Hot-swap capable drives on AHCI SATA ports seem to always default to "better performance." I only mentioned "not the system drive" because you can't change this setting for the system drive at all, only the drive write cache enable checkbox.
Default for what, plugged where, and was that device ever used on that computer previously? It's not as simple as "plugs into computer = shows the default setting" because the default differs based on the drive interface's "removable" status. SATA/eSATA devices will default to "Better Performance."
I hear you. I'm specifically addressing the DMCA and its requirements here, and it requires that a policy for disconnecting "repeat infringers" exist and be followed by the ISP. I don't think it matters whether people are actually infringing for the purpose of following that requirement, only what can be proven. An ISP has no business making a determination of repeat copyright infringement based on a third party's claims of such; deference to the court is the only ethical way to establish that, especially since internet access is a very important utility for basic societal participation in the modern world and cutting off access to that service should not be taken lightly.
They've been able to sue people arbitrarily anyway. You can sue a ham sandwich for mocking you if you want to; it's not going to go anywhere, but the clerk will accept the paperwork and you'll get assigned a hearing date. Contrary to popular belief, it's expensive to litigate, even if you're a big corporation, and litigation takes time. Frivolous litigation can make it exponentially more expensive when the sued party wins, so there has to be more due diligence than "oh hey, their IP showed up in a log file."
I'm not sure if you're responding to the correct comment. The actual default for removable drives has been Quick Removal since XP while the default for "non-removable" but possibly hot-swappable drives has always been Better Performance. This is how it works in practice, regardless of how it's documented by Microsoft to work.
The links either directly show the term "(default)" in the image of the setting OR give instructions that indicate the default is not the "Better Performance" one. For drives on non-internal interfaces, "Quick Removal" has been the default since Windows XP. For drives on internal interfaces with hot-swap capability, the default has always been "Better Performance." If you examine the images and/or read the article text, you will be able to infer that the default in all cases is "Quick Removal."
I'm right because I've tested this with hundreds of drives across thousands of desktop and laptop computers since around the mid-2000s. The message you're talking about is a result of file locking, NOT the performance setting. Quick removal doesn't "fix" that because it's by design. When you remove a volume in use, all file handles become invalid and attempts to read or write return an error.
Also, if you switch a drive's performance setting, it remains that way on that computer until its entry in Device Manager is deleted.
Microsoft is wrong. I know because I've been checking this out on every single machine I've touched since I found out it was even an option. The "Safely Remove Hardware" icon always appears even if the policy is "Quick Removal" but every single USB device or memory card ALWAYS gets assigned "Quick Removal" by default, without fail, every single time I've ever tried it on every single computer I've plugged something into, regardless of OS. These are not business computers running the same image, they're mostly home and small business machines from a wildly diverse set of OS install sources.
EVERY SINGLE WINDOWS since XP defaults to "Quick Removal" for ALL removable drives, including every iteration of Windows 10. I have yet to see a single computer running XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, or any build of 10 where I plug in an SD card, USB flash drive, or USB hard drive that did NOT automatically default to "Quick Removal." I have ALWAYS, as in 100% of cases, had to manually switch the performance setting through Device Manager. Anyone who says that the default policy is different is flying directly in the face of every single computer I've ever plugged a USB or memory card storage medium into over the past 17-18 years, and that's literally thousands of machines.
The only exception is when a drive is not the system drive but is connected to an internal potentially hot-swappable interface such as an AHCI SATA port. Those get set to "Better Performance" by default because they're almost always not in a removable tray nor connected by eSATA, even though they're technically hot-swappable. Of course, that's not what this Slashdot post is talking about at all, so again...WHAT IS THIS POST EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!
If you are the new public square, you should be bound by the Constitution just like the government. The next major issue in politics will be the third-party loophole in the Constitution where "a private entity" can legally do something the government can't do, even if they do so for the government or are acting as a large digital public square yet having private-level control over what happens there. Huge social media sites should not be allowed to control the views expressed on their platforms; they are large enough to be equivalent to the government as far as what they have control over. If this is a problem then they can stop being the digital public square and go into something like fishmongering instead.
The "create your own platform" bullshit retort is clear and obvious bullshit. Social platforms require momentum and luck, neither of which can be had by "creating your own platform." Facebook overtook MySpace because MySpace was a cluttered clusterfuck mess of a site while Facebook was clean and organized and easy to use by comparison. You're not going to see another Facebook anytime soon. How popular are Diaspora, Voat, Gab, etc. again? Oh yeah, they're a tiny fraction of the market because the social space doesn't work like any other market and entrenched players have an effective monopoly on their format. Facebook owns the major overall social space, Twitter owns the fast-paced social space, Reddit owns the niche "superforum" social space, and they have for over a decade each, and they're clearly going nowhere. Those sites have made several user-hostile changes over their lifetimes, yet the numbers continue to go up because the social space simply is not a free market. The major players are monopolies and the only way they'll die is if they make truly massive mistakes.
For the ignorant: this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that governments exist to regulate. The freedoms of individuals supersede the freedoms of larger entities when those freedoms conflict. Social sites must be prevented from censoring and banning speakers, even if the speech is considered "abusive."
ISPs are required by the DMCA to have a repeat infringer termination policy and to follow that policy. The exact subtext that lays out this requirement reads: "[for an ISP to be eligible for limited liability status]...it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers," I propose this as a layman's version of that policy:
"If a court of law issues multiple judgments (or multiple counts in a single judgment) against you that find you guilty of copyright infringement, and finds that those acts of copyright infringement were performed while directly using our services for access, your high-speed internet account with us will be terminated immediately. DMCA takedown notices are considered to be unproven allegations and will not be treated as proof of infringement without the previously mentioned court order being provided."
This appropriately balances the interests of the rightsholders and the alleged infringers while following the requirement set forth in the DMCA. A DMCA takedown notice has never constituted proof of infringement; they exist to have allegedly infringing content taken down quickly and a process exists by which the affected person can challenge the notice and force the rightsholders into court if they still want it taken down. The entire problem here is that DMCA takedown notices are being treated as having equal legal weight to a court judgment of copyright infringement when that's clearly not the case.
I wish someone would email this suggestion to the ISPs so they could implement it and make this stupid crap go away already. If the ISPs did this, rightsholders would be forced to support their allegations in court to disconnect alleged infringers rather than expecting their completely unproven and potentially baseless say-so to automatically result in a permanent disconnection.
I was working on PCs and customers started having problems at home that couldn't be replicated in the office. Turned out there were hard-coded DNS hijacks put in place by trash like Search Encrypt but they'd never show symptoms at the office because I'd NATed all 53/UDP traffic to localhost:53 which ran dnsmasq and called out to consistent non-hijacked servers. I had to remove our DNS rewrite rule so that similarly hijacked machine symptoms would start appearing and be spotted. Transparent DNS hijacks by ISPs are very much a thing. It'd be nice if they'd settle on a freaking DNS security standard and be done with it.
Any study that says eggs will kill you faster is pulling a big fat "correlation = causation" fallacy. My best guess is that the guys who died earlier and ate more eggs also ate a lot more biscuits and cereal and extra slices of toast with jelly, but hey now, let's not control for THAT shit, guys, we're ONLY interested in a headline. They even say in the damn study that they cobbled together piles of data from six different places that were collected starting from 1985, but I have no way of discovering how that data was collected or what it contained or what they controlled for because the actual study text is locked up behind a fucking paywall like so much science seems to be.
You're right, facts don't care about your feelings, including your wholly emotional fact-free responses and your willful ignorance of the facts that I've very clearly laid out multiple times. It's fine if you want to live in a fantasy world, just don't try to codify your fantasies into law.
They say "these sites are not properly zoned for commercial composting" but "composting" is ultimately nothing more than letting nature take its course. It happens absolutely everywhere: an organic thing hits the dirt, that thing gets consumed and literally becomes the freaking dirt. I didn't realize that the fundamental way things work on this planet required permission from a zoning board, nor that worms give a crap about the board's opinion of their diet. This whole mess is a good example of why being strongly libertarian (small L, not the party, the political philosophy) is the only correct way to be. Government needs to be small and out of the way, especially considering we're in the most innovative and rapidly changing time period in the history of humanity.
There is, no doubt about it. It's just that we're not seeing that in this case. There is also the possibility that the fewer hours get scheduled at less predictable or less ideal times which can limit the utility of the extra free time. If you want to get a second part-time job to supplement the income from the first job but you have no idea whether you'll be on morning, afternoon, or evening shift for any given day on any given weekly schedule, that job effectively stops you from getting another one. Less hours for more pay requires more strategic allocation of employee resources by the employer and that might mean moving them around in the weekly work schedule more often.
Yay, more free time to enjoy life. Oh yeah, along with a 10% pay cut. Losing $120 a month when you were already only making $1320 a month will definitely help you to enjoy all that extra time off.
It has been pointed out repeatedly and I have dismantled that suggestion every time it's come up in these discussions. The problem is that it's not as simple as "less hours at same pay = more free time, yay!" In this particular case, workers went from about 30 to about 20 hours per week. Glassdoor says the average wage is $11-$12 per hour for cashiers and "prepared foods" workers, so they're getting about a $3/hr nominal wage increase, but $11 * 30 = $330, $12 * 30 = $360, and $15 * 20 = $300. The lowest-paid cashiers lose the least, but that's still $30/wk or $120/mo, a net loss about 10% of their total pay. It's not the same pay with less hours, it's less pay with less hours. Hours don't necessarily adjust to maintain the same wages, they adjust to what the employer decides to adjust them to be.
Further complicating factors: your single mother will still have to find childcare and pay for it to go to that job, your student may have to deal with increased volatility in shifts, and both will be expected to work harder since they're being paid more per hour. They will have to deal with more stress because they're doing 30 hours of work in 20 hours of time. If the new schedule becomes more volatile due to stores having to allocate employee resources more strategically, there may be too many conflicts to do the productive things the worker would like to be able to do with their spare time. It can be difficult to find evening childcare. There are a lot of factors that go into this equation. It's a complex system and it has to be viewed as such.
Why are anons that use bullshit name-calling like "libertardians" so stupid that they can't come up with a single coherent logical response backed by facts and have to resort to name-calling to "win" arguments?
"Allowing a business to pay a full-time wage that is less than the living cost of the employee means that the government is subsidising that business to keep wage costs down." - Citation needed. Where did you get this "fact?" Oh, wait, it's not a fact, it's agenda-based rhetorical bullshit. "The government ends up paying the remainder of that persons living costs, in one way or another." - If that's true (again, citation needed) then two jobs at $9 an hour is a better way to lower that cost than trying to force one job to be a certain wage while pretending that work hours and/or employment counts never change in response. "Lack of a full living cost minimum wage is a distortion of free market economics" - da fuq? Lack of government interference in the free market is a distortion of the free market? Are you really this stupid?
Slashdot Mirror
Hot-swap capable drives on AHCI SATA ports seem to always default to "better performance." I only mentioned "not the system drive" because you can't change this setting for the system drive at all, only the drive write cache enable checkbox.
Default for what, plugged where, and was that device ever used on that computer previously? It's not as simple as "plugs into computer = shows the default setting" because the default differs based on the drive interface's "removable" status. SATA/eSATA devices will default to "Better Performance."
I hear you. I'm specifically addressing the DMCA and its requirements here, and it requires that a policy for disconnecting "repeat infringers" exist and be followed by the ISP. I don't think it matters whether people are actually infringing for the purpose of following that requirement, only what can be proven. An ISP has no business making a determination of repeat copyright infringement based on a third party's claims of such; deference to the court is the only ethical way to establish that, especially since internet access is a very important utility for basic societal participation in the modern world and cutting off access to that service should not be taken lightly.
They've been able to sue people arbitrarily anyway. You can sue a ham sandwich for mocking you if you want to; it's not going to go anywhere, but the clerk will accept the paperwork and you'll get assigned a hearing date. Contrary to popular belief, it's expensive to litigate, even if you're a big corporation, and litigation takes time. Frivolous litigation can make it exponentially more expensive when the sued party wins, so there has to be more due diligence than "oh hey, their IP showed up in a log file."
I'm not sure if you're responding to the correct comment. The actual default for removable drives has been Quick Removal since XP while the default for "non-removable" but possibly hot-swappable drives has always been Better Performance. This is how it works in practice, regardless of how it's documented by Microsoft to work.
The links either directly show the term "(default)" in the image of the setting OR give instructions that indicate the default is not the "Better Performance" one. For drives on non-internal interfaces, "Quick Removal" has been the default since Windows XP. For drives on internal interfaces with hot-swap capability, the default has always been "Better Performance." If you examine the images and/or read the article text, you will be able to infer that the default in all cases is "Quick Removal."
Also, here are image/article sources showing the same behavior I'm describing (Quick Removal as default) on
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8.x
Windows 10
I'm right because I've tested this with hundreds of drives across thousands of desktop and laptop computers since around the mid-2000s. The message you're talking about is a result of file locking, NOT the performance setting. Quick removal doesn't "fix" that because it's by design. When you remove a volume in use, all file handles become invalid and attempts to read or write return an error.
Also, if you switch a drive's performance setting, it remains that way on that computer until its entry in Device Manager is deleted.
Microsoft is wrong. I know because I've been checking this out on every single machine I've touched since I found out it was even an option. The "Safely Remove Hardware" icon always appears even if the policy is "Quick Removal" but every single USB device or memory card ALWAYS gets assigned "Quick Removal" by default, without fail, every single time I've ever tried it on every single computer I've plugged something into, regardless of OS. These are not business computers running the same image, they're mostly home and small business machines from a wildly diverse set of OS install sources.
EVERY SINGLE WINDOWS since XP defaults to "Quick Removal" for ALL removable drives, including every iteration of Windows 10. I have yet to see a single computer running XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, or any build of 10 where I plug in an SD card, USB flash drive, or USB hard drive that did NOT automatically default to "Quick Removal." I have ALWAYS, as in 100% of cases, had to manually switch the performance setting through Device Manager. Anyone who says that the default policy is different is flying directly in the face of every single computer I've ever plugged a USB or memory card storage medium into over the past 17-18 years, and that's literally thousands of machines.
The only exception is when a drive is not the system drive but is connected to an internal potentially hot-swappable interface such as an AHCI SATA port. Those get set to "Better Performance" by default because they're almost always not in a removable tray nor connected by eSATA, even though they're technically hot-swappable. Of course, that's not what this Slashdot post is talking about at all, so again...WHAT IS THIS POST EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!
If you are the new public square, you should be bound by the Constitution just like the government. The next major issue in politics will be the third-party loophole in the Constitution where "a private entity" can legally do something the government can't do, even if they do so for the government or are acting as a large digital public square yet having private-level control over what happens there. Huge social media sites should not be allowed to control the views expressed on their platforms; they are large enough to be equivalent to the government as far as what they have control over. If this is a problem then they can stop being the digital public square and go into something like fishmongering instead.
The "create your own platform" bullshit retort is clear and obvious bullshit. Social platforms require momentum and luck, neither of which can be had by "creating your own platform." Facebook overtook MySpace because MySpace was a cluttered clusterfuck mess of a site while Facebook was clean and organized and easy to use by comparison. You're not going to see another Facebook anytime soon. How popular are Diaspora, Voat, Gab, etc. again? Oh yeah, they're a tiny fraction of the market because the social space doesn't work like any other market and entrenched players have an effective monopoly on their format. Facebook owns the major overall social space, Twitter owns the fast-paced social space, Reddit owns the niche "superforum" social space, and they have for over a decade each, and they're clearly going nowhere. Those sites have made several user-hostile changes over their lifetimes, yet the numbers continue to go up because the social space simply is not a free market. The major players are monopolies and the only way they'll die is if they make truly massive mistakes.
For the ignorant: this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that governments exist to regulate. The freedoms of individuals supersede the freedoms of larger entities when those freedoms conflict. Social sites must be prevented from censoring and banning speakers, even if the speech is considered "abusive."
ISPs are required by the DMCA to have a repeat infringer termination policy and to follow that policy. The exact subtext that lays out this requirement reads: "[for an ISP to be eligible for limited liability status]...it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers," I propose this as a layman's version of that policy:
"If a court of law issues multiple judgments (or multiple counts in a single judgment) against you that find you guilty of copyright infringement, and finds that those acts of copyright infringement were performed while directly using our services for access, your high-speed internet account with us will be terminated immediately. DMCA takedown notices are considered to be unproven allegations and will not be treated as proof of infringement without the previously mentioned court order being provided."
This appropriately balances the interests of the rightsholders and the alleged infringers while following the requirement set forth in the DMCA. A DMCA takedown notice has never constituted proof of infringement; they exist to have allegedly infringing content taken down quickly and a process exists by which the affected person can challenge the notice and force the rightsholders into court if they still want it taken down. The entire problem here is that DMCA takedown notices are being treated as having equal legal weight to a court judgment of copyright infringement when that's clearly not the case.
I wish someone would email this suggestion to the ISPs so they could implement it and make this stupid crap go away already. If the ISPs did this, rightsholders would be forced to support their allegations in court to disconnect alleged infringers rather than expecting their completely unproven and potentially baseless say-so to automatically result in a permanent disconnection.
I was working on PCs and customers started having problems at home that couldn't be replicated in the office. Turned out there were hard-coded DNS hijacks put in place by trash like Search Encrypt but they'd never show symptoms at the office because I'd NATed all 53/UDP traffic to localhost:53 which ran dnsmasq and called out to consistent non-hijacked servers. I had to remove our DNS rewrite rule so that similarly hijacked machine symptoms would start appearing and be spotted. Transparent DNS hijacks by ISPs are very much a thing. It'd be nice if they'd settle on a freaking DNS security standard and be done with it.
Repeat after me: "dietary cholesterol has no statistically significant effect on serum cholesterol." Take your bullshit study and shove it. "Doctor" (scare quotes because he had a doctorate but was turbo full of shit) Ancel Keys could almost single-handedly be blamed for the abysmal state of the American diet today. All evidence presented since Ancel Keys's time show that eggs are one of the absolute best things you can possibly consume, especially the yolk. I'm so sick of this bullshit. Saturated fats are good for you, unsaturated fats are not so good for you, eggs are extremely good for you, red meat is extremely good for you, simple sugars and refined carbohydrates are the worst thing you can eat, carbs in general are only good for you in small, limited amounts, and low-fat foods have poor satiety which leads to overeating (ignoring the fact that many low-fat foods have added sugar to make up for the lost taste.)
Any study that says eggs will kill you faster is pulling a big fat "correlation = causation" fallacy. My best guess is that the guys who died earlier and ate more eggs also ate a lot more biscuits and cereal and extra slices of toast with jelly, but hey now, let's not control for THAT shit, guys, we're ONLY interested in a headline. They even say in the damn study that they cobbled together piles of data from six different places that were collected starting from 1985, but I have no way of discovering how that data was collected or what it contained or what they controlled for because the actual study text is locked up behind a fucking paywall like so much science seems to be.
You're right, facts don't care about your feelings, including your wholly emotional fact-free responses and your willful ignorance of the facts that I've very clearly laid out multiple times. It's fine if you want to live in a fantasy world, just don't try to codify your fantasies into law.
They say "these sites are not properly zoned for commercial composting" but "composting" is ultimately nothing more than letting nature take its course. It happens absolutely everywhere: an organic thing hits the dirt, that thing gets consumed and literally becomes the freaking dirt. I didn't realize that the fundamental way things work on this planet required permission from a zoning board, nor that worms give a crap about the board's opinion of their diet. This whole mess is a good example of why being strongly libertarian (small L, not the party, the political philosophy) is the only correct way to be. Government needs to be small and out of the way, especially considering we're in the most innovative and rapidly changing time period in the history of humanity.
Repeating yourself doesn't make your statements any more correct.
Sorry bro, my jam is this group called FAITH + 1. They really love Jesus.
God damn do I love Unicode.
There is, no doubt about it. It's just that we're not seeing that in this case. There is also the possibility that the fewer hours get scheduled at less predictable or less ideal times which can limit the utility of the extra free time. If you want to get a second part-time job to supplement the income from the first job but you have no idea whether you'll be on morning, afternoon, or evening shift for any given day on any given weekly schedule, that job effectively stops you from getting another one. Less hours for more pay requires more strategic allocation of employee resources by the employer and that might mean moving them around in the weekly work schedule more often.
[citation needed]
Yay, more free time to enjoy life. Oh yeah, along with a 10% pay cut. Losing $120 a month when you were already only making $1320 a month will definitely help you to enjoy all that extra time off.
It has been pointed out repeatedly and I have dismantled that suggestion every time it's come up in these discussions. The problem is that it's not as simple as "less hours at same pay = more free time, yay!" In this particular case, workers went from about 30 to about 20 hours per week. Glassdoor says the average wage is $11-$12 per hour for cashiers and "prepared foods" workers, so they're getting about a $3/hr nominal wage increase, but $11 * 30 = $330, $12 * 30 = $360, and $15 * 20 = $300. The lowest-paid cashiers lose the least, but that's still $30/wk or $120/mo, a net loss about 10% of their total pay. It's not the same pay with less hours, it's less pay with less hours. Hours don't necessarily adjust to maintain the same wages, they adjust to what the employer decides to adjust them to be.
Further complicating factors: your single mother will still have to find childcare and pay for it to go to that job, your student may have to deal with increased volatility in shifts, and both will be expected to work harder since they're being paid more per hour. They will have to deal with more stress because they're doing 30 hours of work in 20 hours of time. If the new schedule becomes more volatile due to stores having to allocate employee resources more strategically, there may be too many conflicts to do the productive things the worker would like to be able to do with their spare time. It can be difficult to find evening childcare. There are a lot of factors that go into this equation. It's a complex system and it has to be viewed as such.
Why are anons that use bullshit name-calling like "libertardians" so stupid that they can't come up with a single coherent logical response backed by facts and have to resort to name-calling to "win" arguments?
"Allowing a business to pay a full-time wage that is less than the living cost of the employee means that the government is subsidising that business to keep wage costs down." - Citation needed. Where did you get this "fact?" Oh, wait, it's not a fact, it's agenda-based rhetorical bullshit. "The government ends up paying the remainder of that persons living costs, in one way or another." - If that's true (again, citation needed) then two jobs at $9 an hour is a better way to lower that cost than trying to force one job to be a certain wage while pretending that work hours and/or employment counts never change in response. "Lack of a full living cost minimum wage is a distortion of free market economics" - da fuq? Lack of government interference in the free market is a distortion of the free market? Are you really this stupid?