You think having lawyers and bank managers as parents makes you working class?
If people work for a living yes they are working class, it doesn't matter what that work is. Or are you do want to wage class warfare?
Obama also had upper class parents.
His parents were upper class? His mother, Ann Dunham, was an anthropologist and his father Barack Obama, SR. a Kenyan who won a scholarship to go to college.
Finding this info easily I can only conclude you're making things up and are trolling.
For some reason in my experience the degreed developers tend to be more "disciplined" which at least in the companies I have worked for means they are more likely to allow themselves to be pushed around and are less likely to question methods and proceeders. I am not sure if its the massive debt hanging over their heads or simply the years of being a dedicated student, but they just tend on average to be more willing to keep their mouth shut and keep typing while complaining less about things like overtime, workload, etc.
However the programmer without a degree has to worry they might be fired or laid off over someone with a degree, so they may be less likely to complain.
You calling people born of super-wealthy parents, and who went to the most expensive schools and universities in the country for blue-collar???
Bill Gates parents were super-wealthy? I know his dad was a lawyer but I didn't know he was super-wealthy. According to the wiki article on him his parents were upper middle income and not super-wealthy. He attended Harvard, where he met Steve Ballmer before they both dropped out. And while his parents may of had enough money to pay for Harvard, with a SAT score of 1590 out of 1600 it's not hard to imagine someone with such a score getting a full scholarship to any ivy league college. Even the kid who's parents got food stamps and lived in public housing. Also according to wiki Paul Allen's dad was "an associate director of the University of Washington libraries". That doesn't sound wealthy never mind super-wealthy. He attended then dropped out of Washington State University to start Microsoft with Gates and Ballmer. Wiki says of Steve Ballmer that his dad was "an immigrant from Switzerland, who had worked in Belgium as a manager at Ford Motor Co in the 1960s". That doesn't sound like super-wealthy either.
I wonder what your definition of "super-wealthy" is.
Even if they have never done anything in life except sit around drinking beers in their underpants all day they would still be of a higher social class than you, and could probably aspire to become president of the United States one day.
With the USA having elected a Black who had less going for him than many others as president I must conclude you're trolling. If nothing else Obama's election should put to rest the possibility that even the poor can not become something extraordinary.
Being able to communicate, knowing how to use spoken and written languages, is overrated.
They teach stuff like that in college where you live? That's elementary/high school stuff here...
Where I went they taught basic subjects, but not always correctly, in primary and secondary school. But for advanced skills you go to an advanced school. Do you really expect a high school graduate to be capable of programming anything advanced? That's what you're saying, high school teaches enough, so higher the high school grad to write your program.
Well, probably because computer science is one of the few places where you really go from build to design. Sure it happens that a construction worker becomes a civil engineer or architect,
This reminds of someone I knew in college. This guy worked as a steel worker building buildings for 10 plus years. He decided he wanted to become an architect so enrolled in college. He used to say that if he ever designed something and had a worker say something could not be done, he'd try it himself and if he could do it he'd fire whoever said it could not be done.
If I could have both I'd probably ask the guy with the academic background to draft it and ask the other to sanity check it.
Why not do both? When I was last in college I was going to a 2 year college, but I had to drop out. I hope to start taking classes again, I have 3 classes I need to take to finish the degree. I then want to work as well as transfer to a 4 year college.
extra 2 years, but the level of person it takes to invest in their future like that. The 4 year colleges provide a different group of people to "run with" and compete against.
I think there's something everyone is missing in this discussion, what's wrong with doing both? Why not go to a 2 year college to learn the basics of programing? Graduates from the 2 year college can then work as a code monkey getting experience while they work on their 4 year degree. It'd be like having an intern for 2, or 3, or 4 years. I haven't looked lately but on the lists of requirements for jobs I've seen is x number of years of experience. Better yet, once someone has transfered to the 4 year college they could also minor in another field, such as finance. Being a programmer with knowledge of finance would be of benefit in the financial arena.
There really needs to be a standardized & respected degree for programming, and programming alone - with zero bullshit.
Yea, who needs to know about anything other than code? Being able to communicate, knowing how to use spoken and written languages, is overrated. Math is such a waste of tyme as is history. And forget about physical education, who needs to be physically fit but athletes?
When you can't find a counterargument to my argument, you pretend I say something that you have an argument for. When I call you on your obvious dishonesty, you call me names. I believe that makes you the troll.
I call troll because of this, "Obviously you're capable of handling both sides of this conversation. You don't need me. Have fun arguing with yourself" which you said here You can't or won't debate so you're a troll.
Actually both federal seats that were up for election went to Democrats including a seat in upstate New York that hadn't gone D since the Civil War. It was 2 Governorships that went to the R's.
Yea, Democrats gained and lost seats. While Democrats probably don't care, as I said earlier I can no longer support Obama. They wanted to gain the support of independents and unfortunately for them I'm one of them.
Dude, learn to read. You'll notice that I didn't make a single argument against the claim that health reform is unconstitutional. That wasn't my point. My point was that your argument (there's no explicit reference to health insurance in the constitution) is lame, and isn't even used by strong opponents of reform.
I did read, and I can write. Lame? The USA Constitution is lame? Or is it believing in the Constitution is lame? Or believing in the limited role the federal government was supposed to have? Opponents don't use that argument? Congressman Ron Paul didn't say "Not to mention the fact that it is completely unconstitutional"? How about CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM? Googling health care reform constitution returns almost 3 million results. The first result, other than the map link, is the link you provide in this post of yours.
What i'm disagreeing with is your claim that it *ONLY* has to be proven that code in an older product is in a new product, and I'm pointing out that that is simply not enough. You have to prove that the code in the older product was unique.
Why then did you bring up SCO? SCO never proved System V code was in Linux.
Let's take a step back for a minute. Imagine that I don't. Explain to me what a competitive free market it is
A free market "describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud."
and how the competition within it produces companies that provide effective services to their customers.
If those who are in a market do not make a product or provide a service people are willing to pay for somone will introduce competition and do so themselves. That applies whether it is profitable or not. Since the original post is about health insurance, let's use that. During the debate up to the House's vote on their bill there was mention of health co-ops. I didn't know it but not far from me there is a Health insurance coop. Health Partners has existed for almost 50 years.
Being a member, willingly and voluntarily, of 2 coops though neither being a health coop I know how they work. The members, owners, set the policy of the coop. Now there are three main types of coops I know of. One type is the employee or worker owned coop. Basque coops in Spain like the Mondragon Corporation are huge employers. A second type is the supplier owned coop. An example of it in the US is the Organic Valley Coop. The dairy farmers who supply dairy products to the coop are the owners. And the third type is the buyer owned coop such as the two I'm a member of, Lakewinds coop and The Wedge.
All of these types of coops meet the requirements of the free market, a willing and voluntary exchange.
The constitution doesn't mention the trucking industry either. (Shocking that nobody at the 1788 convention ever heard of Mack trucks!) But the federal government regulates trucking, because trucking is part of interstate commerce, and that is mentioned in the constitution.
Yea, so? There's even howls that Mexican drivers are trucking in the US. As long as they obey the laws of the road and US drivers can work in Mexico that's fine with me. I am all for open borders.
The premise behind the current reform effort is that health care is a kind of interstate commerce. This guy says that it isn't.
I agree, health or medical care is not interstate commerce. However insurance is yet the federal government isn't using the interstate commerce clause on it. Before the health care bill was voted on in the House, TV ads complained some states only have a couple of companies offering health insurance in those states. So what did the ads suggest? A public option. If instead they had analyzed why those states didn't have competition they would have found out there is no competition because each state limits who can offer insurance in the state. What those who wanted to reform health care could have done was use the interstate commerce clause to open up the market. Allow people to cross their state line and buy health insurance in another state. Did the House do that? No.
From that link:
"Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?'"
How about amendments 9 and 10, in the Bill of Rights? Apparently this congresscritter believes the government can do whatever it wants, whereas many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a limited government. After all that's what the American Revolution was about, fighting against a big tyrannical government.
Maybe you haven't heard, or read, me say it but I fear government far more than any business or corporation. The most deaths a business was responsible that I know of is Union Carbide. When their plant in Bhopal leaked there were less than 4000 confirmed deaths. The NAZI killed more than 600,000 Jews alone. Stalin massacred an estimated 20,000,000 while the death toll attributed to Mao is 50,000,000. Pol Pot murdered millions more, and hundreds of thousands were massacred in Rwanda.
Businesses have nothing over governments. Governments can be used to control businesses but not the other way around, unless voters allow it. Even the US has bloody hands, not counting the Native Americans who were massacred and had their land stolen. US governments have supported despotic and murderous regimes in other countries.
Because competition only works for consumers when it's paired with consumer choice, and as I've explained, consumer choice doesn't exist in a free insurance market.
Do you know what a free market is? If competition and consumers do not have a choice a market in is not free. A free market requires voluntary exchanges. How hard is that to understand? People blame failures on the markets, when those markets are not free. "Health insurance does not work so the market has failed." Duh, government interfered in the insurance market. That's not a market failure.
Quite simply a free market in health care and insurance had never been tried. And until a free market has been tried nobody can say it is a failure. And I'm not just talking about health insurance. I'm also talking about being able to open a walk-in health clinic. There are so many laws and regulations so that even if I had $10 million dollars to build and open a walk-in clinic on a street corner I may never get the government permission to open the clinic. It's like when Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in New York City, the city put so many obstacles in the way she eventually dropped the plan.
At least up until now, I've assumed you're discussing the topic in good faith
I have but you have not offered one piece of evidence a free market can not solve any health care crisis. I mentioned the socialist ideology because nothing was working to get you, and others, to understand a free market has not been given a chance. I get so sick and tired when people blame failures on markets when those markets are interfered with by the government.
I don't follow your logic. You seem to be assuming that any government interference in the marketplace is the cause of all failures of the marketplace to do what you want. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. Government interference in the markets make those market unfree. Blaming failures on markets when there is government interference isn't right. Blaming the government interference instead would be the correct thing most of the tyme. Not all but most of the tyme. When the markets fail it's because they don't pay external costs when others have to pay them. For instance when a company pollutes and it does not pay for cleanup others have to pay. But guess what? Guess who's the biggest polluter, at least in the US? The US government is. The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world.
OK, I misunderstood you. And here's the reason I got your argument wrong: I assumed it was somehow relevant to my argument. You're not arguing with statement, you're just complaining about the unfairness of the current tax code.
but don't have the necessary privilege, I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user's password.
Thanks, I thought there might be a utility that does that. This is better. And worse. I want to install Ubuntu on my Mac and I don't want to need to set privileges for each user to mount drives. Right now I have 3 user accounts on my Mac, only one is an admin account and the only reason that account is used to update the system and for installations. I also have external hard disk drives I use as backups, currently I keep a running backup by copying saved files to an external drive. I want to set up rsync for that though, I also clone my drives.
I did read the patent application. The only thing different I see is that what MS did was add a list of users who have the required permissions. Sudo doesn't do that but I wouldn't be surprised if there were utilities for OS X and *unix that does the same thing. Now I'm no expert in reading the legaleses of patent applications and I may of missed something.
As it is I don't think it's enough of a novelty to qualify for a patent, if I believed in software patents but I don't.
It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it doesn't have the necessary rights to perform an operation, but perhaps there's something I've missed?
"these systems and/or methods present a user interface identifying an account having a right to permit a task". Does gksudo list accounts that have the rights?
AH HAH! That's the whole point! This doesn't ask for your password. It asks for an administrator's password. Not every account on a computer has elevation rights.
My Mac does ask for an admin's password. However it doesn't list the users accounts that have the required permissions whereas MS does list them. So in that MS has added something.
I don't know if that rises to a novelty though, which is a requirement for patents.
Slashdot Mirror
You think having lawyers and bank managers as parents makes you working class?
If people work for a living yes they are working class, it doesn't matter what that work is. Or are you do want to wage class warfare?
Obama also had upper class parents.
His parents were upper class? His mother, Ann Dunham, was an anthropologist and his father Barack Obama, SR. a Kenyan who won a scholarship to go to college.
Finding this info easily I can only conclude you're making things up and are trolling.
Falcon
For some reason in my experience the degreed developers tend to be more "disciplined" which at least in the companies I have worked for means they are more likely to allow themselves to be pushed around and are less likely to question methods and proceeders. I am not sure if its the massive debt hanging over their heads or simply the years of being a dedicated student, but they just tend on average to be more willing to keep their mouth shut and keep typing while complaining less about things like overtime, workload, etc.
However the programmer without a degree has to worry they might be fired or laid off over someone with a degree, so they may be less likely to complain.
Falcon
You calling people born of super-wealthy parents, and who went to the most expensive schools and universities in the country for blue-collar???
Bill Gates parents were super-wealthy? I know his dad was a lawyer but I didn't know he was super-wealthy. According to the wiki article on him his parents were upper middle income and not super-wealthy. He attended Harvard, where he met Steve Ballmer before they both dropped out. And while his parents may of had enough money to pay for Harvard, with a SAT score of 1590 out of 1600 it's not hard to imagine someone with such a score getting a full scholarship to any ivy league college. Even the kid who's parents got food stamps and lived in public housing. Also according to wiki Paul Allen's dad was "an associate director of the University of Washington libraries". That doesn't sound wealthy never mind super-wealthy. He attended then dropped out of Washington State University to start Microsoft with Gates and Ballmer. Wiki says of Steve Ballmer that his dad was "an immigrant from Switzerland, who had worked in Belgium as a manager at Ford Motor Co in the 1960s". That doesn't sound like super-wealthy either.
I wonder what your definition of "super-wealthy" is.
Even if they have never done anything in life except sit around drinking beers in their underpants all day they would still be of a higher social class than you, and could probably aspire to become president of the United States one day.
With the USA having elected a Black who had less going for him than many others as president I must conclude you're trolling. If nothing else Obama's election should put to rest the possibility that even the poor can not become something extraordinary.
Falcon
Being able to communicate, knowing how to use spoken and written languages, is overrated.
They teach stuff like that in college where you live? That's elementary/high school stuff here...
Where I went they taught basic subjects, but not always correctly, in primary and secondary school. But for advanced skills you go to an advanced school. Do you really expect a high school graduate to be capable of programming anything advanced? That's what you're saying, high school teaches enough, so higher the high school grad to write your program.
Falcon
Well, probably because computer science is one of the few places where you really go from build to design. Sure it happens that a construction worker becomes a civil engineer or architect,
This reminds of someone I knew in college. This guy worked as a steel worker building buildings for 10 plus years. He decided he wanted to become an architect so enrolled in college. He used to say that if he ever designed something and had a worker say something could not be done, he'd try it himself and if he could do it he'd fire whoever said it could not be done.
If I could have both I'd probably ask the guy with the academic background to draft it and ask the other to sanity check it.
Why not do both? When I was last in college I was going to a 2 year college, but I had to drop out. I hope to start taking classes again, I have 3 classes I need to take to finish the degree. I then want to work as well as transfer to a 4 year college.
Falcon
extra 2 years, but the level of person it takes to invest in their future like that. The 4 year colleges provide a different group of people to "run with" and compete against.
I think there's something everyone is missing in this discussion, what's wrong with doing both? Why not go to a 2 year college to learn the basics of programing? Graduates from the 2 year college can then work as a code monkey getting experience while they work on their 4 year degree. It'd be like having an intern for 2, or 3, or 4 years. I haven't looked lately but on the lists of requirements for jobs I've seen is x number of years of experience. Better yet, once someone has transfered to the 4 year college they could also minor in another field, such as finance. Being a programmer with knowledge of finance would be of benefit in the financial arena.
Falcon
Oh come on, since when did blue collar ANYTHING get paid more than the white collars?
One name: Bill Gates. Well, let me add another name, Steve Allen.
Falcon
There really needs to be a standardized & respected degree for programming, and programming alone - with zero bullshit.
Yea, who needs to know about anything other than code? Being able to communicate, knowing how to use spoken and written languages, is overrated. Math is such a waste of tyme as is history. And forget about physical education, who needs to be physically fit but athletes?
Falcon
Yeap, I'm wasting my tyme with a troll.
Falcon
When you can't find a counterargument to my argument, you pretend I say something that you have an argument for. When I call you on your obvious dishonesty, you call me names. I believe that makes you the troll.
I call troll because of this, "Obviously you're capable of handling both sides of this conversation. You don't need me. Have fun arguing with yourself" which you said here You can't or won't debate so you're a troll.
But why am I wasting my tyme explaining that?
Falcon
Oh jeez. I write "your interpretation of the constitution is lame" and you read "the constitution is lame".
Troll
Falcon
Can you read?
Falcon
Actually both federal seats that were up for election went to Democrats including a seat in upstate New York that hadn't gone D since the Civil War. It was 2 Governorships that went to the R's.
Yea, Democrats gained and lost seats. While Democrats probably don't care, as I said earlier I can no longer support Obama. They wanted to gain the support of independents and unfortunately for them I'm one of them.
Falcon
Dude, learn to read. You'll notice that I didn't make a single argument against the claim that health reform is unconstitutional. That wasn't my point. My point was that your argument (there's no explicit reference to health insurance in the constitution) is lame, and isn't even used by strong opponents of reform.
I did read, and I can write. Lame? The USA Constitution is lame? Or is it believing in the Constitution is lame? Or believing in the limited role the federal government was supposed to have? Opponents don't use that argument? Congressman Ron Paul didn't say "Not to mention the fact that it is completely unconstitutional"? How about CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM? Googling health care reform constitution returns almost 3 million results. The first result, other than the map link, is the link you provide in this post of yours.
Falcon
i'm not disagreeing about any of that.
What i'm disagreeing with is your claim that it *ONLY* has to be proven that code in an older product is in a new product, and I'm pointing out that that is simply not enough. You have to prove that the code in the older product was unique.
Why then did you bring up SCO? SCO never proved System V code was in Linux.
Falcon
Let's take a step back for a minute. Imagine that I don't. Explain to me what a competitive free market it is
A free market "describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud."
and how the competition within it produces companies that provide effective services to their customers.
If those who are in a market do not make a product or provide a service people are willing to pay for somone will introduce competition and do so themselves. That applies whether it is profitable or not. Since the original post is about health insurance, let's use that. During the debate up to the House's vote on their bill there was mention of health co-ops. I didn't know it but not far from me there is a Health insurance coop. Health Partners has existed for almost 50 years.
Being a member, willingly and voluntarily, of 2 coops though neither being a health coop I know how they work. The members, owners, set the policy of the coop. Now there are three main types of coops I know of. One type is the employee or worker owned coop. Basque coops in Spain like the Mondragon Corporation are huge employers. A second type is the supplier owned coop. An example of it in the US is the Organic Valley Coop. The dairy farmers who supply dairy products to the coop are the owners. And the third type is the buyer owned coop such as the two I'm a member of, Lakewinds coop and The Wedge.
All of these types of coops meet the requirements of the free market, a willing and voluntary exchange.
I'm saying that making workplace insurance benefits taxable does not provide any incentive for insurers to offer individual insurance to everybody.
That's it!! I never ever said that!!! TROLL!!!
Falcon
The constitution doesn't mention the trucking industry either. (Shocking that nobody at the 1788 convention ever heard of Mack trucks!) But the federal government regulates trucking, because trucking is part of interstate commerce, and that is mentioned in the constitution.
Yea, so? There's even howls that Mexican drivers are trucking in the US. As long as they obey the laws of the road and US drivers can work in Mexico that's fine with me. I am all for open borders.
The premise behind the current reform effort is that health care is a kind of interstate commerce. This guy says that it isn't.
I agree, health or medical care is not interstate commerce. However insurance is yet the federal government isn't using the interstate commerce clause on it. Before the health care bill was voted on in the House, TV ads complained some states only have a couple of companies offering health insurance in those states. So what did the ads suggest? A public option. If instead they had analyzed why those states didn't have competition they would have found out there is no competition because each state limits who can offer insurance in the state. What those who wanted to reform health care could have done was use the interstate commerce clause to open up the market. Allow people to cross their state line and buy health insurance in another state. Did the House do that? No.
From that link:
"Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?'"
How about amendments 9 and 10, in the Bill of Rights? Apparently this congresscritter believes the government can do whatever it wants, whereas many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a limited government. After all that's what the American Revolution was about, fighting against a big tyrannical government.
Maybe you haven't heard, or read, me say it but I fear government far more than any business or corporation. The most deaths a business was responsible that I know of is Union Carbide. When their plant in Bhopal leaked there were less than 4000 confirmed deaths. The NAZI killed more than 600,000 Jews alone. Stalin massacred an estimated 20,000,000 while the death toll attributed to Mao is 50,000,000. Pol Pot murdered millions more, and hundreds of thousands were massacred in Rwanda.
Businesses have nothing over governments. Governments can be used to control businesses but not the other way around, unless voters allow it. Even the US has bloody hands, not counting the Native Americans who were massacred and had their land stolen. US governments have supported despotic and murderous regimes in other countries.
Falcon
Because competition only works for consumers when it's paired with consumer choice, and as I've explained, consumer choice doesn't exist in a free insurance market.
Do you know what a free market is? If competition and consumers do not have a choice a market in is not free. A free market requires voluntary exchanges. How hard is that to understand? People blame failures on the markets, when those markets are not free. "Health insurance does not work so the market has failed." Duh, government interfered in the insurance market. That's not a market failure.
Quite simply a free market in health care and insurance had never been tried. And until a free market has been tried nobody can say it is a failure. And I'm not just talking about health insurance. I'm also talking about being able to open a walk-in health clinic. There are so many laws and regulations so that even if I had $10 million dollars to build and open a walk-in clinic on a street corner I may never get the government permission to open the clinic. It's like when Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in New York City, the city put so many obstacles in the way she eventually dropped the plan.
At least up until now, I've assumed you're discussing the topic in good faith
I have but you have not offered one piece of evidence a free market can not solve any health care crisis. I mentioned the socialist ideology because nothing was working to get you, and others, to understand a free market has not been given a chance. I get so sick and tired when people blame failures on markets when those markets are interfered with by the government.
Falcon
I don't follow your logic. You seem to be assuming that any government interference in the marketplace is the cause of all failures of the marketplace to do what you want. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. Government interference in the markets make those market unfree. Blaming failures on markets when there is government interference isn't right. Blaming the government interference instead would be the correct thing most of the tyme. Not all but most of the tyme. When the markets fail it's because they don't pay external costs when others have to pay them. For instance when a company pollutes and it does not pay for cleanup others have to pay. But guess what? Guess who's the biggest polluter, at least in the US? The US government is. The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world.
OK, I misunderstood you. And here's the reason I got your argument wrong: I assumed it was somehow relevant to my argument. You're not arguing with statement, you're just complaining about the unfairness of the current tax code.
No, No, and again NO! You argued the market can not handle the problem, Part of the problem here is that U.S. public policy since Reagan is dominated by the mantra, "The marketplace can handle the problem." I even provide the same link, using the same text for the link. I am saying the market was never given a change to handle the problem. Are you really that lacking in comprehension? This is the third tyme I've had to explain it.
Troll
Falcon
but don't have the necessary privilege, I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user's password.
Thanks, I thought there might be a utility that does that. This is better. And worse. I want to install Ubuntu on my Mac and I don't want to need to set privileges for each user to mount drives. Right now I have 3 user accounts on my Mac, only one is an admin account and the only reason that account is used to update the system and for installations. I also have external hard disk drives I use as backups, currently I keep a running backup by copying saved files to an external drive. I want to set up rsync for that though, I also clone my drives.
Falcon
I did read the patent application. The only thing different I see is that what MS did was add a list of users who have the required permissions. Sudo doesn't do that but I wouldn't be surprised if there were utilities for OS X and *unix that does the same thing. Now I'm no expert in reading the legaleses of patent applications and I may of missed something.
As it is I don't think it's enough of a novelty to qualify for a patent, if I believed in software patents but I don't.
Falcon
It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it doesn't have the necessary rights to perform an operation, but perhaps there's something I've missed?
"these systems and/or methods present a user interface identifying an account having a right to permit a task". Does gksudo list accounts that have the rights?
Falcon
AH HAH! That's the whole point! This doesn't ask for your password. It asks for an administrator's password. Not every account on a computer has elevation rights.
My Mac does ask for an admin's password. However it doesn't list the users accounts that have the required permissions whereas MS does list them. So in that MS has added something.
I don't know if that rises to a novelty though, which is a requirement for patents.
Falcon
This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo. Fini.
It may be where sudo is evolving to but does sudo list the accounts that have the needed permission?
Falcon