The article mentions an upcoming patch twice, but is silent on what it does.
Apparently, though not listed explicitly, they will display the unicode version (Ex: www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com instead of www..com) for these edge cases - though I'm not sure how they're detecting them.
IMO, it's all stupid mistakes and fixes because it's only an issue because they're trying to make it so "easy to use" and transparent for the dumbest of folks, while making it more and more complex to actually find the real info. For example, you used to be able to click the padlock icon next to the URL if it was an SSL domain, and that'd pop up security and cert info on Chrome. Now, you can't do that... you have to go into developer tools, then expand the tabs (security tab is often outside the window, because they moved the developer console to split the screen vertically instead of horizontally) to find security tab, then get the cert info there.
All domains should have a very very easy way to see both versions (the unicode/punycode version, and the localized version). Some options: * right click on the domain, include both in that menu * mouse over the domain, show alt version in the status bar (bring back the status bar!) * mouse over the domain, include alt version in mousever text * include both on the location bar (one in parenthesis). Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com] https://www./.com/ *... or vice-versa: Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www..com] https://www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com... * add a little colored (red?) icon next to the name if punycode is in use. Mouseover on it would display info saying what that did. Clicking it would remove/add the decoding. IE: display the decoded localized characters by default; click the red dot to display the punycode; click again to go back to localized; set a preference from the right click menu on the red dot.
This isn't something that can be definitively solved programmaticly. It's still a case of tricking users. Just give the users the info they need so they can make a fair decision. The real DNS name is the fully encoded one (ex. xn--80ak6aa92e.com), not the one decoded from that, so please make that readily available to the user. IMO, displaying the localized text should be an added feature, not the primary display.
So, Ryzen on Windows 8.1 and lower will forever suffer a not-insignificant performance penalty compared to the same hardware running Windows 10. Perhaps it is YOU who should actually study up on current topics, hmm?
While the MS supplied drivers for the new features on these latest processors may not be supported on Windows 8.1, that's not the main issue people are bitching about.
The problem is that all updates are going to (or may) be affected. Let it be slower than optimal, and let power management not be as ideal, but they shouldn't (IMO) halt security updates (which is what the screenshot in the article states).
I am a little surprised that Intel and AMD themselves won't supply updated drivers for Windows 8.1.
I have, and consider it far, far behind the competition in features.
I'm honestly curious - what features are people talking about?
I don't run Windows, let alone Edge, so I can't compare. However, when it comes to browser features, they all seem to be removing them far faster than adding features. The only features left (by default) seem to be: * back button * reload button * location bar * tabs * bookmarks * incognito / privacy mode * history / downloads * print * settings
I'm digging deep on some of those. There isn't even an OS title bar nor status bar anymore. I have a forward button, but I think I had to add that. I guess there's form autocomplete and password management too, but I turn those off first thing. What features are everyone talking about that Chrome has but Edge lacks?
Minor nitpick, but that's never been the case. You might assume I'm talking about Lynx (which did predate Mosaic, barely) or something similar, but Mosaic wasn't even the first graphical web browser. This is grammar-nazi level nitpicking though... you could have easily said, "I have been using the web since Mosaic was released", and that'd mean the same thing and have the same impact, even if you didn't use it on release day (Mosaic was around for less than 2 years before Netscape Navigator was released, so you must have used it somewhere in that short range of Jan 1993 - end of 1994).
... and then video games which rely on well optimized video card drivers to run well.
For many years, the video game excuse was that they only ran on Windows. Then, for many years, that they ran poorly through wine (or various versions of it or winelib), or they were released later than the windows counter part (even if some of them actually ran better on linux). There's also a fairly large list of games that still require Windows, or run better there, and that can be used as an excuse. This quote, that they require well optimized video card drivers to run well, this is just stupid.
The majority of the driver is identical on all OS's. Let's ignore that for a second and assume that you found a case where your top end card (must be top end if the driver optimization has a big enough impact that it could make the game run poorly)... where your top end card actually runs noticeably better on Windows. For years now I keep hearing that someones top end card from 5 years ago is still plenty good enough to play any AAA title full res with medium to high settings. So, how is this relatively minor difference due to driver optimization holding up developers or users?
FWIW, I think there are some legit reasons that make significantly more difficult to successfully release a game on Linux. I think the majority of that has its root cause in a chicken and egg problem, but it's a problem nonetheless. But optimized drivers? That's not a valid reason for users or devs.
True. There are RNC/Trump supporters that spew crap, and DNC/Clinton supporters that spew crap. However, there is a third group that are critics of both the RNC and DNC (and/or both Trump and Clinton). That group should be FUCKING HUGE right now. What the fuck people*?
I'm not certain exactly what this Russian is being accused of, but he's certainly not a whistle blower, and he's not being accused of being innocent. He's probably going to roll over on some people, and it's probably going to have negative affects on both D's and R's. Those detracting from the issue at hand might just be scared - shouldn't both sides be happy this guy was arrested (if he was actually guilty)?
RE: the Paul Allen's yacht, it was on the other side of the world. That incident was in Grand Cayman, not in Australia. Bleaching is still a much bigger threat than his boat (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160129-paul-allen-yacht-tatoosh-damages-cayman-coral-reef/)
Exactly. I'm not very thrilled by the prospect of a 140 foot 200,000 pound autonomous flying thing, staying below 400 foot (which is still plenty high enough to hurt when it falls from the sky, but not high enough for even a parachute to deploy (normally 600-1200 feet of free fall; reserve chutes open in about 400 ft)), which is being marketed as cheaper because it doesn't have to be safe enough for humans (read: they will fall out of the air from time to time).
In the best case, there will be 200,000 pounds of stuff and a wreck of vehicle dumped into the ocean not far from shore.
Most languages come with masculine/feminine baggage. In French, you have to magically know that a book is masculine and a shirt is feminine. In English, things don't have a sex ("the" / "it" / "that"), but the right answer for the prom example is technically, "what is he wearing?". That's what it is in the English language.
So, IMO, this is a proposal to change a rule. If we're changing the language, I'd prefer not to overload and muddy the definition of the perfectly good pronouns "they", "their", "them", etc. That's why I asked what would be appropriate for that example. As you noted, it could be "is he", "is she", or "is it". IMO, none of those hit the mark (assuming the goal is to remove the masculine preferred). This is why we need a new series of words (ex. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki..., or https://genderneutralpronoun.w...). Bastardizing the use of "they" is broken, but I guess that fits with all the rest of the "rules" of the this language... no point in being logical now:-)
I'm curious, what do you think the appropriate answer is to that last example?
And for illustrating this actual argument; "The prom queen is dressed unusually" "Why? What _____ wearing?" in that sentence "are they" makes no sense, unless the prom queen is conjoined twins.
If you assume sex with due to the mention of "queen", replace it with, "The winner of the prom is dressed unusually", or "The prom winner...".
I think that's a good example of the need for a gender neutral singular pronoun other than they. You can fill it in with: * is she * is he * are they * is it * is he or she... but the "are they", due to the verb, implies a plural (unless I'm mistaken).
I don't see how "one" would fix this example (I guess you could say, "what is this one wearing", but that's pretty clunky). You could avoid the issue at hand, and just refer back to the noun ("What is the queen wearing"). Maybe that's the best answer?
Makes syntax isn't arcane. I don't mind the special characters at all (but I prefer to work with perl, so you can safely ignore me from the norm).
What is arcane is its inability to work with filenames that contain spaces, and it's incomplete toolset (why should you have to shell out for so many common tasks). It works very much like many unix tools, but that means it's all text, lists are just space separated text, and there is no real list/object/dictionary/etc.
I still really enjoy working with it, but I'm pretty sure some of that enjoyment comes from the challenge of it.
Hey, that four was generated by a fair die roll and is guaranteed to be random!
It still has a bug, since it takes a "max" argument. Correct code should be something like: int returnRandomInt(int max) {
if (max > 3) return 4;
return 0; }
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of ___
Personally, I read that differently than I do:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, packing for shipment or distribution, marketing or storing of ___
I parse the first to read:
(canning or processing or preserving or freezing or drying or marketing or storing or packing for shipment or distribution) of ___
... or, more explicitly:
(canning or processing or preserving or freezing or drying or marketing or storing or (packing for shipment) or distribution) of ___
IMO, the "or" is ambiguous because it is implied on every comma.
Further, I believe they are actually using an oxford comma in the law but neglected to include the additional "or". I think they are arguing that it should have read as either: Oxford comma:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, or packing for shipment or distribution of ___
According to Maine law, per thebigmacd above, there should not be a comma between the the penultimate and the last item of a series, so it should have been written:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing or packing for shipment or distribution of ___
The way they wrote it is neither of those, so it means, "...,marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution of ___"
IMO, using a cpuid hack doesn't seem all that desperate. Assuming one gets created, it seems like it'd easily be the path of least resistance. * install cpuid hack once, and keep running what you've got with no other issues (until they block that or add some other awful thing) * use wsus-offline or autopatcher (I've never used either, but it seems like something that'd be an ongoing thing, you'd have to change some existing settings and expectations, and it'd take some initial setup) * install a different OS (GNU Linux / Mac OS X / etc). This would be difficult for a most people, and there's a large number of people that aren't willing to give up some programs (especially games), and there's a large number of people that would still require use of some of those programs for work / client-specific purposes. * upgrade to windows 10 - which has even more malware/adware/DRM/reboots/etc.
If I were running windows, I'd be pissed about this. If there was a cpuid hack and I still wanted to keep windows, I'd probably use it rather than the alternatives.
When you compare availability information from the perspective attendees, find a block that is open on all and squeeze it in there so it doesn't overlap anyone elses schedules. Your scheduling software should even assist with that with ease.
To make things more human friendly, you can do the 15minute blocks thing, and base it on UTC. Almost all timezones would get slightly odd starting/ending offsets, but they'd be consistent.
FWIW, I don't think any of this means that the longitudinal based timezone offsets are a good idea. I just think the scheduling system is one of the few parts that is already updated to handle this (for the most part). There are already timezones with 30 minute and 45 minute offsets from GMT: https://www.timeanddate.com/ti... If you don't have to deal with people in those, that's great (certainly makes things easier to follow), but no one should be assuming that everyone is currently at even 1hr offsets from GMT right now.
IMO, this is one of the most misrepresented features of nearly all IM platforms (that it is "instant"). This should be defined clearly and up front for any users. IMO, delivery receipt confirmation should be built in whenever possible. I have a friend that starts to freak out when he sends someone a text and doesn't get a response within minutes. I've had to sit next to him and have him send me stuff to prove there is a delay, and it's not the same every time. I rarely reply right away, which doesn't my case, but the assumption that the other party got the message, let alone was around their phone, in a service area, and able to respond, is badly broken, but almost all the clients make it appear that that is the case.
That's a cool idea, if you never have to meet anyone online.
Imagine trying to schedule a meeting with people where their start and end times for their meetings vary by 7 minutes, 13 minutes, 23 minutes, etc.
Scheduling isn't really a problem...
The iCalendar/iCal format, and many others, already solved that. You pick your time to schedule the meeting. Your software knows your timezone information. It includes your timezone definitions in the schedule request (yes, this actually happens already). Others can easily use that to determine what that time means universally, and can then apply their own timezone definitions to determine what time that is in their own time.
Determining availability already requires shared availability information (ie. so you can see when they have stuff scheduled already, and vice-versa). Just asking, "when is good for everyone?", is already infeasible due to timezones and DST, unless you're all in the same location. If you're all in the same location, then all your clocks are and would be the same already either way.
I think there are loads of other problems that longitudinal timezones would introduce. I imagine it would make it quite difficult to keep a good grasp of times without computer assistance. For example, if I was going to go to the movies, and wanted to arrive by the showtime of 9pm movie-theatre-local-time, I might have to account for a 4 or 8 minute offset due to crossing a longitude, which could be inches from where I am (average distance of 1degree longitude is about 53 miles; 69 miles at equator; 53 at 40degrees; 0 at poles).
IMO, if you're going to go that route, then take it to its logical conclusion (or damn near there). Set noon to high noon wherever you are. That way, you don't need GPS to know the time, and anyone can validate the current time once a day. Of course, every other system on earth would then start using UTC for coordinated time, which is what it's purpose is anyway, so that'd be a good side effect.
DST makes no sense. The largest proponents left seem to be farmers, which is the group it makes the least sense for... they should be shifting their time to start the day on regular basis to follow the time of sunrise/sunset/noon as needed for the thing they're working on. DST make that more difficult, not easier.
I can understand people wanting to retain timezones. If I move from one TZ to another, I don't want to have to relearn what time most people around me treat as lunch/dinner/bedtime/etc. It's convenient to have those timezone offsets. However, it's all ruined with DST, especially so when you have to cross the equator (a relative -2 hr for almost half the year, then -1 for a few weeks, then 0 for almost half the year, then -1, then -2 again).
In my ideal world: * We have one counter of seconds (unix time) that does not count leap seconds * We have TAI (international atomic time), a counter which includes leap seconds * UTC, a timezone that respects leap seconds * 24 standard timezones at 1 hour offsets from UTC. No more 15 or 30 minute offsets. No more daylight time. However, these can be applied as widely as one likes (ie. China can still pick just one timezone for the whole country if they like).
I'd prefer it to be open. I'd argue for that, pay for it, vote with my wallet, etc.
If they open it up, Intel will be the loser. No one trusts Intel ME.
But does that matter? They have an effective monopoly (or duopoly) in the desktop and server space. If they open it up, assuming no other changes, companies are still going to buy Intel by a large margin. Most people will continue to buy Intel, even if they are aware of the ME risk. You and I are likely to still buy it, cause when you get a great deal on a little NUC for the living room, we get it.
Maybe you won't cave, but plenty of people still will.
They should open it because it's the right thing to do, and enough of those good decisions may eventually pay off.
So... I ragequit social media. All of it. People who are important to me have my phone number. They can call or text.
I don't really understand this. I've seen several friends go through cycles of this, where they quit some network, delete everything, and then (usually) end up coming back a few months later, and having to rebuild all those connections.
Why not just stop actively participating? Remove the apps from your phone, update your settings to limit/disable the flood of notifications, and just let it be. You can update your social network page (whatever one you're mad at for the moment) with a note that friends should call you and that you may not respond to messages, or something along those lines (wonder how many have a simple auto-reply function, like for when you're on vacation?). Doing this means people that may have lost your number (or other contact details) can still find you if they need you, and vice-versa.
It's more work to fully quit than it is to just walk away, and it's not using any of your resources, so why care? If it were all about privacy, then you probably wouldn't be on there to begin with. In this case, you even said it was because of all the other useless-to-you features that were being added to the app you were using - so just stop using it.
PS. if you did simply stop using it, then nevermind anything I said.... but if someone else has some insight on that, I'm curious.
IMO, everything is shitty because of anti competitive practices. * amazon devices should support all the normal android things (ie. google apps, like hangouts, mail, chromecast, etc) * amazon should provide their apps via the normal google play store, rather than requiring use of their own app store (amazon underground), so that normal android devices can easily get prime video/etc. * Ditto for supporting airplay from the various apps, assuming that doesn't have overly restrictive licensing * cable/satellite/networks/content-providers should have supported true a la carte selection DECADES ago * TV providers should have well supported cablecard access to allow 3rd party boxes/DVRs/PCs/etc. This came far too late and with too many restrictions, so it's still difficult/impossible to get it working on computer, and few DVR's support it. IMO, they also should not charge per-TV. * Those last two combined would have made it almost impossible for other streaming services to compete, and not due to anti-competitive measures, but because the service would then fullfull what most people wanted, and it's a more efficient delivery method. * OTA (over the air) TV should have far better integration in all the products. This would greatly reduce the bandwidth consumption on the wire as a lot of content is already broadcast OTA in HD for free - just DVR it and watch it later. * Guide data for all services should be free and open. It's just a dick move to lock it down and doesn't benefit anyone except those clinging to broken/old things. * Per-network content needs to DIAF. It's great that Netflix and Hulu made so much headway with pulling in lots of content to one streaming site (and similar kudo's to Apple for breaking down the mp3 walls), but now they're all repeating the same business moves by making exclusive content. Content production and distribution to the end user need separated, which would make it easy and clear for the content producers to offer standard licensing terms that could be used by all last mile delivery services (cable, sat, hulu, netflix, itunes, amazon video, youtube, hbo, showtime now, etc).
It's an awful mess with no signs of getting any better.
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentions an upcoming patch twice, but is silent on what it does.
Apparently, though not listed explicitly, they will display the unicode version (Ex: www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com instead of www..com) for these edge cases - though I'm not sure how they're detecting them.
IMO, it's all stupid mistakes and fixes because it's only an issue because they're trying to make it so "easy to use" and transparent for the dumbest of folks, while making it more and more complex to actually find the real info. For example, you used to be able to click the padlock icon next to the URL if it was an SSL domain, and that'd pop up security and cert info on Chrome. Now, you can't do that... you have to go into developer tools, then expand the tabs (security tab is often outside the window, because they moved the developer console to split the screen vertically instead of horizontally) to find security tab, then get the cert info there.
All domains should have a very very easy way to see both versions (the unicode/punycode version, and the localized version). Some options: ... or vice-versa: Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www..com] https://www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com...
* right click on the domain, include both in that menu
* mouse over the domain, show alt version in the status bar (bring back the status bar!)
* mouse over the domain, include alt version in mousever text
* include both on the location bar (one in parenthesis). Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com] https://www./.com/
*
* add a little colored (red?) icon next to the name if punycode is in use. Mouseover on it would display info saying what that did. Clicking it would remove/add the decoding. IE: display the decoded localized characters by default; click the red dot to display the punycode; click again to go back to localized; set a preference from the right click menu on the red dot.
This isn't something that can be definitively solved programmaticly. It's still a case of tricking users. Just give the users the info they need so they can make a fair decision. The real DNS name is the fully encoded one (ex. xn--80ak6aa92e.com), not the one decoded from that, so please make that readily available to the user. IMO, displaying the localized text should be an added feature, not the primary display.
So, Ryzen on Windows 8.1 and lower will forever suffer a not-insignificant performance penalty compared to the same hardware running Windows 10. Perhaps it is YOU who should actually study up on current topics, hmm?
While the MS supplied drivers for the new features on these latest processors may not be supported on Windows 8.1, that's not the main issue people are bitching about.
The problem is that all updates are going to (or may) be affected.
Let it be slower than optimal, and let power management not be as ideal, but they shouldn't (IMO) halt security updates (which is what the screenshot in the article states).
I am a little surprised that Intel and AMD themselves won't supply updated drivers for Windows 8.1.
I have, and consider it far, far behind the competition in features.
I'm honestly curious - what features are people talking about?
I don't run Windows, let alone Edge, so I can't compare. However, when it comes to browser features, they all seem to be removing them far faster than adding features. The only features left (by default) seem to be:
* back button
* reload button
* location bar
* tabs
* bookmarks
* incognito / privacy mode
* history / downloads
* print
* settings
I'm digging deep on some of those. There isn't even an OS title bar nor status bar anymore. I have a forward button, but I think I had to add that. I guess there's form autocomplete and password management too, but I turn those off first thing. What features are everyone talking about that Chrome has but Edge lacks?
since Mosaic was the only browser in existence.
Minor nitpick, but that's never been the case. You might assume I'm talking about Lynx (which did predate Mosaic, barely) or something similar, but Mosaic wasn't even the first graphical web browser. This is grammar-nazi level nitpicking though... you could have easily said, "I have been using the web since Mosaic was released", and that'd mean the same thing and have the same impact, even if you didn't use it on release day (Mosaic was around for less than 2 years before Netscape Navigator was released, so you must have used it somewhere in that short range of Jan 1993 - end of 1994).
... and then video games which rely on well optimized video card drivers to run well.
For many years, the video game excuse was that they only ran on Windows.
Then, for many years, that they ran poorly through wine (or various versions of it or winelib), or they were released later than the windows counter part (even if some of them actually ran better on linux).
There's also a fairly large list of games that still require Windows, or run better there, and that can be used as an excuse.
This quote, that they require well optimized video card drivers to run well, this is just stupid.
The majority of the driver is identical on all OS's. Let's ignore that for a second and assume that you found a case where your top end card (must be top end if the driver optimization has a big enough impact that it could make the game run poorly)... where your top end card actually runs noticeably better on Windows. For years now I keep hearing that someones top end card from 5 years ago is still plenty good enough to play any AAA title full res with medium to high settings. So, how is this relatively minor difference due to driver optimization holding up developers or users?
FWIW, I think there are some legit reasons that make significantly more difficult to successfully release a game on Linux. I think the majority of that has its root cause in a chicken and egg problem, but it's a problem nonetheless. But optimized drivers? That's not a valid reason for users or devs.
True. There are RNC/Trump supporters that spew crap, and DNC/Clinton supporters that spew crap.
However, there is a third group that are critics of both the RNC and DNC (and/or both Trump and Clinton). That group should be FUCKING HUGE right now. What the fuck people*?
I'm not certain exactly what this Russian is being accused of, but he's certainly not a whistle blower, and he's not being accused of being innocent. He's probably going to roll over on some people, and it's probably going to have negative affects on both D's and R's. Those detracting from the issue at hand might just be scared - shouldn't both sides be happy this guy was arrested (if he was actually guilty)?
* not necessarily jwhyche :-)
Damn off topic troll
RE: the Paul Allen's yacht, it was on the other side of the world. That incident was in Grand Cayman, not in Australia. Bleaching is still a much bigger threat than his boat (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160129-paul-allen-yacht-tatoosh-damages-cayman-coral-reef/)
Replying to remove incorrect mod
Havent you noticed your kind are going the way of the do do bird...
I wish the do do bird would go the way of the dodo bird.
Exactly. I'm not very thrilled by the prospect of a 140 foot 200,000 pound autonomous flying thing, staying below 400 foot (which is still plenty high enough to hurt when it falls from the sky, but not high enough for even a parachute to deploy (normally 600-1200 feet of free fall; reserve chutes open in about 400 ft)), which is being marketed as cheaper because it doesn't have to be safe enough for humans (read: they will fall out of the air from time to time).
In the best case, there will be 200,000 pounds of stuff and a wreck of vehicle dumped into the ocean not far from shore.
Most languages come with masculine/feminine baggage. In French, you have to magically know that a book is masculine and a shirt is feminine. In English, things don't have a sex ("the" / "it" / "that"), but the right answer for the prom example is technically, "what is he wearing?". That's what it is in the English language.
So, IMO, this is a proposal to change a rule. If we're changing the language, I'd prefer not to overload and muddy the definition of the perfectly good pronouns "they", "their", "them", etc. That's why I asked what would be appropriate for that example. As you noted, it could be "is he", "is she", or "is it". IMO, none of those hit the mark (assuming the goal is to remove the masculine preferred). This is why we need a new series of words (ex. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki..., or https://genderneutralpronoun.w...). Bastardizing the use of "they" is broken, but I guess that fits with all the rest of the "rules" of the this language... no point in being logical now :-)
I'm curious, what do you think the appropriate answer is to that last example?
And for illustrating this actual argument; "The prom queen is dressed unusually" "Why? What _____ wearing?" in that sentence "are they" makes no sense, unless the prom queen is conjoined twins.
If you assume sex with due to the mention of "queen", replace it with, "The winner of the prom is dressed unusually", or "The prom winner ...".
I think that's a good example of the need for a gender neutral singular pronoun other than they. You can fill it in with: ... but the "are they", due to the verb, implies a plural (unless I'm mistaken).
* is she
* is he
* are they
* is it
* is he or she
I don't see how "one" would fix this example (I guess you could say, "what is this one wearing", but that's pretty clunky).
You could avoid the issue at hand, and just refer back to the noun ("What is the queen wearing"). Maybe that's the best answer?
Anyone know how to ... a normal always-there status bar with full URLs always shown instantly on mouseover
Sure: https://chrome.google.com/webs...
Makes syntax isn't arcane. I don't mind the special characters at all (but I prefer to work with perl, so you can safely ignore me from the norm).
What is arcane is its inability to work with filenames that contain spaces, and it's incomplete toolset (why should you have to shell out for so many common tasks). It works very much like many unix tools, but that means it's all text, lists are just space separated text, and there is no real list/object/dictionary/etc.
I still really enjoy working with it, but I'm pretty sure some of that enjoyment comes from the challenge of it.
Hey, that four was generated by a fair die roll and is guaranteed to be random!
It still has a bug, since it takes a "max" argument. Correct code should be something like:
int returnRandomInt(int max)
{
if (max > 3) return 4;
return 0;
}
This is the actual quote:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of ___
Personally, I read that differently than I do:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, packing for shipment or distribution, marketing or storing of ___
I parse the first to read:
(canning or processing or preserving or freezing or drying or marketing or storing or packing for shipment or distribution) of ___
... or, more explicitly:
(canning or processing or preserving or freezing or drying or marketing or storing or (packing for shipment) or distribution) of ___
IMO, the "or" is ambiguous because it is implied on every comma.
Further, I believe they are actually using an oxford comma in the law but neglected to include the additional "or". I think they are arguing that it should have read as either:
Oxford comma:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, or packing for shipment or distribution of ___
According to Maine law, per thebigmacd above, there should not be a comma between the the penultimate and the last item of a series, so it should have been written:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing or packing for shipment or distribution of ___
The way they wrote it is neither of those, so it means, "...,marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution of ___"
IMO, using a cpuid hack doesn't seem all that desperate. Assuming one gets created, it seems like it'd easily be the path of least resistance.
* install cpuid hack once, and keep running what you've got with no other issues (until they block that or add some other awful thing)
* use wsus-offline or autopatcher (I've never used either, but it seems like something that'd be an ongoing thing, you'd have to change some existing settings and expectations, and it'd take some initial setup)
* install a different OS (GNU Linux / Mac OS X / etc). This would be difficult for a most people, and there's a large number of people that aren't willing to give up some programs (especially games), and there's a large number of people that would still require use of some of those programs for work / client-specific purposes.
* upgrade to windows 10 - which has even more malware/adware/DRM/reboots/etc.
If I were running windows, I'd be pissed about this. If there was a cpuid hack and I still wanted to keep windows, I'd probably use it rather than the alternatives.
When you compare availability information from the perspective attendees, find a block that is open on all and squeeze it in there so it doesn't overlap anyone elses schedules. Your scheduling software should even assist with that with ease.
To make things more human friendly, you can do the 15minute blocks thing, and base it on UTC. Almost all timezones would get slightly odd starting/ending offsets, but they'd be consistent.
FWIW, I don't think any of this means that the longitudinal based timezone offsets are a good idea. I just think the scheduling system is one of the few parts that is already updated to handle this (for the most part). There are already timezones with 30 minute and 45 minute offsets from GMT:
https://www.timeanddate.com/ti...
If you don't have to deal with people in those, that's great (certainly makes things easier to follow), but no one should be assuming that everyone is currently at even 1hr offsets from GMT right now.
IMO, this is one of the most misrepresented features of nearly all IM platforms (that it is "instant"). This should be defined clearly and up front for any users. IMO, delivery receipt confirmation should be built in whenever possible.
I have a friend that starts to freak out when he sends someone a text and doesn't get a response within minutes. I've had to sit next to him and have him send me stuff to prove there is a delay, and it's not the same every time. I rarely reply right away, which doesn't my case, but the assumption that the other party got the message, let alone was around their phone, in a service area, and able to respond, is badly broken, but almost all the clients make it appear that that is the case.
That's a cool idea, if you never have to meet anyone online.
Imagine trying to schedule a meeting with people where their start and end times for their meetings vary by 7 minutes, 13 minutes, 23 minutes, etc.
Scheduling isn't really a problem...
The iCalendar/iCal format, and many others, already solved that. You pick your time to schedule the meeting. Your software knows your timezone information. It includes your timezone definitions in the schedule request (yes, this actually happens already). Others can easily use that to determine what that time means universally, and can then apply their own timezone definitions to determine what time that is in their own time.
Determining availability already requires shared availability information (ie. so you can see when they have stuff scheduled already, and vice-versa). Just asking, "when is good for everyone?", is already infeasible due to timezones and DST, unless you're all in the same location. If you're all in the same location, then all your clocks are and would be the same already either way.
I think there are loads of other problems that longitudinal timezones would introduce. I imagine it would make it quite difficult to keep a good grasp of times without computer assistance. For example, if I was going to go to the movies, and wanted to arrive by the showtime of 9pm movie-theatre-local-time, I might have to account for a 4 or 8 minute offset due to crossing a longitude, which could be inches from where I am (average distance of 1degree longitude is about 53 miles; 69 miles at equator; 53 at 40degrees; 0 at poles).
IMO, if you're going to go that route, then take it to its logical conclusion (or damn near there). Set noon to high noon wherever you are. That way, you don't need GPS to know the time, and anyone can validate the current time once a day. Of course, every other system on earth would then start using UTC for coordinated time, which is what it's purpose is anyway, so that'd be a good side effect.
DST makes no sense. The largest proponents left seem to be farmers, which is the group it makes the least sense for... they should be shifting their time to start the day on regular basis to follow the time of sunrise/sunset/noon as needed for the thing they're working on. DST make that more difficult, not easier.
I can understand people wanting to retain timezones. If I move from one TZ to another, I don't want to have to relearn what time most people around me treat as lunch/dinner/bedtime/etc. It's convenient to have those timezone offsets. However, it's all ruined with DST, especially so when you have to cross the equator (a relative -2 hr for almost half the year, then -1 for a few weeks, then 0 for almost half the year, then -1, then -2 again).
In my ideal world:
* We have one counter of seconds (unix time) that does not count leap seconds
* We have TAI (international atomic time), a counter which includes leap seconds
* UTC, a timezone that respects leap seconds
* 24 standard timezones at 1 hour offsets from UTC. No more 15 or 30 minute offsets. No more daylight time. However, these can be applied as widely as one likes (ie. China can still pick just one timezone for the whole country if they like).
I'd prefer it to be open. I'd argue for that, pay for it, vote with my wallet, etc.
If they open it up, Intel will be the loser.
No one trusts Intel ME.
But does that matter? They have an effective monopoly (or duopoly) in the desktop and server space.
If they open it up, assuming no other changes, companies are still going to buy Intel by a large margin. Most people will continue to buy Intel, even if they are aware of the ME risk. You and I are likely to still buy it, cause when you get a great deal on a little NUC for the living room, we get it.
Maybe you won't cave, but plenty of people still will.
They should open it because it's the right thing to do, and enough of those good decisions may eventually pay off.
So... I ragequit social media. All of it. People who are important to me have my phone number. They can call or text.
I don't really understand this. I've seen several friends go through cycles of this, where they quit some network, delete everything, and then (usually) end up coming back a few months later, and having to rebuild all those connections.
Why not just stop actively participating? Remove the apps from your phone, update your settings to limit/disable the flood of notifications, and just let it be. You can update your social network page (whatever one you're mad at for the moment) with a note that friends should call you and that you may not respond to messages, or something along those lines (wonder how many have a simple auto-reply function, like for when you're on vacation?). Doing this means people that may have lost your number (or other contact details) can still find you if they need you, and vice-versa.
It's more work to fully quit than it is to just walk away, and it's not using any of your resources, so why care?
If it were all about privacy, then you probably wouldn't be on there to begin with. In this case, you even said it was because of all the other useless-to-you features that were being added to the app you were using - so just stop using it.
PS. if you did simply stop using it, then nevermind anything I said.... but if someone else has some insight on that, I'm curious.
IMO, everything is shitty because of anti competitive practices.
* amazon devices should support all the normal android things (ie. google apps, like hangouts, mail, chromecast, etc)
* amazon should provide their apps via the normal google play store, rather than requiring use of their own app store (amazon underground), so that normal android devices can easily get prime video/etc.
* Ditto for supporting airplay from the various apps, assuming that doesn't have overly restrictive licensing
* cable/satellite/networks/content-providers should have supported true a la carte selection DECADES ago
* TV providers should have well supported cablecard access to allow 3rd party boxes/DVRs/PCs/etc. This came far too late and with too many restrictions, so it's still difficult/impossible to get it working on computer, and few DVR's support it. IMO, they also should not charge per-TV.
* Those last two combined would have made it almost impossible for other streaming services to compete, and not due to anti-competitive measures, but because the service would then fullfull what most people wanted, and it's a more efficient delivery method.
* OTA (over the air) TV should have far better integration in all the products. This would greatly reduce the bandwidth consumption on the wire as a lot of content is already broadcast OTA in HD for free - just DVR it and watch it later.
* Guide data for all services should be free and open. It's just a dick move to lock it down and doesn't benefit anyone except those clinging to broken/old things.
* Per-network content needs to DIAF. It's great that Netflix and Hulu made so much headway with pulling in lots of content to one streaming site (and similar kudo's to Apple for breaking down the mp3 walls), but now they're all repeating the same business moves by making exclusive content. Content production and distribution to the end user need separated, which would make it easy and clear for the content producers to offer standard licensing terms that could be used by all last mile delivery services (cable, sat, hulu, netflix, itunes, amazon video, youtube, hbo, showtime now, etc).
It's an awful mess with no signs of getting any better.
I didn't pick up on it right away, but searching for "MSM reporting" made it clear that they are referring to "MainStream Media".