I'd love to see this. It's a pretty neat technological achievement if it works. So yea, I say do it. Show the world what it's capable of so we can all see it. I think it would be pretty damn neat to see.
Then ban the shit out of it at the international level and force them to de-orbit their sats, so we don't have to ever see it again. Once was plenty.
A smart programmer would cache the copy and even IF the use yanked the USB out, the program that I wrote would know to warn that the data isn't completely copied and if they stuck it back in, it would pick up where it left off and copy the rest. Today's DVD players do something similar when you yank a DVD in the middle of play.
That's what I/we did way back when. But hey, I'm just a programmer and not an "engineer" or a "scientist". So, ignore what I say about some stupid issue that was solved 30+ years ago.
My bad.
Gee, if only Windows would throw up a prompt if you pull the drive out during a copy. Maybe title it "Interrupted Actions", explain that the copy was interrupted because the drive was removed, and give the user options like Try Again, Skip, or cancel. And if you put the drive back and click Try Again, it would continue the copy.
So what do you expect then, for MS to magically lock the USB drive into the port while the copy is happening? The setting they are making the default is the safest of the two options to use. In what way does this "shows that MS does not care about your data at all."??
Well then don't buy the disc-less console then. They won't stop selling physical media just yet. Though with sales of physical media already declining for consoles (and virtually dead on PC, with most physical copies moving to just a code in a box) that may not be that way forever. But you have consumers to really blame for that. They are the ones choosing digital convenience over physical ownership.
The term "Mid-life crisis" exists for a reason. People in the 40-65 range tend to start amassing expensive "hobbies" when they hit that magic mark where their kids are out of the house and they are at the peak of their earnings potential. Men in particular. Advertising to youth is mostly about building brand loyalty. Sure some things like clothing and entertainment are marketed specifically to them as they are the target buyers because youth like trendy stuff and those categories are kind of "in the moment", but it's mostly about getting into their heads so when they get to their peak they move from that Chevy econo-box to the Cadillac. Or they start buying those things they couldn't afford but wanted in their youth.
While I agree that illegal discrimination should be addressed, let me pose a hypothetical: If I own an apartment complex, and I chose to advertise it in the local business journal, which will no doubt be mostly white males who subscribe to it (but not the reason I chose it), is that illegal?
The intent isn't simply to get your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible.
I never said that. I said they spend money to target an audience that's harder to target due to their habits. The older people get, the more likely it is they will be exposed to more ads each night, the cheaper it is to advertise to them.
It's about getting your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible that are attached to disposable income.
Actually older demographics have more disposable income, not younger ones. This is why luxury items tend to be targeted to the middle aged crowd. 18-34 is so coveted because they are harder to get ads in front of and companies want to begin building their brands in those "new" consumer eyes. This is why, for example, beer companies target younger audiences. If you are 35, you probably already have a preferred brand. If you are a new drinker (let's pretend you're 21) you are still figuring that out. But to get those new drinkers, you have to get your banding and ads to them. That's harder to do since they don't sit at home watching TV from 6-10pm every night. So shows that attract them can command higher rates. Hell how do you think the CW stays in business? Their overall ratings are extremely low, but a lot of their shows skew younger than most other network shows. This allows for an opportunity for advertisers to target an audience that normally doesn't watch a lot of other broadcast network shows.
It's always been this way. Why do you think network ratings are based on age demographics? Companies spend more money to target younger audiences because guess what! Younger audiences watch less TV. It's to get ads in front of them so companies spend more money putting ads on shows that tend to attract younger audiences*. Older audiences watch more of it. At a certain point, they watch so much it's cheap and easy to reach their eyeballs.
Certain brands target certain ages, sexes, incomes, even races. Just because "the internet!" doesn't suddenly make this a new.
*Yes, yes, I know. No one under 50 watches network TV anymore, but this is how it has always worked and that's the point: it's not some new problem brought on by the face books.
Not to disagree with your overall premise (I do agree with it), but in this case this also effects some of those boxes from your step #2. So even following this advice you could end up in the same boat in this case.
If you use a TV with an OS made by an advertising company, can you really find it that surprising or audacious? People need to stop thinking of Google as a technology company and start thinking of them as what they really are: The world's biggest ad agency.
Yea, that's how we lost our last CDBSO. We originally called his position PLEASE and got sued by CBS Studios. He's currently serving life without parole in a studio cafeteria in Burbank.
Meet the CDBSO: Chief Data Breach Sacrificial Officer! Selected from the working peons, the CDBSO is catapulted from his labors in the basement IT room to the top floor with a plush closet and low 5 figure salary! Should a data breach occur, the CDBSO will lead the charge... sheet in a federal indictment.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hope you don't hold the same opinion about our weapons of mass destruction.
Worked pretty well so far. You cranky we haven't nuked anyone since WWII?
I'd love to see this. It's a pretty neat technological achievement if it works. So yea, I say do it. Show the world what it's capable of so we can all see it. I think it would be pretty damn neat to see.
Then ban the shit out of it at the international level and force them to de-orbit their sats, so we don't have to ever see it again. Once was plenty.
Default for a brand new USB flash drive plugged into a USB port.
Just checked on 1709: Default is Better Performance
You are wrong. I went back and checked, it's been the default since at least Windows XP.
No, programmers should be using system APIs, not making shit up on their own.
I plugged a USB stick in, started a big file copy, pulled it out. Now had I said Abort, Retry Fail....
You should both see someone about your faulty memories: https://www.pcworld.com/articl...
That screenshot is from Windows 7. It's also the default on XP as well.
A smart programmer would cache the copy and even IF the use yanked the USB out, the program that I wrote would know to warn that the data isn't completely copied and if they stuck it back in, it would pick up where it left off and copy the rest. Today's DVD players do something similar when you yank a DVD in the middle of play.
That's what I/we did way back when. But hey, I'm just a programmer and not an "engineer" or a "scientist". So, ignore what I say about some stupid issue that was solved 30+ years ago.
My bad.
Gee, if only Windows would throw up a prompt if you pull the drive out during a copy. Maybe title it "Interrupted Actions", explain that the copy was interrupted because the drive was removed, and give the user options like Try Again, Skip, or cancel. And if you put the drive back and click Try Again, it would continue the copy.
Beginning in Windows 10 version 1809, the default policy is Quick removal.
So MS at least thinks you are wrong.
So what do you expect then, for MS to magically lock the USB drive into the port while the copy is happening? The setting they are making the default is the safest of the two options to use. In what way does this "shows that MS does not care about your data at all."??
Well then don't buy the disc-less console then. They won't stop selling physical media just yet. Though with sales of physical media already declining for consoles (and virtually dead on PC, with most physical copies moving to just a code in a box) that may not be that way forever. But you have consumers to really blame for that. They are the ones choosing digital convenience over physical ownership.
Pretty sure you can get arrested for that these days.
The term "Mid-life crisis" exists for a reason. People in the 40-65 range tend to start amassing expensive "hobbies" when they hit that magic mark where their kids are out of the house and they are at the peak of their earnings potential. Men in particular. Advertising to youth is mostly about building brand loyalty. Sure some things like clothing and entertainment are marketed specifically to them as they are the target buyers because youth like trendy stuff and those categories are kind of "in the moment", but it's mostly about getting into their heads so when they get to their peak they move from that Chevy econo-box to the Cadillac. Or they start buying those things they couldn't afford but wanted in their youth.
While I agree that illegal discrimination should be addressed, let me pose a hypothetical: If I own an apartment complex, and I chose to advertise it in the local business journal, which will no doubt be mostly white males who subscribe to it (but not the reason I chose it), is that illegal?
The intent isn't simply to get your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible.
I never said that. I said they spend money to target an audience that's harder to target due to their habits. The older people get, the more likely it is they will be exposed to more ads each night, the cheaper it is to advertise to them.
It's about getting your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible that are attached to disposable income.
Actually older demographics have more disposable income, not younger ones. This is why luxury items tend to be targeted to the middle aged crowd. 18-34 is so coveted because they are harder to get ads in front of and companies want to begin building their brands in those "new" consumer eyes. This is why, for example, beer companies target younger audiences. If you are 35, you probably already have a preferred brand. If you are a new drinker (let's pretend you're 21) you are still figuring that out. But to get those new drinkers, you have to get your banding and ads to them. That's harder to do since they don't sit at home watching TV from 6-10pm every night. So shows that attract them can command higher rates. Hell how do you think the CW stays in business? Their overall ratings are extremely low, but a lot of their shows skew younger than most other network shows. This allows for an opportunity for advertisers to target an audience that normally doesn't watch a lot of other broadcast network shows.
It's always been this way. Why do you think network ratings are based on age demographics? Companies spend more money to target younger audiences because guess what! Younger audiences watch less TV. It's to get ads in front of them so companies spend more money putting ads on shows that tend to attract younger audiences*. Older audiences watch more of it. At a certain point, they watch so much it's cheap and easy to reach their eyeballs.
Certain brands target certain ages, sexes, incomes, even races. Just because "the internet!" doesn't suddenly make this a new.
*Yes, yes, I know. No one under 50 watches network TV anymore, but this is how it has always worked and that's the point: it's not some new problem brought on by the face books.
Not to disagree with your overall premise (I do agree with it), but in this case this also effects some of those boxes from your step #2. So even following this advice you could end up in the same boat in this case.
If you use a TV with an OS made by an advertising company, can you really find it that surprising or audacious? People need to stop thinking of Google as a technology company and start thinking of them as what they really are: The world's biggest ad agency.
Yea, that's how we lost our last CDBSO. We originally called his position PLEASE and got sued by CBS Studios. He's currently serving life without parole in a studio cafeteria in Burbank.
Meet the CDBSO: Chief Data Breach Sacrificial Officer! Selected from the working peons, the CDBSO is catapulted from his labors in the basement IT room to the top floor with a plush closet and low 5 figure salary! Should a data breach occur, the CDBSO will lead the charge... sheet in a federal indictment.
Are they also taking the money back from authors ? or compensating them for lost sales as very few knew this existed.
I'm sure they are just going to write off the $3.50 paid out to the author from the one person who bought that one book on sale that one time. ever.
Sure but if you actually try to use it on your lap you will have a 3rd degree pecker burn in about 3 minutes.
Unfortunately the University is cheap and prone to killing its own offspring with its greed.
I prefer my politicians disposable with build in obsolescence.