As to elegance, the inelegant proposal refers to backward compatibility. Emulations are never elegant. So you can either get behind an emulation, accept the status quo, or lose backward compatibility.
Choose. Ultimately the status quo is not sustainable indefinitely and so emulation or losing compatibility is all that is left.
That is the choice. Losing capability and thus functionality is of course easier and more "elegant"... it is also less useful and renders the entire operating system less viable.
As to worrying about whether you think I'm stupid, it isn't your 'feelings' that bother me but rather that you waste my time by making obtuse objections that you seem to think should be responded to with tediously detailed replies that cover any possible fuck up you can think of...
I don't need to do that because I'm not autistic.
As to drivers querying each other's settings... zero sum game... existing system already has them doing that. You're just doing it within the registry hive which from the perspective of the drivers should be an arbitrary distinction. They know how to find the entry in the hive because they are given instructions on when to look for it and how to find it. That is all. That instruction updated to reflect the when and the how will be included in the OS and so from the perspective of the drivers it should be similar enough that your objection is irrelevant.
As to the entries being hard to amalgamate... you confuse scale with difficulty. It is not hard to move sand from one place to another with a spoon. It just takes awhile. These operating systems are coded by thousands of people over many years and the code from successive generations of the OS are reused by versions going forward. So yes... it would be a pain in the ass to implement such a program because there are a lot of entries. But the actual coding would be very simple. I can think of a few ways to simplify it radically. Its not complex so much as an ungodly huge number of settings. But they're mostly so obnoxious because they're all stored in one place. Break it down and the settings become much much much easier to manage.
As to people doing things this way because it is the easiest way to do it... yes... and it is the easist way to do it because if something gets fucked in the registry it isn't practical to fix it. Where as if the settings were segmented down to individual drivers etc that would be much more viable. And thus a more surgical response would be possible.
But you're right... if things stay as they are... then the crude response will remain the default... which was my argument... so you agree with me.
I'll grant that it was good in that it "aspired" to change the permission paradigm. However, it didn't actually restrict programs from breaching those permissions if they were coded to be aggressive about it. And very importantly, the implementation was so hamfisted that users largely disabled it because it wasn't functional or was annoying.
Again, I grant that the aspiration was laudable. But that's about it.
You're ignoring that during the summer opposing factions will point outside and say "look at how hot it is"... so its a double edged sword.
You have to admit that BOTH sides have on occasion replied on some pretty specious evidence to back up their positions. I mean... the UN report that based the Himalayan glaciers retreat on a misquote from a climbing magazine that the interviewed scientist said didn't represent his position was pretty bad. It also demonstrates a despiration to find anything to support a narrative by some.
This is not to say that anything is true or false but rather that there are sophists on both sides of this discussion. And claiming that one side is all angels and holier than thou super human humans and the other are demonic subhuman hell spawn is just demagoguery.
Bill Nye has done nothing to contribute to a more scientific approuch in this discussion and has instead poured fuel on the flame war by saying that anyone that holds a contrary position is either stupid or a shill. Never mind the fact that quite a few of the claims have been disproven and quite a few of the predictions didn't happen.
Hanson for example predicted that half of New York City would be underwater by now. Well, it isn't.
The whole "the science is settled" position that Bill Nye stands behind has been debunked repeatedly not only on a case by case basis but also fundamentally as a scientific concept.
You don't get to close the book. Ever. The science isn't settled on gravity and these people want to have it settled on something that we can't even accurately model? THAT is stupid.
Here is what I believe:
1. The world is warming. 2. The seas are rising. 3. The climate is changing. 4. The rate of sea level rise over the last 200 years has remained pretty consistent which argues against human activity having any impact on sea level increases. 5. Linking global temperature to human activity is very difficult. We have evidence of the temps going up and down over millions of years. And the current temps are not inconsistent with what they might have been with no humans at all. 6. I don't think there is anything magical about CO2 that makes it more inclined to cause problems in our atmosphere than anything else. I have looked at the light spectrum absorption patterns and compared them to other common gases in our atmosphere and nearly everything in that spectrum is overlapped by other spectrums of more common gases such as water vapor. As such, I question the relevance of CO2 in this discussion at the current concentrations of the gas. 7. The lab experiments that showed that CO2 was a green house gas are misleading in several particulars. First, any gas is a green house gas. Hydrogen can be a greenhouse gas. Helium can be a greenhouse gas... and so on. The experiments also did not account for water vapor in the chamber. The air was desiccated. I'd love to see the difference in energy absorption of two gas samples... one that contains what we think our atmosphere would be without humans... including a reasonable moisture content. And then compare that to the energy absorption of an analogue of the current atmosphere. I rather doubt the difference is going to be anything assuming the air pressure isn't changed.
So... I am a believer in global climate change. Whether that climate is being significantly effected by human activity is something I am skeptical about. The politics on the issue are obviously tribalistic at this point and in that environment you can't cite how many people support you versus don't. Science is not a democracy. Science is not about how many people on facebook agree with you. Science isn't about voting or even what you believe.
Science is an outgrowth of stoicism. And as much as sophists try to dominate science, the discipline itself will remain hostile ground for those that care more about winning political disputes than "being right". Stoics don't care who thinks they're right. Stoics just care if they're right.
There is room for skepticism on many climate change issues. That's just a reality. Claiming we know more than we do is delusional.
As to good luck determining whatever in advance...It would be very easy to have a few ways it could work by default and then it could just cycle through them until it worked. At which point... no cycling required because it would only need to go through that process on initial load or possibly shortly after if there were a problem. What is more, records of which method works for which program could be automatically uploaded and queried by new installs of the same program on different machines.
I mean come on... at least give the idea a fair chance before coming up with any old bullshit to shit on it. Its not reasonable to think heavily about one thing to justify the status quo and then shit all over some new idea because every detail of it hasn't be carefully specified to include lines like "and I won't put screen doors on this submarine"...
Please assume I'm not stupid. I'm not. It is a waste of our mutual time explore assumptions of my argument if you assume I am stupid. It leaves you making arguments that I'm going to knock down and me tediously going through things I don't believe and pointing it out to you.
Save us both that time and just assume i'm not stupid.
As to a centralized repository, its an inferior method when you add up all the pros and cons. I don't question that there are some pros. They're just not that great. I and obtain most of the point of a centralized system by simply having the decentralized system be organized.
As to hardware needing to talk to hardware... we're are talking about settings and not memory variables. Regardless, if Driver X wants to query a setting in Driver Y... it can do that by querying the location of that driver's setting file, which will be stored centrally, and then it can navigate to that directory and examine the setting there.
Beyond that, there are operating systems that work exactly as I describe in so far as drivers. And they work just fine. So it clearly is functional.
As to my luck controlling something that is amalgamating lots of files into a central interface that makes the whole thing seem transparently like the old registry hive system even though it is actually distributed files.
I don't need luck... that's fucking easy.
As to nuanced versus crude back up systems. The systems are exceptionally crude by default these days and you know it. People ghost their drives in these situations in large part because the registry is such a clusterfuck of unmanageable bullshit.
Because the environmental lobby wants to fix coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and anything else that works?
They're doing their best to destroy coal power generation... at least officially. Their wind and solar projects frequently require power back ups which are often coal power plants... which is funny but apparently unintentional.
And then gas... they trying to fix that? Not really. Destroy destroy destroy.
And what about nuclear? There are a lot of new reactor designs and various ways of dealing with the waste that are sustainable. But they have no interest in any of it.
What about hydro? They generally only cite hydro in amalgamated statistics when they want "renewable" numbers to look big. But do they want to build hydro dams or maintain them? Nope.
So no, you don't want to "improve"... you want to shut down things that work and replace them with things that don't.
If you want to cut your own dick off and use it as a food source, that is your business. You can do any number of retarded things to yourself. But I would like you to leave the rest of the modern world that doesn't want to be crippled by this insanity alone.
Consistently getting mocked by people like me is the LEAST you deserve until that happens.
That's often as not because windows programs require admin rights to not error out. I'm not saying they "need it"... I'm saying they require it.
A more reasonable option would be sandboxed admin rights... or pseudo-admin rights. The idea would be that you "tell" the program it has admin rights and you make it "appear" as if it has them. But it doesn't actually.
In addition, too many windows systems are co-located when they should be segregated. Why is everything writing to the system Registry Hive? I'd like to restrict registry writes... and most registry reads to the Windows OS itself. Program X or Y can write to a preference file stored in the application directory. And assuming the program was designed to work with a system registry, then simply redirect all registry reads or writes to a sandboxed Registry that contains what that program needs it to contain and doesn't contain anything it doesn't need to contain... and by need... I mean what it needs for it to work. Which is often not even accurate information so much as given types of entries with default information etc.
The whole registry paradigm for storing general application settings for any given program is insane.
I'd actually go farther than that given free reign and segment the registry so that every given driver etc had its own configuration file distinct from anything else.
Here someone might ask "how do we audit that!?" or update it... well do we have the ability to have a program gather and amalgamate all the system preference files in a few dozen folders and break them down into some organized tree like what we have with the registry? This is technology we have. So... bingo.
Here is one of the things I like about this... if a given driver gets corrupted or something, I can overwrite the folder with a backup or something and it will overwrite the driver, the settings, etc... everything to do with that driver in one shot. As it stands now, maintaining a lot of things is a pain in the ass. We have a lot of all or nothing approaches that are needlessly crude.
Regardless... I don't like automatic execution and disabling that whole feature in the operating system is one of the first things I do in a computer.
A more complex staging and ideally of something that could not have existed in his time.
I don't know... a dutch programmer riding a t-rex. In Rembrandt's style.
The point is not to make a Rembrandt forgery I would hope. The point should rather be to capture the style of the artist and give the computer or other artists the ability to generate works in that style.
Automatic execution is a dumb idea and needs to go away. What is more, the same execution warnings that exist when you directly execute a downloaded file from a browser should exist when you execute a file on an UNKNOWN USB drive. I don't think it would be that hard to flag given USB drives as known and unknown.
And regardless... auto execution remains retarded. Its one of the many things I make sure is disabled on all my systems.
Anything effective will be an object of ridicule by the environmental lobby.
The instant wind and solar work they'll come up with a reason to not like them either.
Everything believed to be ineffective is the solution. The engineers and scientists keep causing problems for these halfwits by making the impractical practical. And thus the goal posts move.
Nuclear was great until it worked. Natural gas was great until it worked. Hydro was great until they feared we'd just be satisfied with that.
And as to wind and solar, we're already seeing trial balloons being floated about how it kills birds or something stupid. By the time they actually are viable replacements I'm sure they'll have come up with something the drones will swallow.
And that's all most of the people that repeat this crap about how every viable energy source is the end of the world are actually doing. They're reading a card.
Why is whatever bad? Because some movie star read a script at them about how whatever it is kills kittens and they're too fucking credious to question it. Yes yes... they have "reasons"... So does anyone. The fucking alien abduction people have "reasons" for believing whatever they believe.
The problem is that if you don't audit your reasons then they're not actually validated. And very very very very few people actually do that. And these days when ever anyone does that on the environmental issues we get told more often that not... "ignore that man behind the curtain"... its a farce.
Anyone that looks into it finds out its a farce. You can look at historic sea level data. You can look at the endless blown predictions out of the climate lobby. Its a joke.
Best that can be told at this point is that several of the large advocacy organizations were taken over by political nutbars in the 70s and have been running those foundations like their own little Pravdas ever since.
I can back the above up if you're at all interested. However, keep in mind... I will win and I will be obnoxious when I win to make it clear that I won because I know you probably won't admit it. You will not enjoy it. I will enjoy it. I always do.
The ocean is equivalent THE planet but not a specific planet just as the ocean or the planet is equlient to THE internet.
Look, if you can't grasp the distinction between collections of entities and an ACTUALLY singular entity then I can't help you.
THE planet is not the ONLY planet. And yet when one is on "Earth" and one refers to "the planet" one refers to "Earth".
The "internet" is not a proper noun just as the "ocean" is not a proper noun whilst the "Atlantic" or "Earth" is a proper noun.
You've contradicted yourself and don't even get it. You cite that THE planet is not capitalized but Earth is capitalized.
Get The Difference.
Internet is not Earth Internet is ocean or planet
If want a name for this network that is specific to this network and not merely specific to networks of this type... which yes is complicated by the fact that only one such network of this nature exists... but then the first automobile was also the only automobile.
There's nothing left for you to say at this point besides either apologizing or continuing to declare your stubborn refusal to admit a very simple concept.
Choose.
Apologize or become yet more ridiculous.
it's heads I win and tails you lose. Either way, I don't especially care.
The president as you know is a very tech savvy guy being a politician. I think he likes to use black berries after all so that must mean he knows what he's talking about.
Capitalizing the "internet" and the "web" was always dumb. I'm glad it is going away. The AP style sheet's reason for it going away was also dumb. Familiarity/heavy use are not reasons to not capitalize a word. But that's what they're going with for some reason. You don't stop capitalizing the Atlantic simply because it is a common ocean that we interact with a lot.
We do however not capitalize the "ocean" because it is not specific... just like the internet.
The internet is no more a distinct place than is the "ocean".
What has happened is that the people that write the stupid sheets have merely caught up with what people knew a long time ago. High five on joining us in 1992 or so AP. You guys are amazing.
you can't just say something is capitalized or not based on how commonly used it is otherwise we're always going to be dealing with confusion. In certain segments a given term is going to be used a lot and in others it won't. So would it be reasonable for one to capitalize and the other to not? Who takes priority? And what are you telling someone when you do or don't capitalize? Are you signaling familiarity or are you signaling ignorance of what should or shouldn't be capitalized?
The whole premise is bad.
Look. The confusion happened because people didn't understand that saying "the internet" is like saying "the ocean" or "the forest". Now if you specify a given service like "Slashdot" then that's supposed to be capitalized as a proper noun. However "the web" doesn't get capitalized for the same reason you don't capitalize "the mountains". Cite a specific mountain or mountain range... you know... use a proper noun and you have something you can capitalize. However, the internet and the web were never proper nouns.
Now you could say that the global internet is a distinct network and thus citing it for a proper noun designation is appropriate. However, there is only one internet just as there is only one ocean (All oceans on Earth are contiguous bodies of water. There is no ocean that I cannot sail to from any other ocean.).
Part of the mistake might have been citing the internet as only being one place. Perhaps it would help the classification people to understand that the internet while perceived as a single network is actually a compilation of many systems across every inhabited continent in the world. Collectively it is a singular but so are all the oceans collectively "the ocean".
Whilst this election cycle is very "rude"... it is important to remember that past cycles have been JUST as rude if not more so. The only difference is that this time the principles are involved in the mud slinging. Typically the way it works is that the dirty stuff happens between proxies. You get your super PAC to release something nasty. Or you get a kept reporter to do something. Or you get some political hatchetman to do it. Whatever. This time especially in the GOP field you have the actual candidates doing it.
Is that worse? They were doing it before. They were just doing it through proxies. Its the same thing in the end if it happens with your blessing and direction. And often as not you can tell via the coordination of them that that is precisely what happened.
Nor at MSNBC, The NY Times, The Guardian in the UK, Der Spegel in Germany, or any other set of random media outlets you might care to cite for no particular reason.
Again, you can play games or drill down to what matters.
In the end, we're getting there. All this dancing about just delays the correction. It was said that economic crashes catch what bankers miss. Corrections.
You can do whatever you want. Define or redefine whatever you like. But at the end of the day if the numbers don't balance then you're going to build up an imbalance... and at best all the denial is going to do is delay the moment the imbalance discharges.
Sooner means the discharge is smaller. Later means it could very well be dangerous... and more it builds up the more energetic that discharge is going to get.
What happens when it discharges is anyone's guess. Quite a few people think its going to work out in their favor. But all such people are gamblers. But being a gambler is better than betting on the status quo... that's doomed. To save it, you'd have to correct the problem that the establishment of both major political factions are married to...
So its just going to sit there and build... and build... and build.
We can play games if you want... we can pretend it isn't there. We can do whatever you want. But none of that negates the charge that is building up.
We're headed to a paradigm shift, old son. That is certain.
The only speculation is when it is going to snap and where it will take us.
The implication remains that you think he would do such a thing. You're trying to have it both ways.
Look, here's the thing. No one is executing deported people by throwing them in the desert or something to die. So that whole concept is a nonsense.
As to returns on investment, The most cynical argument you could make about Trump is that he's doing this for ego... not money. The money move would have been to not run for president and just keep doing what he's been doing all his life which is make money.
As to whatever he's doing to get elected, I think you're over simplifying what is going on here.
1. The republican base is very upset with the GOP establishment and has been increasingly upset for about about 20 years. This has been building for a long time.
2. Being plain spoken as a politician is generally a winning move. He's talking like some "guy"... he doesn't give prepared speeches for example. He just talks. They all start out a bit rambly and often there's some repetition in there but the whole thing sounds more authentic. What is more, he's turned a lot of his speeches into Q&A sessions which actually has made them watchable. Watching all the contender's speeches is really really boring. I watched Hillary, Bernie, Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, etc... Trump's speeches are always entertaining while the others are pretty boring. And while people might say that that is a low brow observation and that the objective should not be entertaining, I would say that being watchable should be a prerequisite. Back in the old old days of politics you had to throw a fair to get people to show up for a debate. There was food, music... and the debates and speeches were given to people sitting with their families at tables eating dinner or lunch or something. Saying at this point in the 21st century that people should just suffer through truly awful showmanship is not a step forward.
3. As to bigotry, the main bigotry was that Trump is anti woman or something. And frankly that argument goes both ways. The Hillary people as well as the progressives in general have been pretty anti men. This cost them in the last congressional election because they were pushing that narrative and male democrats didn't show up to vote. It depressed male turnout amongst democrats. Statistical fact. What's more, the opening line that Megan Kelly gave Trump in the first Fox debate was that sucker punch about women. And you have to admit, his response was brilliant and totally cut Megan's legs out from under her. She tried to sucker punch him and he dodged and made her look like a fool. Something that democrats have been relying on too heavily in politics is identity politics, PC culture, and basically accusing anyone that disagrees with them as being non-PC. It works well against people that feel vulnerable or that are out numbered or that are stupid or that don't care. However, it has serious limitations outside of those contexts especially when deployed with such disingenuous alacrity.
4. As to xenophobia, you're talking about illegals from south of the border and islamic extremists that are engaging in mass killings with some regularity. As to the illegals, if I entered Mexico illegally, flouted all their laws, and basically did what I pleased... Would Mexico allow me to stay, excuse the fact that I break other laws on the basis that my illegal status makes it hard to prosecute me on that basis without also deporting me, give me welfare, allow me to have children in their country that will now go to Mexican schools, and ultimately make me a full citizen?... Or would they deport me back to the US? Obviously they would deport. So are the Mexicans xenophobic racists? Because their immigration policy is far stricter than ours. As to islamic extremists, how many people have the Jordanians, Saudis, etc allowed in their own country from these places? Just about none. Same religion. And we can see what is happening in Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, etc with this genius idea just let the flood gates be
So if I associated you with a frightened moron and kept using that term to associate your position with cowardice and stupidity... you'd assume I wasn't insulting you?
See, you're compounding your previous insult by lying to me... but as a mitigating factor, your lie is so patiently idiotic that you're actually insulting yourself more than me now.
I mean... this is a really stupid lie... one this stupid would have to be made by someone that either wasn't thinking very clearly for some reason or someone that lacked the ability to think clearly.
I suspect you're riding on a mixture of cognitive dissonance and ill deserved arrogance. On top of that, I can tell that your positions are mostly parroted lines that you were indoctrinated with as you're following a pretty tight script at this point.
The combination of your head being up your ass, you thinking that rather than your head being up your ass you've found the promised land, and reading off a script like some deluded religious zealot... it could explain how stupid your argument is at this point.
So you're probably not actually stupid... genetically... but you are without a doubt one confused Muppet.
IF you want to play games... then by your comical logic, the above was also not an insult even if it was uttered without any intention of not insulting. This is my HONEST opinion of your position at this point and you. Is that an insult... if I'm honest? Explain what makes something an insult or not an insult in your twisted logic. Because I'm fairly certain that even with your head up your ass you're going to have a hard time coming up with a definition that includes my statement without including yours. *wink*
You're goalpost shifting. The majority of people that commit assaults were also conscious at the time... we could solve that problem by knocking them out. The majority of people that commit acts of hate speech also had the freedom of speech. We can take that away as well.
I said one thing and offered something as evidence for it. You didn't like that so you talked about something else and then pretended that you negated one of my previous points. You did not. You just cited something totally different and then pretended it was relevant.
I'll restate because there seems to be a problem staying on topic.
The vast majority of legal gun owners do not hurt anyone. In fact, most of the gun homicides in the US are committed with illegal guns. Typically inner city gang violence. I live in a city with over 600 murders a year. The majority of them are with guns. And of those, nearly all are committed with illegal guns, in urban ghettos, by gang members, against gang members.
Anti gun stats tend to conflate these fatalities with legal gun owners in other contexts which is obscures what is a real problem by misdirecting an issue of gang violence towards one of legal gun ownership. While legal gun ownership has some correlation with the access to illegal guns for criminals, that is no reason to ban the weapons for the general population.
You can see the result in mexico. The cartels are making modern art pieces out of human body parts and shoveling the rest into crematorium they operate to hide the bodies.
Your position is one that stems from thinking like a peasant. Peasants should not have guns. But then neither should they vote nor should they be afforded the ability to speak their mind to their betters.
If you want to surrender your rights right now... I accept them. I'll take care of you.
If you'd like to be a free citizen however, then you're a hybrid of peasant and nobility. And just as with the nobility, you do not disarm citizens.
You don't trust me? I don't trust you either. Welcome to planet Earth.
My stats are valid and you know it which is why you're going to start citing stats that conflate urban gang homicides committed with illegal guns into your argument. It's all you've got... and its irrelevant in this discussion. Which makes your argument and position utterly without value.
The national review has also called Trump Hitler... so... that particular source is breaking godwin's law like crazy and is thus not especially viable in this discussion.
They'd probably call both of us Hitler as well if they were aware of us.
As to the Texas representative, he was saying that the Nazis were also democratic socialists... when asked on that issue, even bernie sanders admitted that the nazis were democratic socialists as well.
So... that connection exists. That does not mean Bernie is a nazi or wants to do what the nazis did. However, it does mean that there are political associations to be made if you can stomach it. By the same token you can point out that various people are nationalists in that they put the US first... and you can of course cite the nazis as nationalists. Thus that connection exists as well.
Admitting to these connections and moving forward allows us to deal with them in a rational way. If you want to just demonize everyone and play fucking word games though... then we can do that as well. But any claim to any kind of intellectual integrity or rational discourse goes out the window if that happens. Its just pure rhetoric... pathos and ethos...
We can play identity politics or we can try to drill down to what matters.
To be a republic, North Korea would have to hold the Law as superior to the supreme leader or whatever. The fact that you have a supreme leader in north korea means the sovereign authority of north korea is not the law. And as the law is not supreme, you do not have rule of law, and that means you do not have a republic. Rule of law what a republic is... and no, merely having laws is not enough. The laws have to check the power of the highest authority in the country. And in North korea that is not the case. So they do not have a republic or a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The scaremongering serves the politicians. it justifies them getting more power, more money, and people owing them more favors.
As to elegance, the inelegant proposal refers to backward compatibility. Emulations are never elegant. So you can either get behind an emulation, accept the status quo, or lose backward compatibility.
Choose. Ultimately the status quo is not sustainable indefinitely and so emulation or losing compatibility is all that is left.
That is the choice. Losing capability and thus functionality is of course easier and more "elegant"... it is also less useful and renders the entire operating system less viable.
As to worrying about whether you think I'm stupid, it isn't your 'feelings' that bother me but rather that you waste my time by making obtuse objections that you seem to think should be responded to with tediously detailed replies that cover any possible fuck up you can think of...
I don't need to do that because I'm not autistic.
As to drivers querying each other's settings... zero sum game... existing system already has them doing that. You're just doing it within the registry hive which from the perspective of the drivers should be an arbitrary distinction. They know how to find the entry in the hive because they are given instructions on when to look for it and how to find it. That is all. That instruction updated to reflect the when and the how will be included in the OS and so from the perspective of the drivers it should be similar enough that your objection is irrelevant.
As to the entries being hard to amalgamate... you confuse scale with difficulty. It is not hard to move sand from one place to another with a spoon. It just takes awhile. These operating systems are coded by thousands of people over many years and the code from successive generations of the OS are reused by versions going forward. So yes... it would be a pain in the ass to implement such a program because there are a lot of entries. But the actual coding would be very simple. I can think of a few ways to simplify it radically. Its not complex so much as an ungodly huge number of settings. But they're mostly so obnoxious because they're all stored in one place. Break it down and the settings become much much much easier to manage.
As to people doing things this way because it is the easiest way to do it... yes... and it is the easist way to do it because if something gets fucked in the registry it isn't practical to fix it. Where as if the settings were segmented down to individual drivers etc that would be much more viable. And thus a more surgical response would be possible.
But you're right... if things stay as they are... then the crude response will remain the default... which was my argument... so you agree with me.
I'll grant that it was good in that it "aspired" to change the permission paradigm. However, it didn't actually restrict programs from breaching those permissions if they were coded to be aggressive about it. And very importantly, the implementation was so hamfisted that users largely disabled it because it wasn't functional or was annoying.
Again, I grant that the aspiration was laudable. But that's about it.
You're ignoring that during the summer opposing factions will point outside and say "look at how hot it is"... so its a double edged sword.
You have to admit that BOTH sides have on occasion replied on some pretty specious evidence to back up their positions. I mean... the UN report that based the Himalayan glaciers retreat on a misquote from a climbing magazine that the interviewed scientist said didn't represent his position was pretty bad. It also demonstrates a despiration to find anything to support a narrative by some.
This is not to say that anything is true or false but rather that there are sophists on both sides of this discussion. And claiming that one side is all angels and holier than thou super human humans and the other are demonic subhuman hell spawn is just demagoguery.
Bill Nye has done nothing to contribute to a more scientific approuch in this discussion and has instead poured fuel on the flame war by saying that anyone that holds a contrary position is either stupid or a shill. Never mind the fact that quite a few of the claims have been disproven and quite a few of the predictions didn't happen.
Hanson for example predicted that half of New York City would be underwater by now. Well, it isn't.
The whole "the science is settled" position that Bill Nye stands behind has been debunked repeatedly not only on a case by case basis but also fundamentally as a scientific concept.
You don't get to close the book. Ever. The science isn't settled on gravity and these people want to have it settled on something that we can't even accurately model? THAT is stupid.
Here is what I believe:
1. The world is warming.
2. The seas are rising.
3. The climate is changing.
4. The rate of sea level rise over the last 200 years has remained pretty consistent which argues against human activity having any impact on sea level increases.
5. Linking global temperature to human activity is very difficult. We have evidence of the temps going up and down over millions of years. And the current temps are not inconsistent with what they might have been with no humans at all.
6. I don't think there is anything magical about CO2 that makes it more inclined to cause problems in our atmosphere than anything else. I have looked at the light spectrum absorption patterns and compared them to other common gases in our atmosphere and nearly everything in that spectrum is overlapped by other spectrums of more common gases such as water vapor. As such, I question the relevance of CO2 in this discussion at the current concentrations of the gas.
7. The lab experiments that showed that CO2 was a green house gas are misleading in several particulars. First, any gas is a green house gas. Hydrogen can be a greenhouse gas. Helium can be a greenhouse gas... and so on. The experiments also did not account for water vapor in the chamber. The air was desiccated. I'd love to see the difference in energy absorption of two gas samples... one that contains what we think our atmosphere would be without humans... including a reasonable moisture content. And then compare that to the energy absorption of an analogue of the current atmosphere. I rather doubt the difference is going to be anything assuming the air pressure isn't changed.
So... I am a believer in global climate change. Whether that climate is being significantly effected by human activity is something I am skeptical about. The politics on the issue are obviously tribalistic at this point and in that environment you can't cite how many people support you versus don't. Science is not a democracy. Science is not about how many people on facebook agree with you. Science isn't about voting or even what you believe.
Science is an outgrowth of stoicism. And as much as sophists try to dominate science, the discipline itself will remain hostile ground for those that care more about winning political disputes than "being right". Stoics don't care who thinks they're right. Stoics just care if they're right.
There is room for skepticism on many climate change issues. That's just a reality. Claiming we know more than we do is delusional.
As to good luck determining whatever in advance...It would be very easy to have a few ways it could work by default and then it could just cycle through them until it worked. At which point... no cycling required because it would only need to go through that process on initial load or possibly shortly after if there were a problem. What is more, records of which method works for which program could be automatically uploaded and queried by new installs of the same program on different machines.
I mean come on... at least give the idea a fair chance before coming up with any old bullshit to shit on it. Its not reasonable to think heavily about one thing to justify the status quo and then shit all over some new idea because every detail of it hasn't be carefully specified to include lines like "and I won't put screen doors on this submarine"...
Please assume I'm not stupid. I'm not. It is a waste of our mutual time explore assumptions of my argument if you assume I am stupid. It leaves you making arguments that I'm going to knock down and me tediously going through things I don't believe and pointing it out to you.
Save us both that time and just assume i'm not stupid.
As to a centralized repository, its an inferior method when you add up all the pros and cons. I don't question that there are some pros. They're just not that great. I and obtain most of the point of a centralized system by simply having the decentralized system be organized.
As to hardware needing to talk to hardware... we're are talking about settings and not memory variables. Regardless, if Driver X wants to query a setting in Driver Y... it can do that by querying the location of that driver's setting file, which will be stored centrally, and then it can navigate to that directory and examine the setting there.
Beyond that, there are operating systems that work exactly as I describe in so far as drivers. And they work just fine. So it clearly is functional.
As to my luck controlling something that is amalgamating lots of files into a central interface that makes the whole thing seem transparently like the old registry hive system even though it is actually distributed files.
I don't need luck... that's fucking easy.
As to nuanced versus crude back up systems. The systems are exceptionally crude by default these days and you know it. People ghost their drives in these situations in large part because the registry is such a clusterfuck of unmanageable bullshit.
Because the environmental lobby wants to fix coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and anything else that works?
They're doing their best to destroy coal power generation... at least officially. Their wind and solar projects frequently require power back ups which are often coal power plants... which is funny but apparently unintentional.
And then gas... they trying to fix that? Not really. Destroy destroy destroy.
And what about nuclear? There are a lot of new reactor designs and various ways of dealing with the waste that are sustainable. But they have no interest in any of it.
What about hydro? They generally only cite hydro in amalgamated statistics when they want "renewable" numbers to look big. But do they want to build hydro dams or maintain them? Nope.
So no, you don't want to "improve"... you want to shut down things that work and replace them with things that don't.
If you want to cut your own dick off and use it as a food source, that is your business. You can do any number of retarded things to yourself. But I would like you to leave the rest of the modern world that doesn't want to be crippled by this insanity alone.
Consistently getting mocked by people like me is the LEAST you deserve until that happens.
That's often as not because windows programs require admin rights to not error out. I'm not saying they "need it"... I'm saying they require it.
A more reasonable option would be sandboxed admin rights... or pseudo-admin rights. The idea would be that you "tell" the program it has admin rights and you make it "appear" as if it has them. But it doesn't actually.
In addition, too many windows systems are co-located when they should be segregated. Why is everything writing to the system Registry Hive? I'd like to restrict registry writes... and most registry reads to the Windows OS itself. Program X or Y can write to a preference file stored in the application directory. And assuming the program was designed to work with a system registry, then simply redirect all registry reads or writes to a sandboxed Registry that contains what that program needs it to contain and doesn't contain anything it doesn't need to contain... and by need... I mean what it needs for it to work. Which is often not even accurate information so much as given types of entries with default information etc.
The whole registry paradigm for storing general application settings for any given program is insane.
I'd actually go farther than that given free reign and segment the registry so that every given driver etc had its own configuration file distinct from anything else.
Here someone might ask "how do we audit that!?" or update it... well do we have the ability to have a program gather and amalgamate all the system preference files in a few dozen folders and break them down into some organized tree like what we have with the registry? This is technology we have. So... bingo.
Here is one of the things I like about this... if a given driver gets corrupted or something, I can overwrite the folder with a backup or something and it will overwrite the driver, the settings, etc... everything to do with that driver in one shot. As it stands now, maintaining a lot of things is a pain in the ass. We have a lot of all or nothing approaches that are needlessly crude.
Regardless... I don't like automatic execution and disabling that whole feature in the operating system is one of the first things I do in a computer.
A more complex staging and ideally of something that could not have existed in his time.
I don't know... a dutch programmer riding a t-rex. In Rembrandt's style.
The point is not to make a Rembrandt forgery I would hope. The point should rather be to capture the style of the artist and give the computer or other artists the ability to generate works in that style.
Automatic execution is a dumb idea and needs to go away. What is more, the same execution warnings that exist when you directly execute a downloaded file from a browser should exist when you execute a file on an UNKNOWN USB drive. I don't think it would be that hard to flag given USB drives as known and unknown.
And regardless... auto execution remains retarded. Its one of the many things I make sure is disabled on all my systems.
No it isn't. Stop wasting my time. "Internet" is a technical term for the network. It isn't a proper name.
A proper name would be "Bob"... Capitalizing internet is like capitalizing local area network.
Anything effective will be an object of ridicule by the environmental lobby.
The instant wind and solar work they'll come up with a reason to not like them either.
Everything believed to be ineffective is the solution. The engineers and scientists keep causing problems for these halfwits by making the impractical practical. And thus the goal posts move.
Nuclear was great until it worked.
Natural gas was great until it worked.
Hydro was great until they feared we'd just be satisfied with that.
And as to wind and solar, we're already seeing trial balloons being floated about how it kills birds or something stupid. By the time they actually are viable replacements I'm sure they'll have come up with something the drones will swallow.
And that's all most of the people that repeat this crap about how every viable energy source is the end of the world are actually doing. They're reading a card.
Why is whatever bad? Because some movie star read a script at them about how whatever it is kills kittens and they're too fucking credious to question it. Yes yes... they have "reasons"... So does anyone. The fucking alien abduction people have "reasons" for believing whatever they believe.
The problem is that if you don't audit your reasons then they're not actually validated. And very very very very few people actually do that. And these days when ever anyone does that on the environmental issues we get told more often that not... "ignore that man behind the curtain"... its a farce.
Anyone that looks into it finds out its a farce. You can look at historic sea level data. You can look at the endless blown predictions out of the climate lobby. Its a joke.
Best that can be told at this point is that several of the large advocacy organizations were taken over by political nutbars in the 70s and have been running those foundations like their own little Pravdas ever since.
I can back the above up if you're at all interested. However, keep in mind... I will win and I will be obnoxious when I win to make it clear that I won because I know you probably won't admit it. You will not enjoy it. I will enjoy it. I always do.
The ocean is equivalent THE planet but not a specific planet just as the ocean or the planet is equlient to THE internet.
Look, if you can't grasp the distinction between collections of entities and an ACTUALLY singular entity then I can't help you.
THE planet is not the ONLY planet. And yet when one is on "Earth" and one refers to "the planet" one refers to "Earth".
The "internet" is not a proper noun just as the "ocean" is not a proper noun whilst the "Atlantic" or "Earth" is a proper noun.
You've contradicted yourself and don't even get it. You cite that THE planet is not capitalized but Earth is capitalized.
Get
The
Difference.
Internet is not Earth
Internet is ocean or planet
If want a name for this network that is specific to this network and not merely specific to networks of this type... which yes is complicated by the fact that only one such network of this nature exists... but then the first automobile was also the only automobile.
There's nothing left for you to say at this point besides either apologizing or continuing to declare your stubborn refusal to admit a very simple concept.
Choose.
Apologize or become yet more ridiculous.
it's heads I win and tails you lose. Either way, I don't especially care.
Then you would agree the word "ocean" should be capitalized?
The sooner you concede, the sooner you can stop wasting my time.
The president as you know is a very tech savvy guy being a politician. I think he likes to use black berries after all so that must mean he knows what he's talking about.
Capitalizing the "internet" and the "web" was always dumb. I'm glad it is going away. The AP style sheet's reason for it going away was also dumb. Familiarity/heavy use are not reasons to not capitalize a word. But that's what they're going with for some reason. You don't stop capitalizing the Atlantic simply because it is a common ocean that we interact with a lot.
We do however not capitalize the "ocean" because it is not specific... just like the internet.
The internet is no more a distinct place than is the "ocean".
What has happened is that the people that write the stupid sheets have merely caught up with what people knew a long time ago. High five on joining us in 1992 or so AP. You guys are amazing.
you can't just say something is capitalized or not based on how commonly used it is otherwise we're always going to be dealing with confusion. In certain segments a given term is going to be used a lot and in others it won't. So would it be reasonable for one to capitalize and the other to not? Who takes priority? And what are you telling someone when you do or don't capitalize? Are you signaling familiarity or are you signaling ignorance of what should or shouldn't be capitalized?
The whole premise is bad.
Look. The confusion happened because people didn't understand that saying "the internet" is like saying "the ocean" or "the forest". Now if you specify a given service like "Slashdot" then that's supposed to be capitalized as a proper noun. However "the web" doesn't get capitalized for the same reason you don't capitalize "the mountains". Cite a specific mountain or mountain range... you know... use a proper noun and you have something you can capitalize. However, the internet and the web were never proper nouns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now you could say that the global internet is a distinct network and thus citing it for a proper noun designation is appropriate. However, there is only one internet just as there is only one ocean (All oceans on Earth are contiguous bodies of water. There is no ocean that I cannot sail to from any other ocean.).
Part of the mistake might have been citing the internet as only being one place. Perhaps it would help the classification people to understand that the internet while perceived as a single network is actually a compilation of many systems across every inhabited continent in the world. Collectively it is a singular but so are all the oceans collectively "the ocean".
Things move towards what is adaptive.
Whilst this election cycle is very "rude"... it is important to remember that past cycles have been JUST as rude if not more so. The only difference is that this time the principles are involved in the mud slinging. Typically the way it works is that the dirty stuff happens between proxies. You get your super PAC to release something nasty. Or you get a kept reporter to do something. Or you get some political hatchetman to do it. Whatever. This time especially in the GOP field you have the actual candidates doing it.
Is that worse? They were doing it before. They were just doing it through proxies. Its the same thing in the end if it happens with your blessing and direction. And often as not you can tell via the coordination of them that that is precisely what happened.
Nor at MSNBC, The NY Times, The Guardian in the UK, Der Spegel in Germany, or any other set of random media outlets you might care to cite for no particular reason.
Again, you can play games or drill down to what matters.
In the end, we're getting there. All this dancing about just delays the correction. It was said that economic crashes catch what bankers miss. Corrections.
You can do whatever you want. Define or redefine whatever you like. But at the end of the day if the numbers don't balance then you're going to build up an imbalance... and at best all the denial is going to do is delay the moment the imbalance discharges.
Sooner means the discharge is smaller. Later means it could very well be dangerous... and more it builds up the more energetic that discharge is going to get.
What happens when it discharges is anyone's guess. Quite a few people think its going to work out in their favor. But all such people are gamblers. But being a gambler is better than betting on the status quo... that's doomed. To save it, you'd have to correct the problem that the establishment of both major political factions are married to...
So its just going to sit there and build... and build... and build.
We can play games if you want... we can pretend it isn't there. We can do whatever you want. But none of that negates the charge that is building up.
We're headed to a paradigm shift, old son. That is certain.
The only speculation is when it is going to snap and where it will take us.
But that it is coming is beyond doubt.
... April fools.
The implication remains that you think he would do such a thing. You're trying to have it both ways.
Look, here's the thing. No one is executing deported people by throwing them in the desert or something to die. So that whole concept is a nonsense.
As to returns on investment, The most cynical argument you could make about Trump is that he's doing this for ego... not money. The money move would have been to not run for president and just keep doing what he's been doing all his life which is make money.
As to whatever he's doing to get elected, I think you're over simplifying what is going on here.
1. The republican base is very upset with the GOP establishment and has been increasingly upset for about about 20 years. This has been building for a long time.
2. Being plain spoken as a politician is generally a winning move. He's talking like some "guy"... he doesn't give prepared speeches for example. He just talks. They all start out a bit rambly and often there's some repetition in there but the whole thing sounds more authentic. What is more, he's turned a lot of his speeches into Q&A sessions which actually has made them watchable. Watching all the contender's speeches is really really boring. I watched Hillary, Bernie, Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, etc... Trump's speeches are always entertaining while the others are pretty boring. And while people might say that that is a low brow observation and that the objective should not be entertaining, I would say that being watchable should be a prerequisite. Back in the old old days of politics you had to throw a fair to get people to show up for a debate. There was food, music... and the debates and speeches were given to people sitting with their families at tables eating dinner or lunch or something. Saying at this point in the 21st century that people should just suffer through truly awful showmanship is not a step forward.
3. As to bigotry, the main bigotry was that Trump is anti woman or something. And frankly that argument goes both ways. The Hillary people as well as the progressives in general have been pretty anti men. This cost them in the last congressional election because they were pushing that narrative and male democrats didn't show up to vote. It depressed male turnout amongst democrats. Statistical fact. What's more, the opening line that Megan Kelly gave Trump in the first Fox debate was that sucker punch about women. And you have to admit, his response was brilliant and totally cut Megan's legs out from under her. She tried to sucker punch him and he dodged and made her look like a fool. Something that democrats have been relying on too heavily in politics is identity politics, PC culture, and basically accusing anyone that disagrees with them as being non-PC. It works well against people that feel vulnerable or that are out numbered or that are stupid or that don't care. However, it has serious limitations outside of those contexts especially when deployed with such disingenuous alacrity.
4. As to xenophobia, you're talking about illegals from south of the border and islamic extremists that are engaging in mass killings with some regularity. As to the illegals, if I entered Mexico illegally, flouted all their laws, and basically did what I pleased... Would Mexico allow me to stay, excuse the fact that I break other laws on the basis that my illegal status makes it hard to prosecute me on that basis without also deporting me, give me welfare, allow me to have children in their country that will now go to Mexican schools, and ultimately make me a full citizen?... Or would they deport me back to the US? Obviously they would deport. So are the Mexicans xenophobic racists? Because their immigration policy is far stricter than ours.
As to islamic extremists, how many people have the Jordanians, Saudis, etc allowed in their own country from these places? Just about none. Same religion. And we can see what is happening in Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, etc with this genius idea just let the flood gates be
... clamping down... in a state that is the tech capital of the most advanced civilization in human history?
Yeah... automation might happen, champ.
So if I associated you with a frightened moron and kept using that term to associate your position with cowardice and stupidity... you'd assume I wasn't insulting you?
See, you're compounding your previous insult by lying to me... but as a mitigating factor, your lie is so patiently idiotic that you're actually insulting yourself more than me now.
I mean... this is a really stupid lie... one this stupid would have to be made by someone that either wasn't thinking very clearly for some reason or someone that lacked the ability to think clearly.
I suspect you're riding on a mixture of cognitive dissonance and ill deserved arrogance. On top of that, I can tell that your positions are mostly parroted lines that you were indoctrinated with as you're following a pretty tight script at this point.
The combination of your head being up your ass, you thinking that rather than your head being up your ass you've found the promised land, and reading off a script like some deluded religious zealot... it could explain how stupid your argument is at this point.
So you're probably not actually stupid... genetically... but you are without a doubt one confused Muppet.
IF you want to play games... then by your comical logic, the above was also not an insult even if it was uttered without any intention of not insulting. This is my HONEST opinion of your position at this point and you. Is that an insult... if I'm honest? Explain what makes something an insult or not an insult in your twisted logic. Because I'm fairly certain that even with your head up your ass you're going to have a hard time coming up with a definition that includes my statement without including yours. *wink*
You're goalpost shifting. The majority of people that commit assaults were also conscious at the time... we could solve that problem by knocking them out. The majority of people that commit acts of hate speech also had the freedom of speech. We can take that away as well.
I said one thing and offered something as evidence for it. You didn't like that so you talked about something else and then pretended that you negated one of my previous points. You did not. You just cited something totally different and then pretended it was relevant.
I'll restate because there seems to be a problem staying on topic.
The vast majority of legal gun owners do not hurt anyone. In fact, most of the gun homicides in the US are committed with illegal guns. Typically inner city gang violence. I live in a city with over 600 murders a year. The majority of them are with guns. And of those, nearly all are committed with illegal guns, in urban ghettos, by gang members, against gang members.
Anti gun stats tend to conflate these fatalities with legal gun owners in other contexts which is obscures what is a real problem by misdirecting an issue of gang violence towards one of legal gun ownership. While legal gun ownership has some correlation with the access to illegal guns for criminals, that is no reason to ban the weapons for the general population.
You can see the result in mexico. The cartels are making modern art pieces out of human body parts and shoveling the rest into crematorium they operate to hide the bodies.
Your position is one that stems from thinking like a peasant. Peasants should not have guns. But then neither should they vote nor should they be afforded the ability to speak their mind to their betters.
If you want to surrender your rights right now... I accept them. I'll take care of you.
If you'd like to be a free citizen however, then you're a hybrid of peasant and nobility. And just as with the nobility, you do not disarm citizens.
You don't trust me? I don't trust you either. Welcome to planet Earth.
My stats are valid and you know it which is why you're going to start citing stats that conflate urban gang homicides committed with illegal guns into your argument. It's all you've got... and its irrelevant in this discussion. Which makes your argument and position utterly without value.
The national review has also called Trump Hitler... so... that particular source is breaking godwin's law like crazy and is thus not especially viable in this discussion.
They'd probably call both of us Hitler as well if they were aware of us.
As to the Texas representative, he was saying that the Nazis were also democratic socialists... when asked on that issue, even bernie sanders admitted that the nazis were democratic socialists as well.
So... that connection exists. That does not mean Bernie is a nazi or wants to do what the nazis did. However, it does mean that there are political associations to be made if you can stomach it. By the same token you can point out that various people are nationalists in that they put the US first... and you can of course cite the nazis as nationalists. Thus that connection exists as well.
Admitting to these connections and moving forward allows us to deal with them in a rational way. If you want to just demonize everyone and play fucking word games though... then we can do that as well. But any claim to any kind of intellectual integrity or rational discourse goes out the window if that happens. Its just pure rhetoric... pathos and ethos...
We can play identity politics or we can try to drill down to what matters.
To be a republic, North Korea would have to hold the Law as superior to the supreme leader or whatever. The fact that you have a supreme leader in north korea means the sovereign authority of north korea is not the law. And as the law is not supreme, you do not have rule of law, and that means you do not have a republic. Rule of law what a republic is... and no, merely having laws is not enough. The laws have to check the power of the highest authority in the country. And in North korea that is not the case. So they do not have a republic or a democracy.
Nope. It is statistical fact. Your Cognitive dissonance is not my problem.