But then again they have been using depleted uranium rounds on the battlefield for years so It may just be considered acceptable now.
Depleted uranium is the waste left after something like 95% of the U-235 is removed from Uranium ore. It's not a "nuclear weapon" - the bulk of the nuclear weapon fuel has been removed. It is only about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium, which makes it a poor candidate for a radiological weapon, and is actually used for radiation SHIELDING in medical and industrial devices. (Natural uranium is not very radioactive - which is why there's so much of it around "geological time" after the formation of the Earth.) It's also used for things like counterweights, boat ballast and keels, and other civilian uses where something heavy-but-small is needed.
Biological issues with depleted uranium contamination seem to be primarily heavy metal toxicity (though effects of its low level of radioactivity aren't ruled out). It's used as a denser, and thus more effective, replacement for lead in bullets. Lead contamination is well known to be very toxic, and lead sticks around in the body substantially longer than uranium.
Then it wasn't collateral damage because we MEANT to kill civilians and destroy civil infrastructure because we believed that breaking the enemy's ability and will to fight would aid our war effort and shorten the war.
Some modern "terrorists" feel free to target civilians for a similar reason: In a country with a popular-election-driven governmental form (such as a republic, democracy, or some mix or variant) the whole population are (allegedly) the decision-makers. From the viewpoint of those who believe they are being oppressed by such a country, anyone with a vote, or in a position to influence a vote, is a decision-maker, sharing in responsibility for the government's actions.
(Of course many others could care less who they hurt. But it's easier for the leaders to organize them if they can assuage the consciences of those who have one, switching them into "righteous-wrath" mode.)
Just enumerating the possible keys, let alone apply them to see if something intelligible appears, with sufficiently advanced quantum computers, would take more than just the total resources of the Solar System.
Actually, the whole POINT of quantum computers is that "enumerating" them all only takes one pass - because the computation does them all simultaneously, with only the "right answer" surviving the wave function collapse when the computation is complete and you read the result.
It's non-quantum computers where a large key space maps into "the program is still running at the heat-death of the universe".
However, the algorithm of the AES-256 is complex enough that it would take a VERY advanced quantum computer to manipulate the qbits through the necessary transitions (without losing the result to noise). So I don't think we need to sweat that for a while. B-)
If you want to see an entire political organization lose their seats, refuse to sell compliant phones.
For even more fun, sell two models - with prominent consumer warning markings - which also pop up occasionally in the interface - on the backdoored NY models.
Just don't buy, order while in, or take delivery of, a phone there. Get your non-backdoored phone with all aspects of the transaction occurring out-of-state. Let "The Invisible Hand" slap them up alongside the head when it comes time to collect sales taxes. B-)
If they try make non-backdoored phones contraband (like drugs or untaxed cigarettes), THEN don't set foot there anymore.
(Of course not setting foot there - or, more importantly, spending any money there or with companies based there - will also help to get the message across. B-) )
Instead, CMS will reward health c.are providers for patient outcomes
Which is the only meaningful way to do it.
I was onboard with the changes until I hit that one. It is NOT the "only meaningful" - or even a "right" - way.
As with most things involving punishments for undesired behavior, such a system creates unintended consequences.
This one would reward doctors who only accept patients with mild illnesses or hypochondria and punish those who take on patients with severe illnesses. The result would be the sicker you are, the harder it would be to find someone to treat you.
Just as a similar rating system, punishing doctors for "overprescribing" painkillilng medications, has decimated the ranks of pain specialists and led to under-prescription, suffering, and a drastic rise in PTSD (which appears to be prevented by adequate opioid doses in the first week or so after a trauma), this bright idea will lead to increased suffering, disease, and death.
Representative John Carney says, "It's purely my intent to get a discussion going out there, asking people to be more respectful about what they put on social media."
A lot of things qualify as "speech". Passing a law restricting behavior is not one of them.
Legislators who pass laws to "send a message" or "start a conversation" are tyrannical and should be immediately recalled. (They're also using the wrong legislative mechanism. The correct one for "sending a message" is a non-binding resolution.)
We've had some incidents, including one in my community, and I'd hate for anyone to learn about the loss of a loved one through social media."
Tough. The First Amendment trumps feelings.
For myself, I'd rather find out about a loved one's death quickly, even if it's by a media report, than wait for hours while some brasshat hunts me down to notify me "gently".
That said, this is all in the realm of people being free to make choices, as opposed to being forced to get vaccines where your "choices" are to get a vaccine and fines/prison/bullet/etc.
I have no argument with that. B-)
I just wanted to be sure that the pro-immunization arguments were clearly stated, so people making their own decisions could make them intelligently.
Of COURSE immunizations can cause harm. They WORK by causing a LITTLE harm - in order to provoke the immune system to mobilize against the markers they carry and be ready to repel the REAL attack, when/if it occurs later. The trick is to get the cost-benefit ratio right. That's probability and statistics, which is difficult and counter-intuitive, even for mathematicians. It also may not adequately address individual variations.
The point is that, when people make decisions about immunization, they are not just affecting themselves and their kids. They are affecting many others around them. If TOO many refuse, it gives the authoritarians an excuse to force a one-size-force-fits-all solution on the whole population. So from both a health and a freedom perspective it may be wise for most to chose to take immunizations unless there is strong, particular, individual reason not to.
Upon seeing the description of function multi-versioning I thought of three distinct ways to use that for malware in as many minutes, and the ideas are still coming. (And I don't write malware, so someone in the field would probably think of more, faster,)
It's also a great way to make competitors' processors look bad: Detect their processors and fall back on the minimalist defaults or even hand them "grinched" code that does worse, or contains odd kickers. Or just don't support THEIR accelerations. Also: Don't support their implementations of YOUR accelerations.
Except there were a whole bunch of exceptions that pretty much makes it so that incandescents are legal except for the most common household cases. That companies wanted an excuse to stop making incandescents instead of selling them to the smaller markets where they are better is a different matter.
It's called "Economy of Scale".
Companies are generally in business to make money. (Actually, to act "in their shareholders' interest", which is USUALLY mostly to make money.) The executives are actually under a legal obligation "fiduciary duty" to try to do that.
Making a LOT of a manufactured item generally makes each of them cost less: Fixed costs are spread over more units. This makes it possible to buy pricey equipment that can make lots of units at still lower prices each, and so on.
Removing "the most common household cases" killed their cash cow. Also, the general public was under the impression that ALL incandescent lamps were being banned, and started switching to non-incandescent fixtures. (Some cities have also passed zoning laws requiring fixtures that won't accept incandescents for new construction as well - a short-sighted measure that is now impeding the switch to LEDs.) This further depressed the market for the remaining incandescent lines.
So it was now "in their investors' interest" to stop making the rest of the incandescent lamp line and find something more lucrative to do with the capital assets.
If you don't want manufacturers to stop making the others, don't make it unprofitable for them to keep making them.
I know OSRAM released a line of efficient dichroic halogen lamps in the late 90s.
Yep: 18 year old technology is new again - once you hang the "nanotech" label on it.
Another, somewhat more recent, and somewhat more clearly "nanotech" approach also made incandescent bulbs about as efficient as compact fluorescents: A nanotech-textured filament that acted as an antenna that selectively emitted in the visible range. (That was news about the time the "ban incandescents / put a limit on how inefficient lights can be" legislation was starting to come out.) Don't know what happened to it, though. (I'd guess that it was too expensive and/or the texturing didn't keep working correctly as the filament gradually evaporated with age.)
LEDs, though, have the potential to approach perfect efficiency at converting electricity to light. They're already ahead of essentially anything else suitable for home lighting. (At streetlight-to-athletic-field-or-larger sizes they haven't quite taken the efficiency lead, though they also have other advantages that is starting to make them the choice for street lamps.)
If you provide a host population for a virus it will mutate over time. It could mutate around the vaccine the others have taken and become generally infectious again.
Or mutate to jump a "species barrier" or other population immunity difference. (For instance: In principle measles might mutate to become able to infect some host other than humans. This would then provide both an additional host pool and strong selection pressure for further mutations, which in turn might change it enough that the current human immunizations are no longer effective.)
Sort of like some African animal (current guess - bats) serving as a reservoir for Ebola, which occasionally jumps to primates and humans.
Or like Microsoft software providing a malware agar big enough to generate a multibillion dollar criminal industry, which developed lucrative infrastructure and software payloads, the bulk of which payloads could then be ported to other operating systems once an exploit was found allowing an infection head to be generated for the new target.
The only measures I've heard being proposed is removing the personal belief exemption for allowing unvaccinated kids from attending public schools (while keeping the medical exemption), and forcing healthcare workers who don't want to get flu shots to wear masks.
I understand that many healthcare operations consider some immunizations a condition of employment for workers in contact with patients. Certain workers who refused immunizations would be subject to reassignment, demotion, and/or termination.
Not only would they be putting the patients at risk of disease - they'd be putting the institution and its officials and personnel at risk of lawsuits.
(On the other hand - someone who has recently had a live-virus vaccination must be kept separate from immune compromised patients until their own immune systems have cleared them of the virus.)
No, at least not all of them.... Some people are immuno-comprimised....
Also: Immunizations are not effective in 100% of those immunized.
If enough of the "herd" are immunized so the exponential function of infection is quickly decaying rather than growing, outbreaks are tiny and peter out very rapidly. So individuals are protected by the immunization program even if their personal immunization failed. If enough have failed immunizations or refuse for the exponential to be growing, those whose immunization failed are S.O.L. - and if the refusnicks are the reason for the k > 1 situation, it can be argued that, in an outbreak that becomes large, they're responsible for the illnesses of those whose immunization failed or who couldn't be immunized.
(What matters for the outbreak is not the percentage unimmunized - through failure or refusal - but just the absolute number of susceptible individuals and the degree of contact between them. Those who are successfully immunized are just scenery, not players.)
(Note "immunization" rather than "vaccination" in the above text. The former is the general case and the latter a particular subclass of it. The herd immunity argument applies to all types of immunizations for communicable diseases.)
(Confusion also seems to come from the touchpads on Lenovo laptops, which seem to be able to hit "Submit" on partially composed postings, while simultaneously erasing part of the text...)
You also ignore that Saudi Arabia has been exporting the most virulent form of insane Is lam for a long time.
No kidding.
Like since Muhammad, who had a lot to say about them. For instance:
"The confusion [fitna] comes from there (and he pointed to the East = Nejid in present-day Eastern Saudi Arabia)"
The problem is when they mandate that all future guns sold contain smart gun technology.... and they make sale/transfer of existing non-smart guns prohibited, including to heirs (ala NY SAFE Act).
Thus they keep those currently not armed, and future generations, from having effective arms.
Left-wing totalitarian programs ratchet up over the long term - as they have for more than a century.
I wonder how they would make my Mosin Nagant "smart"? Or the millions of other antique, collectable, and still perfectly functioning 19-20th century military weapons?
They'll do what they did to machine guns:
- Ban sales of new production to civilians. That limits the supply to what's currently out there (and registered), minus any that wear out, are lost, stolen, confiscated, rust out through poor storage, are damaged by fire,...
- Put draconian rules (disguised as tax paperwork) in the way of transferring existing instances to new owners (including inheritance). That binds them to their current owners, who won't live forever.
Sure you're OK with your current gun - until they find some way to hang a felony on you, or file a restraining order against you (either of which bars you from continuing to own or control that gun). But those who don't have one of their own when the rules go into effect, and future generations, are S.O.L. How do THEY exercise their rights?
Would a window menu item to the effect of "save window as default" do what you want?
Also: If the manager remembers the previous default and switches the menu item to something like "restore previous window defaults" or "undo save window as default" when the window is at the default location, accidentally hitting the menu item when something else was intended would also be easy.
(Same comments about being fine with me if you use it and this posting becoming prior art.)
I am not talking about me digging through menus to *set* the size/position, but the desktop remembering the size/position by itself when I adjust it ion the desktop.
Would a window menu item to the effect of "save window as default" do what you want?
This would let you:
- easily update the window default parameters without hunting for and tuning its defaults in some other menu.
- only do it when you WANT to - thus not annoying other users who don't want it to work this way (and also not causing you to lose the window because you happened to move it when you DIDN'T intend to make it live there later).
As for "switching platforms" (i.e. starting a new desktop on a display where the window would be offscreen), the window manager could open it somewhere it picked that was ON the smaller desktop, without updating the default, so it would be back where it should be the next time you're at your usual display.
(For the record: I just thought of this, and have no idea if anyone else has done this before. I'm perfectly happy for open source - or other - projects to use these ideas, if they happen to be new. So this posting can serve as "prior art" if somebody tries to patent it in the future.)
Slashdot Mirror
Using even ONE of these damn things would start World War 3.
So what are you going to do once ISIS buys a few half-Hiroshima sized bombs from their buddies in North Korea and sets them off in population centers?
But then again they have been using depleted uranium rounds on the battlefield for years so It may just be considered acceptable now.
Depleted uranium is the waste left after something like 95% of the U-235 is removed from Uranium ore. It's not a "nuclear weapon" - the bulk of the nuclear weapon fuel has been removed. It is only about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium, which makes it a poor candidate for a radiological weapon, and is actually used for radiation SHIELDING in medical and industrial devices. (Natural uranium is not very radioactive - which is why there's so much of it around "geological time" after the formation of the Earth.) It's also used for things like counterweights, boat ballast and keels, and other civilian uses where something heavy-but-small is needed.
Biological issues with depleted uranium contamination seem to be primarily heavy metal toxicity (though effects of its low level of radioactivity aren't ruled out). It's used as a denser, and thus more effective, replacement for lead in bullets. Lead contamination is well known to be very toxic, and lead sticks around in the body substantially longer than uranium.
Then it wasn't collateral damage because we MEANT to kill civilians and destroy civil infrastructure because we believed that breaking the enemy's ability and will to fight would aid our war effort and shorten the war.
Some modern "terrorists" feel free to target civilians for a similar reason: In a country with a popular-election-driven governmental form (such as a republic, democracy, or some mix or variant) the whole population are (allegedly) the decision-makers. From the viewpoint of those who believe they are being oppressed by such a country, anyone with a vote, or in a position to influence a vote, is a decision-maker, sharing in responsibility for the government's actions.
(Of course many others could care less who they hurt. But it's easier for the leaders to organize them if they can assuage the consciences of those who have one, switching them into "righteous-wrath" mode.)
Just enumerating the possible keys, let alone apply them to see if something intelligible appears, with sufficiently advanced quantum computers, would take more than just the total resources of the Solar System.
Actually, the whole POINT of quantum computers is that "enumerating" them all only takes one pass - because the computation does them all simultaneously, with only the "right answer" surviving the wave function collapse when the computation is complete and you read the result.
It's non-quantum computers where a large key space maps into "the program is still running at the heat-death of the universe".
However, the algorithm of the AES-256 is complex enough that it would take a VERY advanced quantum computer to manipulate the qbits through the necessary transitions (without losing the result to noise). So I don't think we need to sweat that for a while. B-)
If you want to see an entire political organization lose their seats, refuse to sell compliant phones.
For even more fun, sell two models - with prominent consumer warning markings - which also pop up occasionally in the interface - on the backdoored NY models.
If this passes, I'll never enter NY state again
Just don't buy, order while in, or take delivery of, a phone there. Get your non-backdoored phone with all aspects of the transaction occurring out-of-state. Let "The Invisible Hand" slap them up alongside the head when it comes time to collect sales taxes. B-)
If they try make non-backdoored phones contraband (like drugs or untaxed cigarettes), THEN don't set foot there anymore.
(Of course not setting foot there - or, more importantly, spending any money there or with companies based there - will also help to get the message across. B-) )
I was onboard with the changes until I hit that one. It is NOT the "only meaningful" - or even a "right" - way.
As with most things involving punishments for undesired behavior, such a system creates unintended consequences.
This one would reward doctors who only accept patients with mild illnesses or hypochondria and punish those who take on patients with severe illnesses. The result would be the sicker you are, the harder it would be to find someone to treat you.
Just as a similar rating system, punishing doctors for "overprescribing" painkillilng medications, has decimated the ranks of pain specialists and led to under-prescription, suffering, and a drastic rise in PTSD (which appears to be prevented by adequate opioid doses in the first week or so after a trauma), this bright idea will lead to increased suffering, disease, and death.
I THINK the government had the TLA first. (Like before the passage of Medicaid, when there WAS only one M in the acronym.)
Representative John Carney says, "It's purely my intent to get a discussion going out there, asking people to be more respectful about what they put on social media."
A lot of things qualify as "speech". Passing a law restricting behavior is not one of them.
Legislators who pass laws to "send a message" or "start a conversation" are tyrannical and should be immediately recalled. (They're also using the wrong legislative mechanism. The correct one for "sending a message" is a non-binding resolution.)
We've had some incidents, including one in my community, and I'd hate for anyone to learn about the loss of a loved one through social media."
Tough. The First Amendment trumps feelings.
For myself, I'd rather find out about a loved one's death quickly, even if it's by a media report, than wait for hours while some brasshat hunts me down to notify me "gently".
That said, this is all in the realm of people being free to make choices, as opposed to being forced to get vaccines where your "choices" are to get a vaccine and fines/prison/bullet/etc.
I have no argument with that. B-)
I just wanted to be sure that the pro-immunization arguments were clearly stated, so people making their own decisions could make them intelligently.
Of COURSE immunizations can cause harm. They WORK by causing a LITTLE harm - in order to provoke the immune system to mobilize against the markers they carry and be ready to repel the REAL attack, when/if it occurs later. The trick is to get the cost-benefit ratio right. That's probability and statistics, which is difficult and counter-intuitive, even for mathematicians. It also may not adequately address individual variations.
The point is that, when people make decisions about immunization, they are not just affecting themselves and their kids. They are affecting many others around them. If TOO many refuse, it gives the authoritarians an excuse to force a one-size-force-fits-all solution on the whole population. So from both a health and a freedom perspective it may be wise for most to chose to take immunizations unless there is strong, particular, individual reason not to.
Upon seeing the description of function multi-versioning I thought of three distinct ways to use that for malware in as many minutes, and the ideas are still coming. (And I don't write malware, so someone in the field would probably think of more, faster,)
It's also a great way to make competitors' processors look bad: Detect their processors and fall back on the minimalist defaults or even hand them "grinched" code that does worse, or contains odd kickers. Or just don't support THEIR accelerations. Also: Don't support their implementations of YOUR accelerations.
Except there were a whole bunch of exceptions that pretty much makes it so that incandescents are legal except for the most common household cases. That companies wanted an excuse to stop making incandescents instead of selling them to the smaller markets where they are better is a different matter.
It's called "Economy of Scale".
Companies are generally in business to make money. (Actually, to act "in their shareholders' interest", which is USUALLY mostly to make money.) The executives are actually under a legal obligation "fiduciary duty" to try to do that.
Making a LOT of a manufactured item generally makes each of them cost less: Fixed costs are spread over more units. This makes it possible to buy pricey equipment that can make lots of units at still lower prices each, and so on.
Removing "the most common household cases" killed their cash cow. Also, the general public was under the impression that ALL incandescent lamps were being banned, and started switching to non-incandescent fixtures. (Some cities have also passed zoning laws requiring fixtures that won't accept incandescents for new construction as well - a short-sighted measure that is now impeding the switch to LEDs.) This further depressed the market for the remaining incandescent lines.
So it was now "in their investors' interest" to stop making the rest of the incandescent lamp line and find something more lucrative to do with the capital assets.
If you don't want manufacturers to stop making the others, don't make it unprofitable for them to keep making them.
I know OSRAM released a line of efficient dichroic halogen lamps in the late 90s.
Yep: 18 year old technology is new again - once you hang the "nanotech" label on it.
Another, somewhat more recent, and somewhat more clearly "nanotech" approach also made incandescent bulbs about as efficient as compact fluorescents: A nanotech-textured filament that acted as an antenna that selectively emitted in the visible range. (That was news about the time the "ban incandescents / put a limit on how inefficient lights can be" legislation was starting to come out.) Don't know what happened to it, though. (I'd guess that it was too expensive and/or the texturing didn't keep working correctly as the filament gradually evaporated with age.)
LEDs, though, have the potential to approach perfect efficiency at converting electricity to light. They're already ahead of essentially anything else suitable for home lighting. (At streetlight-to-athletic-field-or-larger sizes they haven't quite taken the efficiency lead, though they also have other advantages that is starting to make them the choice for street lamps.)
not news for nerds.. ... DHI get a clue
My nerd credentials are impeccable. I say this is "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters".
If you provide a host population for a virus it will mutate over time. It could mutate around the vaccine the others have taken and become generally infectious again.
Or mutate to jump a "species barrier" or other population immunity difference. (For instance: In principle measles might mutate to become able to infect some host other than humans. This would then provide both an additional host pool and strong selection pressure for further mutations, which in turn might change it enough that the current human immunizations are no longer effective.)
Sort of like some African animal (current guess - bats) serving as a reservoir for Ebola, which occasionally jumps to primates and humans.
Or like Microsoft software providing a malware agar big enough to generate a multibillion dollar criminal industry, which developed lucrative infrastructure and software payloads, the bulk of which payloads could then be ported to other operating systems once an exploit was found allowing an infection head to be generated for the new target.
The only measures I've heard being proposed is removing the personal belief exemption for allowing unvaccinated kids from attending public schools (while keeping the medical exemption), and forcing healthcare workers who don't want to get flu shots to wear masks.
I understand that many healthcare operations consider some immunizations a condition of employment for workers in contact with patients. Certain workers who refused immunizations would be subject to reassignment, demotion, and/or termination.
Not only would they be putting the patients at risk of disease - they'd be putting the institution and its officials and personnel at risk of lawsuits.
(On the other hand - someone who has recently had a live-virus vaccination must be kept separate from immune compromised patients until their own immune systems have cleared them of the virus.)
Also: Immunizations are not effective in 100% of those immunized.
If enough of the "herd" are immunized so the exponential function of infection is quickly decaying rather than growing, outbreaks are tiny and peter out very rapidly. So individuals are protected by the immunization program even if their personal immunization failed. If enough have failed immunizations or refuse for the exponential to be growing, those whose immunization failed are S.O.L. - and if the refusnicks are the reason for the k > 1 situation, it can be argued that, in an outbreak that becomes large, they're responsible for the illnesses of those whose immunization failed or who couldn't be immunized.
(What matters for the outbreak is not the percentage unimmunized - through failure or refusal - but just the absolute number of susceptible individuals and the degree of contact between them. Those who are successfully immunized are just scenery, not players.)
(Note "immunization" rather than "vaccination" in the above text. The former is the general case and the latter a particular subclass of it. The herd immunity argument applies to all types of immunizations for communicable diseases.)
(Confusion also seems to come from the touchpads on Lenovo laptops, which seem to be able to hit "Submit" on partially composed postings, while simultaneously erasing part of the text...)
You also ignore that Saudi Arabia has been exporting the most virulent form of insane Is
lam for a long time.
No kidding.
Like since Muhammad, who had a lot to say about them. For instance:
"The confusion [fitna] comes from there (and he pointed to the East = Nejid in present-day Eastern Saudi Arabia)"
You also ignore that Saudi Arabia has been exporting the most virulent form of insane Is
lam for a long time.
No kidding.
Like since Muhammad, who had a lot to say about them. For instance:
"The confusion [fitna] comes from there. (and he pointed to the East = Nejid in present
The problem is when they mandate that all future guns sold contain smart gun technology.... and they make sale/transfer of existing non-smart guns prohibited, including to heirs (ala NY SAFE Act).
Thus they keep those currently not armed, and future generations, from having effective arms.
Left-wing totalitarian programs ratchet up over the long term - as they have for more than a century.
I wonder how they would make my Mosin Nagant "smart"? Or the millions of other antique, collectable, and still perfectly functioning 19-20th century military weapons?
They'll do what they did to machine guns: ...
- Ban sales of new production to civilians. That limits the supply to what's currently out there (and registered), minus any that wear out, are lost, stolen, confiscated, rust out through poor storage, are damaged by fire,
- Put draconian rules (disguised as tax paperwork) in the way of transferring existing instances to new owners (including inheritance). That binds them to their current owners, who won't live forever.
Sure you're OK with your current gun - until they find some way to hang a felony on you, or file a restraining order against you (either of which bars you from continuing to own or control that gun). But those who don't have one of their own when the rules go into effect, and future generations, are S.O.L. How do THEY exercise their rights?
That defect wasn't due to a computer. It was a problem with the ignition switch itself.
And the corresponding defect in a "smart gun" would be in the switch that provides battery power to the computer when you're about to fire.
No such switch? What happens when the battery runs down?
- Gun won't fire? Die.
- Gun will fire? Pull the battery to defeat the "smart gun" system.
accidentally hitting the menu item when something else was intended would also be easy.
UNDOING accidentally hitting the menu item when something else was intended would also be easy. B-b
Would a window menu item to the effect of "save window as default" do what you want?
Also: If the manager remembers the previous default and switches the menu item to something like "restore previous window defaults" or "undo save window as default" when the window is at the default location, accidentally hitting the menu item when something else was intended would also be easy.
(Same comments about being fine with me if you use it and this posting becoming prior art.)
I am not talking about me digging through menus to *set* the size/position, but the desktop remembering the size/position by itself when I adjust it ion the desktop.
Would a window menu item to the effect of "save window as default" do what you want?
This would let you:
- easily update the window default parameters without hunting for and tuning its defaults in some other menu.
- only do it when you WANT to - thus not annoying other users who don't want it to work this way (and also not causing you to lose the window because you happened to move it when you DIDN'T intend to make it live there later).
As for "switching platforms" (i.e. starting a new desktop on a display where the window would be offscreen), the window manager could open it somewhere it picked that was ON the smaller desktop, without updating the default, so it would be back where it should be the next time you're at your usual display.
(For the record: I just thought of this, and have no idea if anyone else has done this before. I'm perfectly happy for open source - or other - projects to use these ideas, if they happen to be new. So this posting can serve as "prior art" if somebody tries to patent it in the future.)