin. To be honest, after trying both, I have to say they have different strengths and weaknesses. Cygwin is better integrated with Windows - it's essentially a Unix-like library implemented over Win32, which tries to translate Windows conventions rather than reimplement them - but "Bash on Ubuntu on Windows" (as it's called in the Start menu(!)) is a much cleaner, Unix-like, environment. Alas, while you can access Windows files via BoUoW, you have little or no other integration. You can't see Windows processes, for example, you can't launch Windows executables, or anything like that.
I suspect a good portion of the "Reluctantly using Windows" community will end up having both installed.
MS-DOS was seriously unlike CP/M in almost every way. The only major things that were the API (which was deprecated in 2.x anyway), and, because of the API, the file system had some limitations (drive letters, 8.3 file names) that were similar to CP/M's. Slashes for command line switches didn't come from CP/M, it was fairly common, most DEC operating systems including VMS use slashes for example.
In practice the two were very, very, very different operating systems. Different file systems, different memory management, different command line syntax and approach, different approach to batch files, etc.
Which is not to say Kildall was happy about the API being copied. He wasn't and held that against Microsoft for a very long time.
...yes, but that doesn't mean what he wrote under the influence of alcohol represented his true self, any more than driving under the influence of alcohol represents your true driving ability.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, women generally can take pain better than men can. If you doubt this for a second, imagine passing something the size of a bowling ball through... well, a very small orifice in your body. That's what childbirth is, and while it's still horrible in the majority of cases without an anesthetic, most women go through it anyway without major problems.
Women complain more partially because they're allowed to without risk of social alienation, and partially because they have more to complain about - the average female body isn't exactly optimal partially because of the compromises needed to support its maternal role. It's probably because they suffer more pain as a part of ordinary living that they're better able to manage it - if every women refused to have a child because the pain would be so agonizing, humanity would have died out 50,000 years ago.
I'd be curious to know whether painkillers in general have a better affect on men then women. It seems possible: if women already have a higher threshold for pain, they're unlikely to see a massive improvement from
Nope, this is about Chrome Apps, a specific set of APIs, not HTML5 web apps. Chrome Apps are being deprecated because HTML5's capabilities now overlap pretty much 100% and Google would prefer developers use standard ways of doing things than proprietary technologies Google owns but would have to maintain forever.
What stops any of the examples you give being ported to standards-compliant HTML5 / NaCl? I would assume in the majority of cases nothing at all, with those that are left only not being ported due to business reasons (ie a desire to no longer support the product in question.)
I've read this announcement about three or four times, and from what I can figure out they're not talking about web "apps" - web pages that support the various HTML5 APIs to allow the web page to operate offline, but some Chrome APIs most people have never heard of.
I'm not saying it's a non-announcement, but most of those seriously affected are probably running bespoke corporate apps intended for Chromebooks. The stuff you find in Chrome's App Store usually consists of either HTML5 apps (unaffected) or HTML5 pages that kinda look like applications, or apps that use the Android APIs (a recent development.) What's out there intended for public use that's using the Chrome app APIs probably is in need of updating to modern standards anyway.
It isn't - I think, if I'm understanding things correctly - a big deal.
Google returns a few billion results for pretty much every search these days. That's the problem, it doesn't know when to say "There's literally nothing about this on the Internet". Google's programmers don't actually seem to understand that that is a useful answer.
That said, I haven't tried your search strings above, and for all I know every single page Google is returning is either relevant or actually contains the search term.
That would be a first though.
Yes. Modern Android phones and iPhones do that.
I guess it can work if scaled up. Take them from multiple places (one vehicle per source) to a central point, mix them up, and then fly from the hub to the multiple places.
While that sounds like it would add substantially to journey time, given these vehicles can travel line-of-sight, without stopping, in most cases the overall journey time should be shorter than by taxi.
It'd be a like mass transit with worse energy costs but with way cheaper infrastructure costs. I'd rather do mass transit, but in the US at least that has crazy opposition.
No he hasn't, that's what the fine print said.
T-Mobile's existing plans are not advertised as "Unlimited". Former plans advertised as "Unlimited" do, indeed, work exactly the way described by the GP. T-Mobile's current 3G, 6G, etc plans work the way you're describing, but aren't described as "Unlimited".
They're handling it in multiple ways, many of which will not be popular amongst Slashdotters.
1. Tethering is throttled to 64kbps. You can buy "High speed data" for tethering at 5G for $15. This is a monthly add-on.
2. Binge-on is permanently switched on. You can switch it off for $25 per month.
3. T-Mobile has agreements with most of the streaming audio suppliers (Google Play Music, Rhapsody, etc) which presumably restricts how much bandwidth those can use too.
Essentially this is the logical extension of Binge On - they've throttled everything that might cause a problem, some usefully (no problem with 480p video), some terribly (is there any point in tethering at those speeds), and so there's no real reason to track the rest of your data usage.
Finally:
4. If you still manage to be a heavy user, they will "de-prioritize" you at peak periods. You'll still get full service at 3am in the morning, it's just if you use your device when lots of other people are, their devices will be given priority.
No problems with that. Seems fair to me.
Probably nothing. As a Nokia 800 owner, I have to say Maemo always felt like a prototype of something, and it also suffered from lacking any apparent vision. Don't get me wrong, I mostly liked it, but getting my first Android phone was an "Ah! This is probably what Nokia wanted to do, they just didn't know how" moment.
It's also paranoid bullshit that this will lead to DRM. A digital port doesn't mean it doesn't eventually get converted into analog inputs for the speakers. And even if they found a way (note: they won't), putting a microphone and a speaker right next to one another will never have the same loss in quality that putting a camera in front of a TV will have. DRM will never work.
Digital line outs have nothing to do with DRM.
The other day I found myself unable to play music in my car because my analog cable to my car radio was slightly out of spec. Why was this a problem? Because virtually every cellphone now understands slight changes in voltage coming from the speaker cable as somehow meaning that the speaker cable has a remote control, with FF, RW, Pause/Play, etc buttons on it. So I would start driving and both Google Play Music and Amazon MP3 would start randomly skipping forward, or pausing, or occasionally skipping back.
The "market" has decreed that we want that fucking stupid functionality, even though you and I have never asked for it. And so they've implemented it, despite the fact that it now means the simple act of trying to pipe music to a car stereo is now impossible without functionally perfect cables, which means you and I get screwed.
A standardized digital line out will solve that problem.
All Facebook has to do is put up a wall if you're running an ad-blocker that says "You must disable your ad blocker to view this site." Ad Block Plus doesn't seem to do "workarounds" for those types of blocks, it's what other sites that absolutely insist you must see their advertising does, and most importantly it respects the preference of the user to not see ads.
Something that says "Oh, you're running an ad blocker? Well we're going to force you to view ads anyway!" is like having a concert at a park, and dealing with people who want to stand outside the park and listen to it for free by picking their pockets. If you really feel that you don't want people to see your stuff without "paying" (viewing ads or whatever), make that a condition of viewing your stuff, don't force them to pay when they don't want to.
I'm 100% with Adblock/U-block/etc on this. And as I've said before, I think they need to go nuclear on this if Facebook doesn't relent - if they continue to try to bypass ad-blocking plugins, then it's time to simulate clicks on ads so Facebook's advertisers stop wanting to advertise there. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Actually I was joking, but that's an interesting twist. Thanks for adding that, I had no idea.
Yeah I too preferred the old computer games that eschewed CGI in favor of hand painted and animated models.
Did you disable Windows Update? I've seen Edge reset to default under two conditions:
1. If there's a problem with my default settings, for example when I upgraded Firefox to the 64 bit version and uninstalled the 32 bit version because the two interfered. Not only would it not let me set Firefox as the default any more using the Windows 10 interface (the old Windows 7 defaults window, which is still available but hidden, worked) but it reset everything to Edge until I found the latter workaround.
2. Whenever a "Big" update occurs, such as the Fall Update and Anniversary Updates.
The first is completely understandable (minus the not being allowed to select Firefox using the Windows 10 UI). The second... not so much.
To both of you: That principle works both ways, something both of you apparently have missed.
This article is about Facebook bypassing ad blockers to force people to view ads.
Your argument would make perfect sense if we were talking about, say, Forbe's policy of banning adblocker users from viewing their site. Forbe's has the right to say "You want to run an adblocker? You don't get to view our site." It's stupid, but that's their right, and I personally avoid Forbes because I'm not going to sit here turning off my only protection against resource-hogging unwanted-audio-playing abusive websites just so I can read some crappy blogs.
That's not under discussion here. What's under discussion is forcing people to view ads. Bypassing an ad blocker in order to ensure their ads still get shown even to people who have said no.
They're crossing the line, not us.
I'd be totally fine if this were the standard thing. Like this site? Either watch ads or pay a small subscription fee.
The "We insist on force feeding you ads" mentality has to stop though. I wonder whether the right solution is that if a company is particularly obnoxious about bypassing ad-blockers, to code those ad blockers to simulate clicks on ads, preferably in a way that's detectable by the ad buyer, but not the ad seller. For example, if a click goes to:
ad.adseller.com/click?adid=1293481&something&something=else
which redirects to:
ad.adseller.com/out?adid=1293481&user=181
which redirects to:
www.widgetshop.com/product.aspx?id=192
Then exactly those links would be followed, temporarily setting any cookies, showing normal User Agents, etc, each page loaded in a hidden javascript-enabled HTML renderer, but that last link would be rewritten to include additional information:
www.widgetshop.com/product.aspx?id=192&bsclick=1&explanation=http://adblockerdeluxe.com/you-paid-for-a-fake-click-you-sucker.html&source=http://www.facebook.com
(Javascript's location.href would show the URL sans the additional information, preventing any JS on the page designed to send feedback back to the Ad broker from revealing the secret.)
Ad *buyers* would very quickly catch on and start blocking their ads from being shown on offending websites (or else reduce the amount they're willing to pay per click, probably by several orders of magnitude given that click throughs are always low.
Curious to know why you posted this. Pretty much everyone is going to ignore it from the first sentence you composed onwards, because it's so ludicrously wrong. Why spend that much effort researching links and so on, with a post designed to appeal only to the "someone is wrong on the Internet" brigade?
To save you a click-through, the three hidden programs are:
- Bing Search Bar powered by Bing
- Norton Anti-Virus one year trial version
- Candy Crush Saga
- There's a review out there of one of Zoe Quinn's games, written by someone Zoe Quinn had sex with, he just knows it...
- There's a hidden message in one of Anita Sarkeesian's videos where she advocates censorship and for sexism in games to be banned, he just knows it...
- Speaking of whom, Sarkeesian is now in charge of all of EA's games, he just knows it...
- Nick Denton is paying you and I huge sums of money to post anti-gamergate comments on Twitter, he just knows it...
- @Nero was banned from Twitter for being a conservative, all other conservatives, including the The One, Donald Trump, is next, he just knows it...
- #notyourshield is made up entirely of women and minorities, he just knows it...
- Ghostbusters was a total flop at the box office, and nobody likes Female Thor, he just knows it...
When you know it in your gut, you don't need any of your fancy pants "evidence" and "facts".
Leaving aside definitions of "racism" or discussing context or whatever, there are plenty of people on Twitter who make nakedly racist comments, against groups historically discriminated against, and who aren't even making jokes, who haven't been banned.
This was never about @Nero's political opinions. The alt-right (and regular right) are heavily represented on Twitter. This was about how you use Twitter. Running a campaign against someone by forging Tweets is a surefire way to get yourself hauled off to Twitterprison, especially when you have a history of ToS violations and have used Twitter so regularly as a way to direct harassment that a popular anti-harassment tool is able to work well just by blocking people who follow you and a couple of other similar people.
Reminder: Donald Trump is still on Twitter. He isn't going anywhere.
I was under the impression it was something specific to the attacks on Leslie Jones, specifically @Nero forging tweets from her and posting "screenshots" of them in order to whip up hysteria against her.
There was, obviously, a pattern of harassment, but there were very specific actions Yiannopoulos engaged it that were ban-worthy by themselves. The pattern merely contributed to the decision to make the ban pseudo-permanent.
Most of us know about Cygwin. To be honest, after trying both, I have to say they have different strengths and weaknesses. Cygwin is better integrated with Windows - it's essentially a Unix-like library implemented over Win32, which tries to translate Windows conventions rather than reimplement them - but "Bash on Ubuntu on Windows" (as it's called in the Start menu(!)) is a much cleaner, Unix-like, environment. Alas, while you can access Windows files via BoUoW, you have little or no other integration. You can't see Windows processes, for example, you can't launch Windows executables, or anything like that.
I suspect a good portion of the "Reluctantly using Windows" community will end up having both installed.
MS-DOS was seriously unlike CP/M in almost every way. The only major things that were the API (which was deprecated in 2.x anyway), and, because of the API, the file system had some limitations (drive letters, 8.3 file names) that were similar to CP/M's. Slashes for command line switches didn't come from CP/M, it was fairly common, most DEC operating systems including VMS use slashes for example.
In practice the two were very, very, very different operating systems. Different file systems, different memory management, different command line syntax and approach, different approach to batch files, etc.
Which is not to say Kildall was happy about the API being copied. He wasn't and held that against Microsoft for a very long time.
...yes, but that doesn't mean what he wrote under the influence of alcohol represented his true self, any more than driving under the influence of alcohol represents your true driving ability.