Why is the parent moderated funny? It's not funny, it's insightful and explains that the whole stunt it's not aimed against the fans. Selling a blank CD is quite different from selling a blank CD-R.
I replied to the wrong comment so please consider the part about 'only you - with a pristing virtual XP machine' in a more general sense rather than being directed at anyone. The error is regretted.
deltree hasn't been in Windows since Win 98, grandpa.
Cool, not only is the command prompt and everything done in it the most painful experience ever, it changes over time too. I expect your respondents have inadvertently come into posession of DELTREE rather than deliberately due to other software they use installing it as they easy way out of rewriting whatever batch scripts might require it. Because you've got to admit, taking out such an entrenched common command is a stupid, stupid thing to do. The GP isn't the first I've seen refer to DELTREE lately, believe me. While the behaviour of del/deltree are indeed braindead (hell, in the command prompt it's obligatory), it's become entrenched, and it looks to me like it's staying since probably only you - with your pristine copy of XP in a VM off the network - seem to lack a copy of it.
And yet we're still stuck with a hangover from the pre-subdirectories era, and that is a list of names that can not be used in any directory, probably ever, including but not limited to, 'con', 'nul', 'par'. Because it's pretty obvious nobody in their right minds (not even my flatmate, Conrad, or his dad, Peter Alan Ramsey) would ever want to use those names in a filesystem, right? And what for? All so that our ancestors could do funky things like redirect output to printers. Along come subdirectories, along with an instance of every one of those 'devices' in every single subdirectory. I mean, how convenient, having a copy of my printer(s), right there, no matter where I go. All at the cost of having to special-case all of these filenames in a program that could potentially create any (otherwise reasonable) filename.
Gee, I actually thought it was funny. Now, maybe I'm just an idiot that's easily amused, but you sir have problems that could make just about anybody feel better about themselves.
Actually, the more I think about it, I was probably not entirely joking about the "problem solved" bit. Protection from reverse engineering may well the primary reason for adopting a system as provably shoddy and needlessly complicated as that for such a simple task.
Good luck getting the source code for that one, or analyzing it for bugs
Problem solved then!
But seriously now, WTF is with this craze of using Windows for systems that clearly do not need
any form of multitasking
process/user account separation
graphical widget library routines
any more problems than they've already got.
Anyone who thinks this sort of thing is a great idea should be forced to use a Windows-powered mobile phone so they can see first hand just how much the 'technology' helps there.
If they could manipulate the window switch then couldn't they just unlock the door anyway? (in my car it seems no harder to operate the unlocker than the window switch). Sorry, I don't buy it. As for up, but not down? That's sounds like a nasty and very undesirable malfunction to me, and I can't imagine any manufacturer would employ this as a standard mode of operation from the factory.
I'm not in the habit of verifying ordinary HDD writes (on the assumption that's all taken care of), shouldn't a disk behind a USB storage layer be similarly be verified?
I think it would be unwise for him to give commentary willy-nilly on every law story on/. I wish people would stop suggesting he might pop into a thread and deliver the bottom line for us all - his contributions here are very valuable, but I'm sure he enjoys being the "slashdot lawyer" every but as much as we enjoy being the family computer guy.
Well, I can't give you a Wiki style citation, but once upon a time the kernel included the warning (google it) "USB Mass Storage data integrity not assured" (not wanting to put too fine a point on it, I mean it's only data integrity we're talking here). A grep ran on the lastest tree a few minutes ago suggests it's been taken out, but I've a feeling it's only the warning that's gone. I've been bitten more than enough times by USB mass storage in Linux.
I've always wondered why the windows can't normally be wound even when the key is off. I just can't see why you'd want to prevent that, surely if an occupant wants a window to move that should be able to happen regardless of the 'mode' of the car, any ideas why?
Yeah, while that was the official story, it doesn't seem at all credible. We'll (probably) never know for sure, and therefore I'm not saying you're wrong, but lacking evidence either way it's reasonable to assume bad faith on Microsoft's part.
I once got a text from a friend telling me where to pick him up mid-city to drop him off at the airport. Thing is, at the time he was already in my car, and we were halfway to the airport. This is Auckland, New Zealand, so that's a fucking long time.
What, you wanted all eight bits of those octets? The top two bits are the expensive ones, we'll have to charge you 80c/SMS for that.
Regards, Your Carrier
Slashdot Mirror
You must be a hoot at parties!
I replied to the wrong comment so please consider the part about 'only you - with a pristing virtual XP machine' in a more general sense rather than being directed at anyone. The error is regretted.
Cool, not only is the command prompt and everything done in it the most painful experience ever, it changes over time too. I expect your respondents have inadvertently come into posession of DELTREE rather than deliberately due to other software they use installing it as they easy way out of rewriting whatever batch scripts might require it. Because you've got to admit, taking out such an entrenched common command is a stupid, stupid thing to do. The GP isn't the first I've seen refer to DELTREE lately, believe me. While the behaviour of del/deltree are indeed braindead (hell, in the command prompt it's obligatory), it's become entrenched, and it looks to me like it's staying since probably only you - with your pristine copy of XP in a VM off the network - seem to lack a copy of it.
And yet we're still stuck with a hangover from the pre-subdirectories era, and that is a list of names that can not be used in any directory, probably ever, including but not limited to, 'con', 'nul', 'par'. Because it's pretty obvious nobody in their right minds (not even my flatmate, Conrad, or his dad, Peter Alan Ramsey) would ever want to use those names in a filesystem, right? And what for? All so that our ancestors could do funky things like redirect output to printers. Along come subdirectories, along with an instance of every one of those 'devices' in every single subdirectory. I mean, how convenient, having a copy of my printer(s), right there, no matter where I go. All at the cost of having to special-case all of these filenames in a program that could potentially create any (otherwise reasonable) filename.
Gee, I actually thought it was funny. Now, maybe I'm just an idiot that's easily amused, but you sir have problems that could make just about anybody feel better about themselves.
Actually, the more I think about it, I was probably not entirely joking about the "problem solved" bit. Protection from reverse engineering may well the primary reason for adopting a system as provably shoddy and needlessly complicated as that for such a simple task.
Problem solved then!
But seriously now, WTF is with this craze of using Windows for systems that clearly do not need
Anyone who thinks this sort of thing is a great idea should be forced to use a Windows-powered mobile phone so they can see first hand just how much the 'technology' helps there.
If they could manipulate the window switch then couldn't they just unlock the door anyway? (in my car it seems no harder to operate the unlocker than the window switch). Sorry, I don't buy it. As for up, but not down? That's sounds like a nasty and very undesirable malfunction to me, and I can't imagine any manufacturer would employ this as a standard mode of operation from the factory.
I'm not in the habit of verifying ordinary HDD writes (on the assumption that's all taken care of), shouldn't a disk behind a USB storage layer be similarly be verified?
Don't remind me about PDFs.
I think it would be unwise for him to give commentary willy-nilly on every law story on /. I wish people would stop suggesting he might pop into a thread and deliver the bottom line for us all - his contributions here are very valuable, but I'm sure he enjoys being the "slashdot lawyer" every but as much as we enjoy being the family computer guy.
Well, I can't give you a Wiki style citation, but once upon a time the kernel included the warning (google it) "USB Mass Storage data integrity not assured" (not wanting to put too fine a point on it, I mean it's only data integrity we're talking here). A grep ran on the lastest tree a few minutes ago suggests it's been taken out, but I've a feeling it's only the warning that's gone. I've been bitten more than enough times by USB mass storage in Linux.
I've always wondered why the windows can't normally be wound even when the key is off. I just can't see why you'd want to prevent that, surely if an occupant wants a window to move that should be able to happen regardless of the 'mode' of the car, any ideas why?
And I've got 1997 Nissan Primera with dead-pixels.
.pif, and how could you? .dll, since their default action modifies the system.
Hasn't even generation of the preview in the past been risky, with PNG and JPEG library exploits?
Yeah, while that was the official story, it doesn't seem at all credible. We'll (probably) never know for sure, and therefore I'm not saying you're wrong, but lacking evidence either way it's reasonable to assume bad faith on Microsoft's part.
... which is why there are approximately infinity different 'versions' of a particular song / movie on the p2p networks, I guess..
Yes, apparently it is. A dollar is a dollar, PHP4 or 5.
I once got a text from a friend telling me where to pick him up mid-city to drop him off at the airport. Thing is, at the time he was already in my car, and we were halfway to the airport. This is Auckland, New Zealand, so that's a fucking long time.
Gulp. Botched link. I even used preview, and I'm into my third cup of coffee. No excuses.
Or even be the cell carrier themselves...? *cough*vodafone.co.nz*cough*
What, you wanted all eight bits of those octets? The top two bits are the expensive ones, we'll have to charge you 80c/SMS for that.
/shuffles off to check baby in oven...
Regards, Your Carrier
640 deci-Kanji ought to be enough for anybody.
Wow, what an utterly intriguing set of priorities!