I am glad I do not own an internet cafe in Malaysia!!!
So am I. In my case, I'd have closed the doors permanently the moment the law went into effect. Then I'd have sold what was left to whoever was foolish enough to want it and gone into a different line of work.
The only problem with that is the fallout. Considering that this was probably done from an urban location, you really need something that can take it out with surgical precision and minimal side effects: OADS should be just the thing he needs.
If you want different removeable disks to be mounted in different places, it's even easier. Just list each disk (identified by UUID) in/etc/fstab, with the proper mountpoint and include auto in the options. That way, when you plug it in, the system knows exactly where it goes.
200+ years? Try 3000+ years. Mankind has been selectively breeding plants and animals for at least that long, even though we've only recently started learning why it works.
Im going to go out on a limb and say you have no idea what youre talking about-- primarily because you seem to think that Windows Defender is non-privileged. It would be a pretty sorry anti-malware / virus software that ran in user-mode.
Not much of a limb, considering that I stated that I no longer use Windows.
Basically: yes, it's Windows 8's fault that this happens, but it's not Microsoft trying to screw you over like the headline makes out.
No, it's Microsoft being stupid and ignoring its own security. If a non-privileged program is permitted to ignore the fact that a file is set to be Read-Only, you have absolutely no protection against malicious code changing anything it wants. All it has to do is infect Windows Defender and it can do anything it wants. If I were still a Windows user, I'd be very reluctant to trust Windows 8 at this point because of this obvious lack of common sense in how it handles this.
Or you can try actually learning the new system - it really is better.
What you mean is, "It's better for me." I want to be able to put my panel where I want it, not where the devs want it and I don't think I should have to install a third-party extension to do that. I don't want to have to use gestures to get to a list of applications, I want to use both icons and menus. I want to be the one who decides how many workspaces I have, and what programs appear on which. AFAIK, none of those things are possible in Gnome 3, which is why I now use Xfce, where they are. I might add that after a year of fighting with Ubuntu's Unity DE, which is pretty much a clone of Gnome 3, my sister gave up on it and now uses Xfce as well.
And that will work fine, right up until some dev changes something and breaks the extensions. And when the users complain, the devs will say, "We don't care. We warned you that we weren't going to make any effort not to break extensions, and we meant it."
I spent almost eight years in a call center once, and never understood why almost all of the junior techs maximized everything. I don't know how geeks work today, as I'm retired, but back when I was in the trenches, it was fairly rare to see somebody who didn't maximize everything. YMMV, and clearly does.
Well, most users rarely have more than one or two apps running at the same time anyway. Also those who use more generally have all of them maximized so that for all practical purposes they might as well only have one of them open. Considering how few people ever even try to multitask, what difference does it make if Windows 8 isn't good at it. (Assuming, of course, that it isn't. I only use Linux, so I've no idea how good Windows 8 is or isn't.)
The costs are too exorbitant today, but fusion should change that.
Just be patient. Physicists say that we'll have fusion working in about twenty years. Of course, you have to understand that they've been saying the same thing for at least forty years that I can remember.
I've helped run polls many times, and I've never seen waiting lines that long. Once, there was a line of last-minute voters as we came up to closing time. As head of the precinct, I assured the voters that the polls would not close until everybody who got in line before closing time had voted, because that's the law. I don't think that we closed more than five minutes late, and that was probably the longest line I've ever seen at a poll.
What you wrote about poll watchers sounds good, but that's not how it works, at least, not in California. I know, because I helped run various polls in Los Angeles for over a decade. The only people who may challenge a person's right to vote are the people running the poll. A poll watcher (or somebody waiting their turn to vote) has the right to object to somebody who they don't think should be allowed to vote, but only a part of the precinct's staff can make a formal challenge.
Once, I remember allowing a man to use a provisional ballot to quiet him down, although I knew it wouldn't be accepted. He had told me already that he'd moved out of the precinct over six months ago, never bothered to re-register and was insisting that he be allowed to vote. Sorry, but he'd had ample time to re-register and the law says that he can only vote in his old precinct if he moved after registration closed. I let him vote, sealed the ballot in a provisional envelope and wrote the circumstances on the back. I'd bet money on long odds that the ballot ended up being shredded unopened.
They don't have the kind of scientific validity they have in his robot story universe, where people simply cannot build robots that violate the laws.
It wasn't that they couldn't build robots that didn't obey the three laws, they wouldn't. In fact, there's a story in which the problem is to find a robot made with a modified form of the first law: "A robot shall not harm a human being" for reasons that seemed good at the time.
If there were a Microsoft Appreciation Day, I'm sure it would have quite a few corporate sponsors. All of the anti-virus, anti-malware, third-party firewall vendors would be happy to sponsor it along with all of the other companies who's business model depends on patching up holes and vulnerabilities in various versions of Windows. After all, if it weren't for Microsoft, they wouldn't be in business.
(I don't like the term lying, since I do not believe that people know when they are lying for the most part.)
But if they don't know that what they're saying is a lie, it isn't one. Lying is when somebody says something that the know is untrue. Their statement isn't true, but it's not a lie if they honestly think it's true.
So sure, she is telling the truth, but does it matter if the fact she is working from is true if her suggested solution isn't testable?
Yes. It does matter, quite a bit. It shows that the problem she's talking about is real; she's not just making up an imaginary problem to get people worked up. Her suggested solution may not be testable, or even possible (I don't even know what her suggestion is, so I can't guess.) but at least she's trying to solve a real-world problem.
There are many games where the room textures are covered in buttons, screens and interesting things. However, the only thing on the entire level that you actually interact with will be a single lever.
Yes! I used to love that weird old game Redneck Rampage. There were a surprising number of objects that you could damage as you went past. Of course, if you hit a sign with your tire iron, you'd see buckshot holes in it, but that just added to the oddball charm of the game. I'm also fond of Joint Operations, and on some of the maps you can use satchel charges to blow up trees and underbrush, making it harder for your enemies to hide.
I am neither a bigot nor a liar and calling me a hypocritical jackass fucktard doesn't make me one. All it does is demonstrate how eager you are to insult random strangers simply because they don't agree with you.
Now, earlier in this "discussion," you called yourself among other things a libertarian. If you're like most libertarians I've met, you have a great belief in the marketplace, so let's see how the marketplace really acts. Let's take two groups of immigrants from a country that doesn't use English. (To avoid using a real country, I'll use Elbonia.) Both groups start out living with or near other Elbonians because they know how to communicate with them. One of the groups learns English, experiments with various new foods and gets to know people from other countries, including those who were born and raised here. The other group insists on remaining as Elbonian as possible, and even objects to allowing their children to learn English. Which group will be successful, and which will remain poor? What will the marketplace do with them? Enquiiring minds want to know!
Typical Liberal: if all else fails, try argumentum ad hominem and mark your opponent as a Foe.
I think that the problem here is that you're thinking about how things would work in a perfect world and I'm more interested in how things work in reality. BTW, I'm not a Conservative; I'm a moderate and a realist.
Having a common language is a good thing, but the problem is that you are apparently basing your opinion on what it should be in a manner designed to push your favorite, not based on practicality.
You're remarkably good at reading between the lines and finding things to object to that I never said, or even intended to imply. I don't care what language anybody speaks at home or is most comfortable with. I do feel, however, that anybody who lives in a country and refuses to learn the common tongue is giving themselves an unneeded handicap. You can dance around that all you want, and tell me how you think things should be, but unlike you, I'm more interested in looking at how things are and the fact is that if you live in America, you either learn English or you're relegated to the outskirts of society and that's not going to change unless you can change human nature.
Slashdot Mirror
I am glad I do not own an internet cafe in Malaysia!!!
So am I. In my case, I'd have closed the doors permanently the moment the law went into effect. Then I'd have sold what was left to whoever was foolish enough to want it and gone into a different line of work.
The only problem with that is the fallout. Considering that this was probably done from an urban location, you really need something that can take it out with surgical precision and minimal side effects: OADS should be just the thing he needs.
If you want different removeable disks to be mounted in different places, it's even easier. Just list each disk (identified by UUID) in /etc/fstab, with the proper mountpoint and include auto in the options. That way, when you plug it in, the system knows exactly where it goes.
How do you feel about such things as beefalo, a fertile crossbread between cattle and bison?
Where does 200+ years of cross breeding come in?
200+ years? Try 3000+ years. Mankind has been selectively breeding plants and animals for at least that long, even though we've only recently started learning why it works.
Im going to go out on a limb and say you have no idea what youre talking about-- primarily because you seem to think that Windows Defender is non-privileged. It would be a pretty sorry anti-malware / virus software that ran in user-mode.
Not much of a limb, considering that I stated that I no longer use Windows.
Basically: yes, it's Windows 8's fault that this happens, but it's not Microsoft trying to screw you over like the headline makes out.
No, it's Microsoft being stupid and ignoring its own security. If a non-privileged program is permitted to ignore the fact that a file is set to be Read-Only, you have absolutely no protection against malicious code changing anything it wants. All it has to do is infect Windows Defender and it can do anything it wants. If I were still a Windows user, I'd be very reluctant to trust Windows 8 at this point because of this obvious lack of common sense in how it handles this.
Or you can try actually learning the new system - it really is better.
What you mean is, "It's better for me." I want to be able to put my panel where I want it, not where the devs want it and I don't think I should have to install a third-party extension to do that. I don't want to have to use gestures to get to a list of applications, I want to use both icons and menus. I want to be the one who decides how many workspaces I have, and what programs appear on which. AFAIK, none of those things are possible in Gnome 3, which is why I now use Xfce, where they are. I might add that after a year of fighting with Ubuntu's Unity DE, which is pretty much a clone of Gnome 3, my sister gave up on it and now uses Xfce as well.
And that will work fine, right up until some dev changes something and breaks the extensions. And when the users complain, the devs will say, "We don't care. We warned you that we weren't going to make any effort not to break extensions, and we meant it."
I spent almost eight years in a call center once, and never understood why almost all of the junior techs maximized everything. I don't know how geeks work today, as I'm retired, but back when I was in the trenches, it was fairly rare to see somebody who didn't maximize everything. YMMV, and clearly does.
Well, most users rarely have more than one or two apps running at the same time anyway. Also those who use more generally have all of them maximized so that for all practical purposes they might as well only have one of them open. Considering how few people ever even try to multitask, what difference does it make if Windows 8 isn't good at it. (Assuming, of course, that it isn't. I only use Linux, so I've no idea how good Windows 8 is or isn't.)
The costs are too exorbitant today, but fusion should change that.
Just be patient. Physicists say that we'll have fusion working in about twenty years. Of course, you have to understand that they've been saying the same thing for at least forty years that I can remember.
I've helped run polls many times, and I've never seen waiting lines that long. Once, there was a line of last-minute voters as we came up to closing time. As head of the precinct, I assured the voters that the polls would not close until everybody who got in line before closing time had voted, because that's the law. I don't think that we closed more than five minutes late, and that was probably the longest line I've ever seen at a poll.
What you wrote about poll watchers sounds good, but that's not how it works, at least, not in California. I know, because I helped run various polls in Los Angeles for over a decade. The only people who may challenge a person's right to vote are the people running the poll. A poll watcher (or somebody waiting their turn to vote) has the right to object to somebody who they don't think should be allowed to vote, but only a part of the precinct's staff can make a formal challenge.
Once, I remember allowing a man to use a provisional ballot to quiet him down, although I knew it wouldn't be accepted. He had told me already that he'd moved out of the precinct over six months ago, never bothered to re-register and was insisting that he be allowed to vote. Sorry, but he'd had ample time to re-register and the law says that he can only vote in his old precinct if he moved after registration closed. I let him vote, sealed the ballot in a provisional envelope and wrote the circumstances on the back. I'd bet money on long odds that the ballot ended up being shredded unopened.
They don't have the kind of scientific validity they have in his robot story universe, where people simply cannot build robots that violate the laws.
It wasn't that they couldn't build robots that didn't obey the three laws, they wouldn't. In fact, there's a story in which the problem is to find a robot made with a modified form of the first law: "A robot shall not harm a human being" for reasons that seemed good at the time.
It can get worse; much worse. I once read a post on Usenet where somebody reported saying, "ATM the ATM is off the ATM."
If there were a Microsoft Appreciation Day, I'm sure it would have quite a few corporate sponsors. All of the anti-virus, anti-malware, third-party firewall vendors would be happy to sponsor it along with all of the other companies who's business model depends on patching up holes and vulnerabilities in various versions of Windows. After all, if it weren't for Microsoft, they wouldn't be in business.
(I don't like the term lying, since I do not believe that people know when they are lying for the most part.)
But if they don't know that what they're saying is a lie, it isn't one. Lying is when somebody says something that the know is untrue. Their statement isn't true, but it's not a lie if they honestly think it's true.
So sure, she is telling the truth, but does it matter if the fact she is working from is true if her suggested solution isn't testable?
Yes. It does matter, quite a bit. It shows that the problem she's talking about is real; she's not just making up an imaginary problem to get people worked up. Her suggested solution may not be testable, or even possible (I don't even know what her suggestion is, so I can't guess.) but at least she's trying to solve a real-world problem.
There are many games where the room textures are covered in buttons, screens and interesting things. However, the only thing on the entire level that you actually interact with will be a single lever.
Yes! I used to love that weird old game Redneck Rampage. There were a surprising number of objects that you could damage as you went past. Of course, if you hit a sign with your tire iron, you'd see buckshot holes in it, but that just added to the oddball charm of the game. I'm also fond of Joint Operations, and on some of the maps you can use satchel charges to blow up trees and underbrush, making it harder for your enemies to hide.
I am neither a bigot nor a liar and calling me a hypocritical jackass fucktard doesn't make me one. All it does is demonstrate how eager you are to insult random strangers simply because they don't agree with you.
Now, earlier in this "discussion," you called yourself among other things a libertarian. If you're like most libertarians I've met, you have a great belief in the marketplace, so let's see how the marketplace really acts. Let's take two groups of immigrants from a country that doesn't use English. (To avoid using a real country, I'll use Elbonia.) Both groups start out living with or near other Elbonians because they know how to communicate with them. One of the groups learns English, experiments with various new foods and gets to know people from other countries, including those who were born and raised here. The other group insists on remaining as Elbonian as possible, and even objects to allowing their children to learn English. Which group will be successful, and which will remain poor? What will the marketplace do with them? Enquiiring minds want to know!
I'm not a liberal. Your lame attempt at an ad hominem in the same sentence you complain of it in others just proves your intellectual dishonesty.
Tu Quoque now? No, what I wrote wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was just an observation. Your continued insults OTOH...
Typical Liberal: if all else fails, try argumentum ad hominem and mark your opponent as a Foe.
I think that the problem here is that you're thinking about how things would work in a perfect world and I'm more interested in how things work in reality. BTW, I'm not a Conservative; I'm a moderate and a realist.
Now you're grasping at straws.
Having a common language is a good thing, but the problem is that you are apparently basing your opinion on what it should be in a manner designed to push your favorite, not based on practicality.
You're remarkably good at reading between the lines and finding things to object to that I never said, or even intended to imply. I don't care what language anybody speaks at home or is most comfortable with. I do feel, however, that anybody who lives in a country and refuses to learn the common tongue is giving themselves an unneeded handicap. You can dance around that all you want, and tell me how you think things should be, but unlike you, I'm more interested in looking at how things are and the fact is that if you live in America, you either learn English or you're relegated to the outskirts of society and that's not going to change unless you can change human nature.