I'm using junctions in this Windows 2000 system right now this very moment, thanks to a third-party shell extension or two I found that makes using them practical.
To the extent they work and to the extent they aren't a half-assed implementation of what non-Windows users take for granted, junctions created using different methods (Windows tools, Sysinternals, etc.) all behave differently, so expect to be bitten soon enough once you step outside your Explorer window.
A fair comment, but one (like countless others) that glosses over what "full support" means, and in what context. FreeBSD, for example, most definitely supports IP6, but their jail implementation doesn't. Then there's all those programs or utilities that have just recently had IP6 support added, and those that haven't yet.
But then, who's bothering to take note when few care one way or the other?
The "eggs are bad" example is recent history. A better example is margarine being touted as the healthy (and tasty) alternative to butter. Some of us knew better, of course, but the margarine evil lasted a few generations.
Assistive technologies are built on the assumption that it's the people who have to adapt to the technology. We tried to reverse this assumption, and make the software adapt to people.
Interesting enough, but I wonder if the day will come when GUI designers who aren't catering to special-case scenarios will offer the following options:
[x] Make no assumptions. [x] Get out of my way. [x] Yes I really mean it. [x] No I don't want to try things first.
When skill, knowledge and ability are penalised, it's the non-below-average group that becomes the under-represented minority. Those falling into the maligned category range from Firefox users resisting the New and Improved, Microsoft Office ribbon haters, Gnome users who like the clean interface but still resent the near-absence of customisability or documentation, to the subset of Windows Power Shell users who have actually used a command-line before.
Because it sounds like he is parenting for his own gratification by trying to force a "Mini-Me" identity upon his son instead of letting the child develop in a normal progression.
Normal progression?
Last I checked, that would include patterning himself after those closest to him. If you think there's nothing subversive about parenting, then you've never been a parent, or don't remember your own childhood. As for selfishness, I think that's an unfair and misplaced characterisation that could be described as naive.
It's disturbing.
Depends on the outcome, which depends on the parent, doesn't it?
I think the threat level indicated is "Elevated", which would suggest FFFF00. Windows warnings, on the other hand, are invariably 0000FF.
Seriously, though, how is a threat level from anyone supposed to be interepreted in any meaningful fashion when the levels themselves need to be interpreted as well? I'd suggest everyone adopt three levels only:
No Worries, Mate. Mostly Harmless. Run For Your Life.
Easy to understand and easy to remember. And more importantly, no ambiguous ordering or cross-referencing to colours.
These could be considered as a form of echo question.
They could.
Instead, they should be considered a form of rhetoric, hence the term "rhetorical question".
As for those who invoke such intonations in speech uncessarily, the term would be "caricature". Once upon a time it used to be called Valley Girl speech, but that was before it found widespread adoption. That it's accepted as anything other than an indication of immaturity, illiteracy, a propensity to socialising in mall environments, or a behavioural defect generally, is beyond me.
Charity isn't a selling point. Cost, reliability, performance -- those are selling points.
I think that's an awfully narrow view.
Fundraising for PBS is heavily dependent on charity as a selling point. Matching donations by corporate donors are known to encourage people to "buy" the PBS product. Who'd a thunk it?
Then, you've got any number of corporations who promote their services or products explicitly using charity a selling point. That would probably include all the Fortune 500, along with the likes of Starbucks, Ben and Jerry's, Newman's Own, and Whole Foods who are not only vocal advocates of their respective charities, but actively seek to distinguish themselves by such efforts.
So there you have it. Charity as a valid business model. Before you know it, legions of self-interested and disaffected youth will help vote in a candidate for public office who has the temerity to suggest that public service is a virtue. The paradoxes abound.
Small values of work, of course. I specified the microsoft.public hierarchy but ended up with a variety of other groups.
Sorry, but I've never been a big fan of Deja News, or what Google has done in the area generally. I've maintained my own archives for as long as I can remember (both usenet and email), but don't keep anything that old. I think most usenet providers will provide at most a year's worth of postings for the text-only groups, so you're asking a lot.
Maybe check on Microsoft's site to see whether they retain any significant history for their own groups? If you do, be sure to use Google. Microsoft' search is even lamer than what you're up against.;-)
If you are _really_ concerned about going green, the biggest (and likely simplest) impact you can have is to never have children, especially in the developed world where per-capita energy consumption is highest.
A well reasoned and thoughtful post, but the above bit borders on the absurd.
That child, given all the benefits that the "developed world" offers is more likely to grow up and discover the solution to our energy problems than someone living in a tribe somewhere in a rainforest living on roots and bananas. Or, if that child doesn't pursue the sciences, may grow up to be a leader or otherwise play a role that takes us in that direction. You don't need to look any farther than the current election cycle in the US for evidence of those possibilities.
I take it you don't have children. Those who don't are fairly quick with these kind of divorced-from-reality suggestions. Two of my favourites:
1. If the poor in the undeveloped countries had fewer children, they would be better off. Happily ignores the reality that the poor tend to need their children to do work to just get by, and society as a whole needs and benefits from their collective efforts.
2. If the rich in developed countries had fewer children, they'd be better off and we'd all pay less taxes. That one is especially pernicious in that it smells like the anti-immigrant arguments bandied about. I guess it's too much to ask someone to entertain the fact that we really do need a growing population to support the "everyone else", like those aging baby boomers, as a ferinstance.
And now, it's "Having kids will destroy the environment and lead to global warming!"
I guess the question you (or anyone who subscribes to such notions) need to answer is this: are you willing to the trade the possibilities of a better future in favour of of what could be fairly characterised a rush to the bottom? If you are, I'd suggest we're all that much poorer for it.
and 2 x 1 TB Harddrives in mirror raid to ensure that no migrated data is lost.
The triumph of optimism over experience, it seems. Allow me to rephrase the above to something more meaningful:
and 2 x 1 TB harddrives in mirror raid to protect against drive failure. How to backup that 1TB of data will be answered in a future installment of Ask Slashdot.
If you think that's putting too large a technical burden on the lawmakers, look at building codes, patent law, etc.
Should also note that because voting is mostly a state (non-federal) affair, minimum standards should first be set the federal government. The current mess we're in stemmed from George W. offering up money for the states to revamp their voting systems (after the chad fiasco), and allowing local legislators to spend that money as they saw fit. That, regrettably, amounted to local officials calling a contractor like Diebold to sell them something.
so now verizon is charging other people money to *call you*. aren't you alrady paying verizon to have a phone number just so people can call you and send you messages.
I don't how this differs from the way the real world works.
Verizon is a Las Vegas hotel room. Blackjack may be included, but the hookers and gratuities to both the bellhop and the hookers aren't.
Perhaps some contributors misunderstand the concept of a "summary." I've seen more than a few who could definitely use a primer on the effectiveness of "brevity" as well.
Fair enough, but I honestly think that in this case, the overlong and verbose summary is a refreshing change. What generally and typically passes as a "story" is most often a few scant one-line paragraphs that summarises, or worse, describes and editorialises, a real event or an issue.
It's not unlike what we routinely get from an organisation like CNN, where "news" is offered up in the form of sound bites, provocative graphics, and an absurdly dramatic soundtrack. If it wasn't for the pseudo passionate mumblings and fixed but empty stares of Anderson Cooper, or the rumbling drone from Wolf Blitzer, we could step back and recognise that what's presented is mostly devoid of content.
If you think that's an exaggerated comparison, try reading future Slashot stories with lynx (or just dump it to less, like I do). By the time you find the actual content, you realise there's not enough there to even bother with. In Slashdot's case, it's a truism that what's of most value is found in the contributions of its readers. It's similarly the case that most of us wait for or anticipate a reader offering up the real meat of the story, or some unique insight into it. We don't read the articles just because we're lazy. We don't read them because what's found on the pages of Slashdot is simply better.
Think of it this way -- this may be the one time where we should be modding the summary instead of the posts!
Slashdot Mirror
using a lesser cable will cause muddyness
Not to be confused with warmth, of course.
I'm using junctions in this Windows 2000 system right now this very moment, thanks to a third-party shell extension or two I found that makes using them practical.
To the extent they work and to the extent they aren't a half-assed implementation of what non-Windows users take for granted, junctions created using different methods (Windows tools, Sysinternals, etc.) all behave differently, so expect to be bitten soon enough once you step outside your Explorer window.
Indeed. Most squirrels you see are really rats dressed up in squirrel costumes.
The BSDs had full support for IPv6 long before M$
A fair comment, but one (like countless others) that glosses over what "full support" means, and in what context. FreeBSD, for example, most definitely supports IP6, but their jail implementation doesn't. Then there's all those programs or utilities that have just recently had IP6 support added, and those that haven't yet.
But then, who's bothering to take note when few care one way or the other?
The "eggs are bad" example is recent history. A better example is margarine being touted as the healthy (and tasty) alternative to butter. Some of us knew better, of course, but the margarine evil lasted a few generations.
Quothe the fine article:
Interesting enough, but I wonder if the day will come when GUI designers who aren't catering to special-case scenarios will offer the following options:
[x] Make no assumptions.
[x] Get out of my way.
[x] Yes I really mean it.
[x] No I don't want to try things first.
When skill, knowledge and ability are penalised, it's the non-below-average group that becomes the under-represented minority. Those falling into the maligned category range from Firefox users resisting the New and Improved, Microsoft Office ribbon haters, Gnome users who like the clean interface but still resent the near-absence of customisability or documentation, to the subset of Windows Power Shell users who have actually used a command-line before.
Because it sounds like he is parenting for his own gratification by trying to force a "Mini-Me" identity upon his son instead of letting the child develop in a normal progression.
Normal progression?
Last I checked, that would include patterning himself after those closest to him. If you think there's nothing subversive about parenting, then you've never been a parent, or don't remember your own childhood. As for selfishness, I think that's an unfair and misplaced characterisation that could be described as naive.
It's disturbing.
Depends on the outcome, which depends on the parent, doesn't it?
Well, teach him how to use ping then...
To be fair, event adults can be impressed with a a machine that go ping
Virus warnings go to 0xF
I think the threat level indicated is "Elevated", which would suggest FFFF00. Windows warnings, on the other hand, are invariably 0000FF.
Seriously, though, how is a threat level from anyone supposed to be interepreted in any meaningful fashion when the levels themselves need to be interpreted as well? I'd suggest everyone adopt three levels only:
No Worries, Mate.
Mostly Harmless.
Run For Your Life.
Easy to understand and easy to remember. And more importantly, no ambiguous ordering or cross-referencing to colours.
These could be considered as a form of echo question.
They could.
Instead, they should be considered a form of rhetoric, hence the term "rhetorical question".
As for those who invoke such intonations in speech uncessarily, the term would be "caricature". Once upon a time it used to be called Valley Girl speech, but that was before it found widespread adoption. That it's accepted as anything other than an indication of immaturity, illiteracy, a propensity to socialising in mall environments, or a behavioural defect generally, is beyond me.
Charity isn't a selling point. Cost, reliability, performance -- those are selling points.
I think that's an awfully narrow view.
Fundraising for PBS is heavily dependent on charity as a selling point. Matching donations by corporate donors are known to encourage people to "buy" the PBS product. Who'd a thunk it?
Then, you've got any number of corporations who promote their services or products explicitly using charity a selling point. That would probably include all the Fortune 500, along with the likes of Starbucks, Ben and Jerry's, Newman's Own, and Whole Foods who are not only vocal advocates of their respective charities, but actively seek to distinguish themselves by such efforts.
So there you have it. Charity as a valid business model. Before you know it, legions of self-interested and disaffected youth will help vote in a candidate for public office who has the temerity to suggest that public service is a virtue. The paradoxes abound.
Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.
For what value of "great"?
FreeBSD users and devs, for example, have asked for just as long.
Painlessly? It requires using Windows Recovery Console which necessitates having boot media available.
You can install Recovery Console locally and set it up as a boot option.
The drawbacks include:
1. Not appropriate for most users.
2. Boot time reminder that the Recovery Console is mostly useless.
My search results
Small values of work, of course. I specified the microsoft.public hierarchy but ended up with a variety of other groups.
Sorry, but I've never been a big fan of Deja News, or what Google has done in the area generally. I've maintained my own archives for as long as I can remember (both usenet and email), but don't keep anything that old. I think most usenet providers will provide at most a year's worth of postings for the text-only groups, so you're asking a lot.
Maybe check on Microsoft's site to see whether they retain any significant history for their own groups? If you do, be sure to use Google. Microsoft' search is even lamer than what you're up against. ;-)
If you are _really_ concerned about going green, the biggest (and likely simplest) impact you can have is to never have children, especially in the developed world where per-capita energy consumption is highest.
A well reasoned and thoughtful post, but the above bit borders on the absurd.
That child, given all the benefits that the "developed world" offers is more likely to grow up and discover the solution to our energy problems than someone living in a tribe somewhere in a rainforest living on roots and bananas. Or, if that child doesn't pursue the sciences, may grow up to be a leader or otherwise play a role that takes us in that direction. You don't need to look any farther than the current election cycle in the US for evidence of those possibilities.
I take it you don't have children. Those who don't are fairly quick with these kind of divorced-from-reality suggestions. Two of my favourites:
1. If the poor in the undeveloped countries had fewer children, they would be better off. Happily ignores the reality that the poor tend to need their children to do work to just get by, and society as a whole needs and benefits from their collective efforts.
2. If the rich in developed countries had fewer children, they'd be better off and we'd all pay less taxes. That one is especially pernicious in that it smells like the anti-immigrant arguments bandied about. I guess it's too much to ask someone to entertain the fact that we really do need a growing population to support the "everyone else", like those aging baby boomers, as a ferinstance.
And now, it's "Having kids will destroy the environment and lead to global warming!"
I guess the question you (or anyone who subscribes to such notions) need to answer is this: are you willing to the trade the possibilities of a better future in favour of of what could be fairly characterised a rush to the bottom? If you are, I'd suggest we're all that much poorer for it.
Elvis would be a good choice when registering to vote in Chicago. For border crossings, I'd recommend using Cat Stevens.
Yeah, but compare that to air cooling. Air is HOW old?
About the same
and 2 x 1 TB Harddrives in mirror raid to ensure that no migrated data is lost.
The triumph of optimism over experience, it seems. Allow me to rephrase the above to something more meaningful:
The rest of the bottom of the mouse should be covered with odor sensors that can sense when they are near the chemical.
Your idea is an interesting one, and while I am interested in subscribing to your news letter, I wonder whether you've considered the following:
"Oh, look! Cheese!"
My opinion is that if we go down this route, we should re-evalute the rodent model. Cats might work, but dogs would seem the better choice.
My home network is in complete stealth mode
Mine, too!
My own approach is a bit unusual (I use a /31), but it offers similar advantages without the need for complex firewall rulesets.
If you think that's putting too large a technical burden on the lawmakers, look at building codes, patent law, etc.
Should also note that because voting is mostly a state (non-federal) affair, minimum standards should first be set the federal government. The current mess we're in stemmed from George W. offering up money for the states to revamp their voting systems (after the chad fiasco), and allowing local legislators to spend that money as they saw fit. That, regrettably, amounted to local officials calling a contractor like Diebold to sell them something.
so now verizon is charging other people money to *call you*. aren't you alrady paying verizon to have a phone number just so people can call you and send you messages.
I don't how this differs from the way the real world works.
Verizon is a Las Vegas hotel room. Blackjack may be included, but the hookers and gratuities to both the bellhop and the hookers aren't.
A reader capable of displaying scientific papers readably (8.5x11inch, 10pt font) is still a wet dream unfortunately.
That pretty much sums up the state of affairs, doesn't it? While some are enjoying reading their paperback novels, the rest of are waiting.
Maybe they should add groff support, paint it black, and rebrand it as a Manpage Reader.
Perhaps some contributors misunderstand the concept of a "summary." I've seen more than a few who could definitely use a primer on the effectiveness of "brevity" as well.
Fair enough, but I honestly think that in this case, the overlong and verbose summary is a refreshing change. What generally and typically passes as a "story" is most often a few scant one-line paragraphs that summarises, or worse, describes and editorialises, a real event or an issue.
It's not unlike what we routinely get from an organisation like CNN, where "news" is offered up in the form of sound bites, provocative graphics, and an absurdly dramatic soundtrack. If it wasn't for the pseudo passionate mumblings and fixed but empty stares of Anderson Cooper, or the rumbling drone from Wolf Blitzer, we could step back and recognise that what's presented is mostly devoid of content.
If you think that's an exaggerated comparison, try reading future Slashot stories with lynx (or just dump it to less, like I do). By the time you find the actual content, you realise there's not enough there to even bother with. In Slashdot's case, it's a truism that what's of most value is found in the contributions of its readers. It's similarly the case that most of us wait for or anticipate a reader offering up the real meat of the story, or some unique insight into it. We don't read the articles just because we're lazy. We don't read them because what's found on the pages of Slashdot is simply better.
Think of it this way -- this may be the one time where we should be modding the summary instead of the posts!
My bedroom contains exactly three things that use electricity. The alarm clock, the waterbed heater, and the ceiling fan/light fixture.
So, what the wife uses is ... battery-powered?