Not really. PowerShell had many short commands since 1.0 in addition to the long versions... it's not that PS "started" one way or the other.
the former grew from a CLI mindset, whereas the latter is easing (back) into CLI from a GUI mindset.
Also not true. There's nothing about the long syntax that grew from a GUI mindset. It was created for consistency and ease of learning.
PowerShell primary commands are formatted Verb-Noun. This is awfully convenient, as a PowerShell user can guess hundreds of commands just by learning a few verbs and a few nouns. I just counted, and to understand half of the 300+ built-in commands on my machine requires only learning 7 verbs.
It's funny, I pretty much never use that term because I feel the way you do. This is perhaps literally the first time I've done it on any Internet forum or chat. I just felt that it was worth reducing the complexity of explaining who it is I really am talking about.
You really could have a field day with the rest of the Internet, if this bothers you here so much.
These "folks" - Yeah the first OS i've used was in fact win95 - sorry but I'm late generation it seems.
I'm almost positive I qualified that with "many of", not "all of".
The complaint is that I don't want to change my OS if I don't want to, and that should be my choice - plain and simple.
In fact that is precisely an option you have, one you acknowledged in your original post.
You spin your own web and live in the world you can neatly categorize.
It seems you are the one who is spinning things. You aren't in the group I was mentioning, and you have a straightforward option you just don't want to take, yet you expect pity?
You say its different, yet don't even realize what different means. Different can mean hundreds of hours reconfiguring and migrating applications. Different means hundreds or thousands of dollars in migration costs. How naive are you to think you know what's best for everyone else?
This is a legitimate complaint, one you should have led with. Yet your original complaint was that you had to deal with the horror of removing an update, and that its look-and-feel are somewhat different.
The complaint is because it's different. "You'll pry Windows 7 from my cold, dead hands!"
Many of these folks are the same ones from the 90s that couldn't stand using a GUI at all. They would never use Windows, what, with all its pretty effects that were completely unnecessary. Just get all that out of the way and let me use my damn command prompt!
Except now Microsoft decided they were right, and try to get rid of those effects to focus on typography which is the only element in the command-line UI, and those same people go all bat-ape.
Nothing is worth more than manufacturing cost +20%. If you are willing to pay more... A fool and his money will be soon parted
Sure, perhaps this is your yardstick, and if it is that's perfectly fine.
But tell me, how do you go about figuring out what the manufacturing costs actually are? Unless you are willing to allow Tim Cook to tell you that all gross revenues are "manufacturing costs"...
I don't know about more recent implementations, but I remember that Samsung originally only allowed you to run some of their stock apps in multiple windows. When I was at the Verizon store, I almost bought a Note 2 for its multi-windowing capability until I noticed in some fine print near the display that it only worked with some stock apps... so I ditched that idea and went with a device better suited for phone use.
One way to test that is to simulate time. A simulation wouldn't need to wait 15 actual seconds, it could speed up time such that transmissions run immediately after the last, until the test has surpassed the expected lifetime of the mission.
If this were able to be done once every millisecond instead of once every 15 seconds, they would have run across the bug within 14 minutes.
You know, if people are actually doing proper user interface design, that might be true.
But having seen Metro on a Windows 8.1 box... that's not what is happening.
To be fair, I don't know that any of the problems are with the Metro (now called Modern) design language itself. Most UI complaints in Windows 8.1 fall into two categories:
1) usability problems such as auto-hiding UI elements, removing buttons in favor of gestures, moving right-click menus to the screen edge, and so on 2) dislike for the flat, clean, chrome-minimized theme
Metro/Modern only deals with #2, and for the most part that is user preference. Meaning, if #1 were fixed, then Metro can work right for many users, and might even be loved by many (such as myself). This is where I think Windows 10 is improving things in general, getting us back to almost Windows 7 levels of usability without completely sacrificing the clean, chromeless look of Windows 8.
Watch the videos I linked above, or at least the first one or two. Sure, third parties can and do win in a first-past-the-post system, but it gets more and more rare until it becomes practically impossible for them to have any chance of success.
When was the last time a third party had any real chance of winning the Presidency of the U.S.? Theodore Roosevelt took second place in the 1912 election running as the Progressive Party candidate. He was previously a very popular President of two terms, who decided not to run for a third immediately. Instead he tried to run for a third term later only to miss the Republican Party nomination. He formed his own party, and despite his popularity among Republicans, all he could do was spoil the election... he split the Republican vote, and Democrats walked away the victors with a relatively low plurality.
I wasn't thinking multiple governments that are sovereign over a small price of land, but rather multiple layers of government consisting of local representation and proper checks and balances.
The U.S. federal/state/local and executive/legislative/judicial partitioning is actually a pretty decent form of what I'm talking about (except that the state governments have de jure capability to place Constitutional restrictions over the federal government, but de facto the federal government always has the final say).
The main reason I'm neither Democrat nor Libertarian: I don't believe in either a big government or a small government.
I believe in multiple small governments, who together provide the necessary defense from external forces but which do not have the ability to concentrate (and thus corrupt) power absolutely.
I highly doubt that. If they really are poor, meaning they only have enough money to provide the basic necessities, I doubt that energy efficient windows and HVAC units and such are higher priority than basic food, clothing, and shelter.
Sure, these things pay for themselves eventually, but the upfront cost is quite a bit of money that can better be used to eat this week.
Prius C costs all of $17K
A used gas guzzler might cost all of $1K, or less.
It used to be a 10% deduction for $500, up to the lifetime of the house. A drop in the bucket.
Not much for a rich person, but unattainable for a poor person.
The main problem here is forgetting why we do taxes the way we do.
Fairness takes a back seat to collection efficiency. If taxes were truly fair, the government would force you to pay on the spot for every tiny use of government services and infrastructure. Do the water pipes to your house go 90 ft. farther than your neighbor's? Then you have to pay for your share of wear on the common pipe, and additionally on the pipe that goes only to your house. Did your precinct need a recount in the last election? You need to come back and pay a little extra tax for that additional processing. Did you call the cops out because your car was broken into? You pay them on the spot for their services.
Similarly, driving distance and weight are fair ways to calculate road infrastructure taxes, but it's a lot easier to have people pay at the pump... which is one reason it's done that way.
This is why I think all this anger from the left about tax deductions is silly. The left pushed through energy efficiency deductions, and then were appalled when the only people who qualified for those deductions were the people rich enough to worry about energy efficiency.
See my response to aepervius below, the chosen baseline year simply appears to be the first year provided in the data set.
Doing 1975 as a comparison, using current dollars for FY2009... 1975 = $1232.7B, 2014 = $3238.9B, the federal government is currently spending 2.63 times as much as in 1975, adjusted for inflation.
Assuming that source is to be trusted*, his numbers are correct as he stated. $9.5 Billion in 1940 is equivalent to $135.8 Billion in FY2009, so the comparison between $135.8B and $3.2T ($3238.9B) is the proper comparison. That comes out to be 23.9 times as much spending in current dollars.
* if you believe the source is incorrect, feel free to find a reputable source that refutes it... as for me, I have to go to work
What does "so that her fruit depart from her" mean if not causing the child to be born prematurely?
Besides, I chose the NIV because it was the default on the website I happened to look up. If you don't like it, then look at some of the others. Young's Literal Translation (1862) for example uses the phrase "her children have come out".
This is particularly the case today when most money is seating idle in bank accounts and treasury bonds.
Whose bank accounts and treasury bonds? I assume you are hinting at owners of companies who employ large numbers of minimum-wage workers, but what about the owners of companies who don't employ many minimum-wage workers? Increasing minimum wage doesn't make much of a difference for them, and certainly doesn't cause them to contribute more to the system that got them there.
This is one reason I don't care to jump on this bandwagon of raising the minimum wage. It puts the whole burden on low-skill industries.
As for abortion: an embryo or a fetus is not a person and it is not viable to live on its own. Even the Bible makes this clear since the punishment for striking a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage is not the same punishment as murder.
Oh really? Exodus 21 seems to disagree (emphasis mine):
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Anyone who asks this question, or understands the answer but is interested in how to make things better, should watch CGP Grey's Politics In The Animal Kingdom series.
Slashdot Mirror
PowerShell did it the other way 'round.
Not really. PowerShell had many short commands since 1.0 in addition to the long versions... it's not that PS "started" one way or the other.
the former grew from a CLI mindset, whereas the latter is easing (back) into CLI from a GUI mindset.
Also not true. There's nothing about the long syntax that grew from a GUI mindset. It was created for consistency and ease of learning.
PowerShell primary commands are formatted Verb-Noun. This is awfully convenient, as a PowerShell user can guess hundreds of commands just by learning a few verbs and a few nouns. I just counted, and to understand half of the 300+ built-in commands on my machine requires only learning 7 verbs.
This definitely happens in Netflix originals, although I'd say it's no more than shows on other networks.
I used the term "the left" above as well.
It's funny, I pretty much never use that term because I feel the way you do. This is perhaps literally the first time I've done it on any Internet forum or chat. I just felt that it was worth reducing the complexity of explaining who it is I really am talking about.
You really could have a field day with the rest of the Internet, if this bothers you here so much.
These "folks" - Yeah the first OS i've used was in fact win95 - sorry but I'm late generation it seems.
I'm almost positive I qualified that with "many of", not "all of".
The complaint is that I don't want to change my OS if I don't want to, and that should be my choice - plain and simple.
In fact that is precisely an option you have, one you acknowledged in your original post.
You spin your own web and live in the world you can neatly categorize.
It seems you are the one who is spinning things. You aren't in the group I was mentioning, and you have a straightforward option you just don't want to take, yet you expect pity?
You say its different, yet don't even realize what different means. Different can mean hundreds of hours reconfiguring and migrating applications. Different means hundreds or thousands of dollars in migration costs. How naive are you to think you know what's best for everyone else?
This is a legitimate complaint, one you should have led with. Yet your original complaint was that you had to deal with the horror of removing an update, and that its look-and-feel are somewhat different.
The complaint is because it's different. "You'll pry Windows 7 from my cold, dead hands!"
Many of these folks are the same ones from the 90s that couldn't stand using a GUI at all. They would never use Windows, what, with all its pretty effects that were completely unnecessary. Just get all that out of the way and let me use my damn command prompt!
Except now Microsoft decided they were right, and try to get rid of those effects to focus on typography which is the only element in the command-line UI, and those same people go all bat-ape.
Nothing is worth more than manufacturing cost +20%. If you are willing to pay more ... A fool and his money will be soon parted
Sure, perhaps this is your yardstick, and if it is that's perfectly fine.
But tell me, how do you go about figuring out what the manufacturing costs actually are? Unless you are willing to allow Tim Cook to tell you that all gross revenues are "manufacturing costs"...
I don't know about more recent implementations, but I remember that Samsung originally only allowed you to run some of their stock apps in multiple windows. When I was at the Verizon store, I almost bought a Note 2 for its multi-windowing capability until I noticed in some fine print near the display that it only worked with some stock apps... so I ditched that idea and went with a device better suited for phone use.
One way to test that is to simulate time. A simulation wouldn't need to wait 15 actual seconds, it could speed up time such that transmissions run immediately after the last, until the test has surpassed the expected lifetime of the mission.
If this were able to be done once every millisecond instead of once every 15 seconds, they would have run across the bug within 14 minutes.
Don't worry, subby was doing the same thing.
You know, if people are actually doing proper user interface design, that might be true.
But having seen Metro on a Windows 8.1 box ... that's not what is happening.
To be fair, I don't know that any of the problems are with the Metro (now called Modern) design language itself. Most UI complaints in Windows 8.1 fall into two categories:
1) usability problems such as auto-hiding UI elements, removing buttons in favor of gestures, moving right-click menus to the screen edge, and so on
2) dislike for the flat, clean, chrome-minimized theme
Metro/Modern only deals with #2, and for the most part that is user preference. Meaning, if #1 were fixed, then Metro can work right for many users, and might even be loved by many (such as myself). This is where I think Windows 10 is improving things in general, getting us back to almost Windows 7 levels of usability without completely sacrificing the clean, chromeless look of Windows 8.
Watch the videos I linked above, or at least the first one or two. Sure, third parties can and do win in a first-past-the-post system, but it gets more and more rare until it becomes practically impossible for them to have any chance of success.
When was the last time a third party had any real chance of winning the Presidency of the U.S.? Theodore Roosevelt took second place in the 1912 election running as the Progressive Party candidate. He was previously a very popular President of two terms, who decided not to run for a third immediately. Instead he tried to run for a third term later only to miss the Republican Party nomination. He formed his own party, and despite his popularity among Republicans, all he could do was spoil the election... he split the Republican vote, and Democrats walked away the victors with a relatively low plurality.
"small price of land" = "small piece of land"
I just love how /. mobile provides neither preview nor edit...
I wasn't thinking multiple governments that are sovereign over a small price of land, but rather multiple layers of government consisting of local representation and proper checks and balances.
The U.S. federal/state/local and executive/legislative/judicial partitioning is actually a pretty decent form of what I'm talking about (except that the state governments have de jure capability to place Constitutional restrictions over the federal government, but de facto the federal government always has the final say).
The main reason I'm neither Democrat nor Libertarian: I don't believe in either a big government or a small government.
I believe in multiple small governments, who together provide the necessary defense from external forces but which do not have the ability to concentrate (and thus corrupt) power absolutely.
The only thing obvious is that a third party has no chance of winning.
The most impact a third party has is to spoil the election for the closest of the two main parties.
I'd be ok if this were required learning material: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...
Even poor people get double-paned windows
I highly doubt that. If they really are poor, meaning they only have enough money to provide the basic necessities, I doubt that energy efficient windows and HVAC units and such are higher priority than basic food, clothing, and shelter.
Sure, these things pay for themselves eventually, but the upfront cost is quite a bit of money that can better be used to eat this week.
Prius C costs all of $17K
A used gas guzzler might cost all of $1K, or less.
It used to be a 10% deduction for $500, up to the lifetime of the house. A drop in the bucket.
Not much for a rich person, but unattainable for a poor person.
The main problem here is forgetting why we do taxes the way we do.
Fairness takes a back seat to collection efficiency. If taxes were truly fair, the government would force you to pay on the spot for every tiny use of government services and infrastructure. Do the water pipes to your house go 90 ft. farther than your neighbor's? Then you have to pay for your share of wear on the common pipe, and additionally on the pipe that goes only to your house. Did your precinct need a recount in the last election? You need to come back and pay a little extra tax for that additional processing. Did you call the cops out because your car was broken into? You pay them on the spot for their services.
Similarly, driving distance and weight are fair ways to calculate road infrastructure taxes, but it's a lot easier to have people pay at the pump... which is one reason it's done that way.
This is why I think all this anger from the left about tax deductions is silly. The left pushed through energy efficiency deductions, and then were appalled when the only people who qualified for those deductions were the people rich enough to worry about energy efficiency.
See my response to aepervius below, the chosen baseline year simply appears to be the first year provided in the data set.
Doing 1975 as a comparison, using current dollars for FY2009... 1975 = $1232.7B, 2014 = $3238.9B, the federal government is currently spending 2.63 times as much as in 1975, adjusted for inflation.
Actually I think I found the source of the data tompaulco used: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
Assuming that source is to be trusted*, his numbers are correct as he stated. $9.5 Billion in 1940 is equivalent to $135.8 Billion in FY2009, so the comparison between $135.8B and $3.2T ($3238.9B) is the proper comparison. That comes out to be 23.9 times as much spending in current dollars.
* if you believe the source is incorrect, feel free to find a reputable source that refutes it... as for me, I have to go to work
What does "so that her fruit depart from her" mean if not causing the child to be born prematurely?
Besides, I chose the NIV because it was the default on the website I happened to look up. If you don't like it, then look at some of the others. Young's Literal Translation (1862) for example uses the phrase "her children have come out".
This is particularly the case today when most money is seating idle in bank accounts and treasury bonds.
Whose bank accounts and treasury bonds? I assume you are hinting at owners of companies who employ large numbers of minimum-wage workers, but what about the owners of companies who don't employ many minimum-wage workers? Increasing minimum wage doesn't make much of a difference for them, and certainly doesn't cause them to contribute more to the system that got them there.
This is one reason I don't care to jump on this bandwagon of raising the minimum wage. It puts the whole burden on low-skill industries.
Or you're in high school flipping burgers, still living with your parents and without much actual responsibility.
As for abortion: an embryo or a fetus is not a person and it is not viable to live on its own. Even the Bible makes this clear since the punishment for striking a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage is not the same punishment as murder.
Oh really? Exodus 21 seems to disagree (emphasis mine):
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Anyone who asks this question, or understands the answer but is interested in how to make things better, should watch CGP Grey's Politics In The Animal Kingdom series.