Then turn the damned thing off again. Welcome to Microsoft. It's like the other day, people were bitching 'cause it changed the settings back. Like that's a NEW thing? No! I used to use Windows all the time. I'd have to reset the damned thing back to OE instead of Outlook for NNTP and Email. Welcome to Microsoft.
Did you *really* expect anything better?
I wish I had initiative to reply to each one individually but the answer's the same to all of you. Turn the damned thing off. By the time you've done it a few times, you'll be used to it. Of all the things to get outraged about, this one's pretty damned low on the list. WTF did you think "and more" meant? It means they're gonna give you ads. They'd give you aids if they thought they could sell you the cure. It's just ads. On the lock screen. And no, slippery slope arguments are still not accepted.
"But they might do this in the future!!!" Sure, they might turn into aliens and show that they've been using computers to control humans and are now going to eat us. We'll worry about that when we get there. Until then, turn the damned thing off. This is not rocket science. It even tells you how to turn it off in the summary. Hell, if you stop blocking telemetry they might noticed you turned it off and decide to kill the program... Probably not, but it could happen. But that's no different than the slippery slope. Turn the damned thing off and you'll be okay. When you can't turn it off - get out the pitchforks or get another phone. Right now, turn the damned thing off and you've got nothing to worry about.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite melt down this much on Slashdot. Presumably, it's a new day when you read this. You need a hug? 'Cause I'll let you hug my g/f. She's cute but only a little squishy 'cause she's kind of skinny. I'm not very squishy at all but I'll give you a hug.
Anyhow, I'm inclined to disagree. The USD is used in crime all the time. Yes, there's some chance that monitoring our activities will result in a safer society. However, I'd rather accept the risk and have more liberty to move about unobserved as well as conduct transactions with less scrutiny. The government needn't know everything and yes, that means that sometimes good people get hurt. There will never be a truly safe society and that's okay. We're humans, we're fallible, and we're going to have bad shit happen.
If you did so knowingly, probably, yes... At least according to the law. You're not going to get prosecuted but, theoretically that's treason. It's also not cool to sell it to them. They're hungry and don't have any money, give 'em your damned cupcake. But, under certain circumstances, that may well count as treason. Bare minimum, the State Department's gonna be right pissed when they find out about it.
Actually, the Interstate Highway System is built for the sole reason of allowing rapid troop and equipment deployments. That you can use it as a citizen is just a side benefit. If you don't believe me, try to interrupt a convoy on a Federal Highway. Then check and see what your insurance company says to you. And then check the resulting fines.
Eisenhower had them built after seeing the Autobahn in Germany in WWII and on a video of them in action. He saw the movie and said to his Aide De Camp, "Hot damn we need some of that shit up in here." And it was so. They traveled throughout the land planting highway seeds in all the right places, tended them carefully, and they grew into the highway system you see today.
In other words, no... The Interstate is not for you. That's just a side benefit. If you look at the size of the equipment and then look at the mandatory road widths on Federal highways, you'll notice something. If you want a really specific example, look at the width of things like tanks and the HMMWV and then measure the width of your nearest Federal highway - all the way down to the regular old non-toll roads that are actually Federal highways. They're the ones with the funny looking logo around them. On a properly labeled map you'll see they're named things like US Rt. 2, US Rt. 95, etc.
That's fine. The FBI should be granted all lawful orders to the phone in question - and to all the other phones. They have that already. What they don't have is the ability to force Apple to develop a mechanism to render that device useful. I'm okay with that. That's the way it should be. I've got nothing wrong with the FBI having access to the device. They can do their very best to retrieve the information in a lawful manner. This, this order, is not lawful in my opinion.
And yes, yes I think I'm qualified to hold an opinion. That this is not about physical access is a difference with distinction. They are free to do quite a bit with the device. Well, they're free to do anything with the device they want - just not if they want to use it as evidence. They can try to break in it any way they want. They can even hire people to do it. They can even ask Apple to do it. What they can't do is *force* Apple to do it. Apple can comply if they want but that sets a bad precedent. It's best to not allow it and I feel Apple made the right choice to fight this.
Yes, it sucks that good people might get hurt. That's a price way pay to have some liberties. I'm just as at-risk as you are. Don't let your fear take away my liberty, thanks. Don't worry, I'll respect that same position when it comes time for a liberty you're concerned with losing. And trust me, that time will come.
> In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
I once had a couple of cops kick me out of Kansas for that line of thinking. It's a long story but I'll try to make it brief.
They tried to convince me that my refusing to allow them to search my vehicle is grounds to allow them to search the vehicle, that it constituted probable cause. Yes, I laughed aloud and explained that I was not a teen. I did applaud their effort, quite literally. They then told me to get out of Kansas and that if they ever saw me again, they were going to arrest me.
Oddly, with all the travel I have done (and the condition and manners in which I've done it) that's the worst thing I ever faced. There's more to the story but that's the gist of it. I don't believe the rest is significant but I'll share it if you want to understand the circumstances. I'm not sure if I should be frightened or amused by the treatment. I have to wonder if they use that line often and if anyone falls for it?
I'm also pretty sure they can't just kick me out of Kansas but I didn't figure I'd stick around where I wasn't wanted and I was headed out anyhow - and right on the border. They were even kind enough to give me an escort to the on-ramp at the nearest highway. I didn't have the heart to tell 'em that I'd just gotten done helping clean up after 90% of Greensburg had been destroyed by a tornado and that I'd only cleaned up because I happened to be right there in the area and they needed help. I just figured that I'd avoid Kansas. I've never been back.
I've heard that and I've heard something about a barrel lining. I don't know if I've ever seen concrete evidence of the powder being intentionally changed to sabotage it or not. I'm pretty sure they changed a barrel lining at some point but I've no idea where to go to check that. My memory is not absolute so I'd not swear to it. I don't know if the change had to do with intentional sabotage or if it was just an eventual improvement or? I am not a walking historian.;-)
I can say that they just fine when I served. I had no problem trusting my life with one. Hell, I've got quite a bit to say about how much I appreciate mine - if you want to hear it, I suspect you're familiar with it. I do not recollect any specific parts breaking - in my reading/watching/learning. I am not to be mistaken for the afore mentioned history book. So, let me say that I *think* it was that a few different areas had fatigue issues with the unexpected heat and that this was fixed with the barrel relining? I'd absolutely not swear to that in a court of law. It's probably on the 'net somewhere.
Any such problems were dealt with by my time. There's some differences in the A1/A2 as well - I'd not be surprised if Wikipedia listed 'em. They're pretty damned reliable if maintained well. They are nowhere near as reliable as an AK, specifically the AK-47. I've actually been told that the AK-47 is *less* reliable, it's just inferior record keeping and sheer number and notice. I'd not swear to that either.
As an aside, I like history well enough. I'm just not good at or keen on remembering lots of details. It's actually a good thing. I can read the same book a dozen times and still get some enjoyment out of it.
I hate to say it but I have to. This reeks of intentional hit piece. He was appointed by Reagan. Draw your own conclusions. They may not be connected events. They might be. I'm a wee bit stoned so I'm not gonna offer much of an opinion. However, it's the first thing I checked when I clicked your Wikipedia article. I skimmed the rest of it. Yeah, they might be connected.
We play politics like a team sport. Cheating is to be expected. Hell, they've even got rules to cover cheating at some level. They're more like role-playing rules than they are laws but they're rules. We expect people to cheat, they do. Why expect anything different when we play politics like it's a team sport?
I'm not sure that I agree with your disbelief in the future of this site. I've noticed a trend towards improvement and I know things take time. It's imperative to consider the amount of time that goes into editing a story (such as it is) and acceptance of the story. At the moment, there's a lot for them to do and to learn - I do not expect to see immediate changes but trends that show improvement over time. I'm seeing this. I see a lot of Slashdot, actually. I'm pretty bored and I pop in and out throughout the day. Every day.
That said, I'm posting this so that others see your post. It's a valid post and I disagree with your observation but not your intent. It's important that your post is so low in the thread - few people read this far down and read at 0. I don't moderate and already commented so I can not vote. I will, hopefully, get your comment a little more notice. I won't quote it, I didn't say it. If you're reading at >= 1 then expand and read the above, the links appear valid.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Are you suggesting like buttons, a PM system, and the opportunity to share it on other sites, perhaps? 'Cause I kinda like it like it is and it's kind of imperative that it is as it's likely to allow access with the fewest resources including physical capacity.
Given its location, it's almost certainly likely to "work" (for some semblance of the word) for blind people, for example. I'm sure if it didn't, someone would be yelling about it and rightfully so, I guess. Do they have resources enough to run multiple sites?
IOW, I'm kind of partial to it. I've seen what happens when sites do a layout change and altered features. It seldom goes well... This is even more true when there's a dedicated group of users who are entitled (without connotations assigned, legitimately entitled) to the content. If they change that, someone's work cycle is going to change. If we change that, someone's scripts are gonna change. Someone's internal security settings, across thousands of computers, is probably gonna have to change to allow some dumb-asses remotely hosted nodejs or some other damned library, or fonts, or metrics, or dynamic content, or share buttons, etc...
Someone's gonna be REALLY pissed if you do that. They are gonna yell at you. They are going to send you hate mail. They are going to blog about it, Twitter it, Facebook it, and share it with everyone that will listen - even if you get it *right.* I can assure you, you will not do it right. I've *seen* this. If you don't believe me, consider what happens for something like pushing code to the Linux kernel that breaks userspace. That's a tiny fraction of what you can expect.
Hmm... You wouldn't work in UX/UI, would you? 'Cause, seriously... Dude... They get PISSED. Hell, I got there once a month (at most) and I'm gonna be mildly annoyed. It has to work with *every* browser out there 'cause one of 'em is using LYNX. Hell, one of them's probably still using GOPHER. Every failure is gonna need to be a graceful failure and retain all current usage functions in a clear and easy manner that is not much different and able to accept all sorts of inputs and display formats. Gone are the days of, "This page is optimized for Internet Explorer 6!"
In fact, now that I think about it, they kind of have to go for a pretty low standard. It's kind of the lowest common denominator type of thing. There are people accessing this on remote data links, with satellite phones, and in the middle of a jungle with specialty low-energy compute gear. It has to work for them. The standards and protocols it uses are decades old and have stood the test of time. You're REALLY gonna piss people off if you break ANY of that. Any of it...
Nope... Not enough money in the world to make me touch that project. I'm thinking it's good that it is from the 1990s. That's fine - don't touch it. That's a move that says, "Career Ending." That's really gonna limit your future employment opportunities if it goes wrong - and it *will.* Hell, look at the rage when Google changes their font. Imagine that with much greater intensity and actual repercussions. Nope, not enough money in the world.
I'm a wee bit stoned but I just thought about it...
Can you imagine if you were nominated? I think the very first words out of my mouth would be expletives and then I'd close the door, hang up the phone, or whatever. Hell no... I don't even have any real skeletons in my closet and I'd not even go through that. I've done some kind of bad things but nothing I hide, I learned a lesson and moved on. I can't even begin to imagine what this must look like, internally, for the nominee. Seriously, fuck that.
I can just imagine what my friends would tell 'em for their own amusement. It was bad enough getting security clearance. They somehow found people that I don't even keep in contact with.
Fortunately, there's zero chance of my being nominated for *any* position. I did get nominated for a town position (selectman) not all that long ago but I am ineligible. I sure as shit didn't want that job and I'll be damned if I'd want to be on the SCOTUS. Hell, I don't even use my moderation points. No, that's just way too invasive for me. I really don't think I could stand the process, media, dredging through my past when I'll just tell ya what I did, and all that sort of crap. Hell no... At least I'm pretty sure they'd never nominate me for such a position. They'd have to be pretty damned stupid to do so.
My statement reeks of a logical fallacy. The excluded middle... In theory, destructive is not necessarily your goal. However, I'm going to stick with it and say that it is the presumable goal - as all evidence seems to point in that direction. So, it may appear to be fallacious but I'm gonna stick with it.
I'd counter my post with, "Facts not in evidence!" I'd rebut with citations of the Republicans being destructive. As I play the potentially ensuing debate in my head, I'm pretty sure I can point out a trend and suggest that it's reasonable to conclude that destructive is the goal. While it's true that one must break a few eggs to make an omelet, you don't break 'em, throw the shells in, and then kill the chicken. True, you get an omelet but you've got an omelet that nobody wants to eat.
Note to self: A little less weed before posting to Slashdot... I blame my neighbor.
Yes. Their job obligates them to approve a nomination. It does not obligate them to approve *any* nomination. They, the people who are claiming they will obstruct, should actually give a fair hearing to any/all nominations. And I mean real fair, not "fair." Failing to do so is failing to do their duty. However, they're not required to approve any nomination offered - just a nomination.
Unfortunately, they've now tainted this process. Anyone who is nominated is going to be assumed to have been excluded because of obstruction as opposed to valid reasons. I mean, c'mon... There's a SLIM chance that it is for valid reasons. It could happen. Now, no matter what, even if they had a good reason to decline the nominee, folks will just chalk it up to obstruction.
Meh, par for course. Welcome to America. Can I take your order please?
Did you read the summary? This is not complicated. Change the settings. tada.wav! There, closed. You're all set and, best of all, you got to pick what's displayed instead of relying on a third party to do so. That and, as of yet, this has not been shown to be a malware route. It probably is but we can not make that accusation until it's demonstrated to be so. They provide network access, that's the greatest route of malware right there. Change the damned settings and move on. Who the hell wants ads on their lock screen? Nobody, that's who. Change it and move on. What the hell do you think "other" is, anyhow? This is MS we're talking about. Of course it's ads. Turn that shit off and be done with it. Hell, you see the same thing on a Kindle, except you can't turn it off - unless you buy a more expensive version (or maybe upgrade? I dunno about that part).
I really don't think Joe Average is gonna give a shit. Joe Average really don't mind and Joe Average is the target market. Hell, I don't even give a shit. I'd just turn it off. Then again, I've either used no lock screen or a blank lock screen for a very long time. There's not much chance of me seeing ads - and I hate ads. Hell, I've been blocking ads since the mid 1990s. Not even *I* would bother getting out pitchforks and torches for this - assuming I used Windows. Just turn the damned thing off. It's not like it's hard - even Joe Average can figure it out, if he's so inclined. This knee-jerk reaction isn't even remotely rational. It's literally seeking reasons to be outraged. If you don't like it, turn the damned thing off.
It is. You should (if you haven't) see it on very modern hardware. I have it on a "mobile workstation" right here and, oh my... I've even installed it on some *very* older hardware (stuff from 2005) and it runs just fine. I think the slowest I've installed on was a 2.0 GHz w/3 GB of RAM and a spinning platter HDD. I spent about a day using it on that system and it was/is just fine.
I like LXDE and I've not yet tried the LXQt that is coming in 16.04... It should be interesting. I'm hoping that it is as quick and stable.
Yeah, that was fixed in about six months as I recall. It had to do with the failure to realize that they had to be kept clean, more than anything else. Some say it was actually just a simple miscommunication, but I'm inclined to think it was just incompetence. It hasn't been a problem since the poster was probably born. It was a solved issue by 1975 - I can speak to this first-hand.
That would be epic! I'm willing to throw some dollars at a "mission" like that. Unfortunately, I don't have any contacts there any more. (Years ago, for about a dozen years, I was an MS MVP.) I'd throw a few bucks to help make that happen so long as it's ethical and legal. Depending on how well they sanitize inputs, maybe you can get goatse there - but I'm not gonna help pay for that. I will, on the other hand, download the ISO and run it from a VM and take screen shots of it.
I don't use Windows but, you know - come on now... If you turn on something that displays web content on your lock screen then... Well, you get stupid shit like this. It's the lock screen. You're not looking at it. Pick something else if you want to watch your lock screen. Seriously...
I fail to see the justification for outrage here. And no, "slippery slope" isn't justification for outrage. I love me some torches and pitchforks, don't get me wrong. But this? This hardly seems like something to be outraged about. I'm kind of surprised it's not already an option in older Windows OSes.
You might want to look into frangible rounds. They're pretty reliable these days. They're nice if you're planning on using them in a building such as your home.
Slashdot Mirror
Then turn the damned thing off again. Welcome to Microsoft. It's like the other day, people were bitching 'cause it changed the settings back. Like that's a NEW thing? No! I used to use Windows all the time. I'd have to reset the damned thing back to OE instead of Outlook for NNTP and Email. Welcome to Microsoft.
Did you *really* expect anything better?
I wish I had initiative to reply to each one individually but the answer's the same to all of you. Turn the damned thing off. By the time you've done it a few times, you'll be used to it. Of all the things to get outraged about, this one's pretty damned low on the list. WTF did you think "and more" meant? It means they're gonna give you ads. They'd give you aids if they thought they could sell you the cure. It's just ads. On the lock screen. And no, slippery slope arguments are still not accepted.
"But they might do this in the future!!!" Sure, they might turn into aliens and show that they've been using computers to control humans and are now going to eat us. We'll worry about that when we get there. Until then, turn the damned thing off. This is not rocket science. It even tells you how to turn it off in the summary. Hell, if you stop blocking telemetry they might noticed you turned it off and decide to kill the program... Probably not, but it could happen. But that's no different than the slippery slope. Turn the damned thing off and you'll be okay. When you can't turn it off - get out the pitchforks or get another phone. Right now, turn the damned thing off and you've got nothing to worry about.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite melt down this much on Slashdot. Presumably, it's a new day when you read this. You need a hug? 'Cause I'll let you hug my g/f. She's cute but only a little squishy 'cause she's kind of skinny. I'm not very squishy at all but I'll give you a hug.
Anyhow, I'm inclined to disagree. The USD is used in crime all the time. Yes, there's some chance that monitoring our activities will result in a safer society. However, I'd rather accept the risk and have more liberty to move about unobserved as well as conduct transactions with less scrutiny. The government needn't know everything and yes, that means that sometimes good people get hurt. There will never be a truly safe society and that's okay. We're humans, we're fallible, and we're going to have bad shit happen.
Given that this has potential for some damning consequences, do the ends really justify the means in this case?
If you did so knowingly, probably, yes... At least according to the law. You're not going to get prosecuted but, theoretically that's treason. It's also not cool to sell it to them. They're hungry and don't have any money, give 'em your damned cupcake. But, under certain circumstances, that may well count as treason. Bare minimum, the State Department's gonna be right pissed when they find out about it.
Actually, the Interstate Highway System is built for the sole reason of allowing rapid troop and equipment deployments. That you can use it as a citizen is just a side benefit. If you don't believe me, try to interrupt a convoy on a Federal Highway. Then check and see what your insurance company says to you. And then check the resulting fines.
Eisenhower had them built after seeing the Autobahn in Germany in WWII and on a video of them in action. He saw the movie and said to his Aide De Camp, "Hot damn we need some of that shit up in here." And it was so. They traveled throughout the land planting highway seeds in all the right places, tended them carefully, and they grew into the highway system you see today.
In other words, no... The Interstate is not for you. That's just a side benefit. If you look at the size of the equipment and then look at the mandatory road widths on Federal highways, you'll notice something. If you want a really specific example, look at the width of things like tanks and the HMMWV and then measure the width of your nearest Federal highway - all the way down to the regular old non-toll roads that are actually Federal highways. They're the ones with the funny looking logo around them. On a properly labeled map you'll see they're named things like US Rt. 2, US Rt. 95, etc.
That's fine. The FBI should be granted all lawful orders to the phone in question - and to all the other phones. They have that already. What they don't have is the ability to force Apple to develop a mechanism to render that device useful. I'm okay with that. That's the way it should be. I've got nothing wrong with the FBI having access to the device. They can do their very best to retrieve the information in a lawful manner. This, this order, is not lawful in my opinion.
And yes, yes I think I'm qualified to hold an opinion. That this is not about physical access is a difference with distinction. They are free to do quite a bit with the device. Well, they're free to do anything with the device they want - just not if they want to use it as evidence. They can try to break in it any way they want. They can even hire people to do it. They can even ask Apple to do it. What they can't do is *force* Apple to do it. Apple can comply if they want but that sets a bad precedent. It's best to not allow it and I feel Apple made the right choice to fight this.
Yes, it sucks that good people might get hurt. That's a price way pay to have some liberties. I'm just as at-risk as you are. Don't let your fear take away my liberty, thanks. Don't worry, I'll respect that same position when it comes time for a liberty you're concerned with losing. And trust me, that time will come.
> In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
I once had a couple of cops kick me out of Kansas for that line of thinking. It's a long story but I'll try to make it brief.
They tried to convince me that my refusing to allow them to search my vehicle is grounds to allow them to search the vehicle, that it constituted probable cause. Yes, I laughed aloud and explained that I was not a teen. I did applaud their effort, quite literally. They then told me to get out of Kansas and that if they ever saw me again, they were going to arrest me.
Oddly, with all the travel I have done (and the condition and manners in which I've done it) that's the worst thing I ever faced. There's more to the story but that's the gist of it. I don't believe the rest is significant but I'll share it if you want to understand the circumstances. I'm not sure if I should be frightened or amused by the treatment. I have to wonder if they use that line often and if anyone falls for it?
I'm also pretty sure they can't just kick me out of Kansas but I didn't figure I'd stick around where I wasn't wanted and I was headed out anyhow - and right on the border. They were even kind enough to give me an escort to the on-ramp at the nearest highway. I didn't have the heart to tell 'em that I'd just gotten done helping clean up after 90% of Greensburg had been destroyed by a tornado and that I'd only cleaned up because I happened to be right there in the area and they needed help. I just figured that I'd avoid Kansas. I've never been back.
That really depends on one's view of perfect.
I've heard that and I've heard something about a barrel lining. I don't know if I've ever seen concrete evidence of the powder being intentionally changed to sabotage it or not. I'm pretty sure they changed a barrel lining at some point but I've no idea where to go to check that. My memory is not absolute so I'd not swear to it. I don't know if the change had to do with intentional sabotage or if it was just an eventual improvement or? I am not a walking historian. ;-)
I can say that they just fine when I served. I had no problem trusting my life with one. Hell, I've got quite a bit to say about how much I appreciate mine - if you want to hear it, I suspect you're familiar with it. I do not recollect any specific parts breaking - in my reading/watching/learning. I am not to be mistaken for the afore mentioned history book. So, let me say that I *think* it was that a few different areas had fatigue issues with the unexpected heat and that this was fixed with the barrel relining? I'd absolutely not swear to that in a court of law. It's probably on the 'net somewhere.
Any such problems were dealt with by my time. There's some differences in the A1/A2 as well - I'd not be surprised if Wikipedia listed 'em. They're pretty damned reliable if maintained well. They are nowhere near as reliable as an AK, specifically the AK-47. I've actually been told that the AK-47 is *less* reliable, it's just inferior record keeping and sheer number and notice. I'd not swear to that either.
As an aside, I like history well enough. I'm just not good at or keen on remembering lots of details. It's actually a good thing. I can read the same book a dozen times and still get some enjoyment out of it.
I hate to say it but I have to. This reeks of intentional hit piece. He was appointed by Reagan. Draw your own conclusions. They may not be connected events. They might be. I'm a wee bit stoned so I'm not gonna offer much of an opinion. However, it's the first thing I checked when I clicked your Wikipedia article. I skimmed the rest of it. Yeah, they might be connected.
We play politics like a team sport. Cheating is to be expected. Hell, they've even got rules to cover cheating at some level. They're more like role-playing rules than they are laws but they're rules. We expect people to cheat, they do. Why expect anything different when we play politics like it's a team sport?
I'm not sure that I agree with your disbelief in the future of this site. I've noticed a trend towards improvement and I know things take time. It's imperative to consider the amount of time that goes into editing a story (such as it is) and acceptance of the story. At the moment, there's a lot for them to do and to learn - I do not expect to see immediate changes but trends that show improvement over time. I'm seeing this. I see a lot of Slashdot, actually. I'm pretty bored and I pop in and out throughout the day. Every day.
That said, I'm posting this so that others see your post. It's a valid post and I disagree with your observation but not your intent. It's important that your post is so low in the thread - few people read this far down and read at 0. I don't moderate and already commented so I can not vote. I will, hopefully, get your comment a little more notice. I won't quote it, I didn't say it. If you're reading at >= 1 then expand and read the above, the links appear valid.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Are you suggesting like buttons, a PM system, and the opportunity to share it on other sites, perhaps? 'Cause I kinda like it like it is and it's kind of imperative that it is as it's likely to allow access with the fewest resources including physical capacity.
Given its location, it's almost certainly likely to "work" (for some semblance of the word) for blind people, for example. I'm sure if it didn't, someone would be yelling about it and rightfully so, I guess. Do they have resources enough to run multiple sites?
IOW, I'm kind of partial to it. I've seen what happens when sites do a layout change and altered features. It seldom goes well... This is even more true when there's a dedicated group of users who are entitled (without connotations assigned, legitimately entitled) to the content. If they change that, someone's work cycle is going to change. If we change that, someone's scripts are gonna change. Someone's internal security settings, across thousands of computers, is probably gonna have to change to allow some dumb-asses remotely hosted nodejs or some other damned library, or fonts, or metrics, or dynamic content, or share buttons, etc...
Someone's gonna be REALLY pissed if you do that. They are gonna yell at you. They are going to send you hate mail. They are going to blog about it, Twitter it, Facebook it, and share it with everyone that will listen - even if you get it *right.* I can assure you, you will not do it right. I've *seen* this. If you don't believe me, consider what happens for something like pushing code to the Linux kernel that breaks userspace. That's a tiny fraction of what you can expect.
Hmm... You wouldn't work in UX/UI, would you? 'Cause, seriously... Dude... They get PISSED. Hell, I got there once a month (at most) and I'm gonna be mildly annoyed. It has to work with *every* browser out there 'cause one of 'em is using LYNX. Hell, one of them's probably still using GOPHER. Every failure is gonna need to be a graceful failure and retain all current usage functions in a clear and easy manner that is not much different and able to accept all sorts of inputs and display formats. Gone are the days of, "This page is optimized for Internet Explorer 6!"
In fact, now that I think about it, they kind of have to go for a pretty low standard. It's kind of the lowest common denominator type of thing. There are people accessing this on remote data links, with satellite phones, and in the middle of a jungle with specialty low-energy compute gear. It has to work for them. The standards and protocols it uses are decades old and have stood the test of time. You're REALLY gonna piss people off if you break ANY of that. Any of it...
Nope... Not enough money in the world to make me touch that project. I'm thinking it's good that it is from the 1990s. That's fine - don't touch it. That's a move that says, "Career Ending." That's really gonna limit your future employment opportunities if it goes wrong - and it *will.* Hell, look at the rage when Google changes their font. Imagine that with much greater intensity and actual repercussions. Nope, not enough money in the world.
Do you work for Mozilla?
I'm a wee bit stoned but I just thought about it...
Can you imagine if you were nominated? I think the very first words out of my mouth would be expletives and then I'd close the door, hang up the phone, or whatever. Hell no... I don't even have any real skeletons in my closet and I'd not even go through that. I've done some kind of bad things but nothing I hide, I learned a lesson and moved on. I can't even begin to imagine what this must look like, internally, for the nominee. Seriously, fuck that.
I can just imagine what my friends would tell 'em for their own amusement. It was bad enough getting security clearance. They somehow found people that I don't even keep in contact with.
Fortunately, there's zero chance of my being nominated for *any* position. I did get nominated for a town position (selectman) not all that long ago but I am ineligible. I sure as shit didn't want that job and I'll be damned if I'd want to be on the SCOTUS. Hell, I don't even use my moderation points. No, that's just way too invasive for me. I really don't think I could stand the process, media, dredging through my past when I'll just tell ya what I did, and all that sort of crap. Hell no... At least I'm pretty sure they'd never nominate me for such a position. They'd have to be pretty damned stupid to do so.
My statement reeks of a logical fallacy. The excluded middle... In theory, destructive is not necessarily your goal. However, I'm going to stick with it and say that it is the presumable goal - as all evidence seems to point in that direction. So, it may appear to be fallacious but I'm gonna stick with it.
I'd counter my post with, "Facts not in evidence!" I'd rebut with citations of the Republicans being destructive. As I play the potentially ensuing debate in my head, I'm pretty sure I can point out a trend and suggest that it's reasonable to conclude that destructive is the goal. While it's true that one must break a few eggs to make an omelet, you don't break 'em, throw the shells in, and then kill the chicken. True, you get an omelet but you've got an omelet that nobody wants to eat.
Note to self: A little less weed before posting to Slashdot... I blame my neighbor.
That might be true BUT it isn't really constructive. If destructive is your goal then at least be honest about it.
Yes. Their job obligates them to approve a nomination. It does not obligate them to approve *any* nomination. They, the people who are claiming they will obstruct, should actually give a fair hearing to any/all nominations. And I mean real fair, not "fair." Failing to do so is failing to do their duty. However, they're not required to approve any nomination offered - just a nomination.
Unfortunately, they've now tainted this process. Anyone who is nominated is going to be assumed to have been excluded because of obstruction as opposed to valid reasons. I mean, c'mon... There's a SLIM chance that it is for valid reasons. It could happen. Now, no matter what, even if they had a good reason to decline the nominee, folks will just chalk it up to obstruction.
Meh, par for course. Welcome to America. Can I take your order please?
Did you read the summary? This is not complicated. Change the settings. tada.wav! There, closed. You're all set and, best of all, you got to pick what's displayed instead of relying on a third party to do so. That and, as of yet, this has not been shown to be a malware route. It probably is but we can not make that accusation until it's demonstrated to be so. They provide network access, that's the greatest route of malware right there. Change the damned settings and move on. Who the hell wants ads on their lock screen? Nobody, that's who. Change it and move on. What the hell do you think "other" is, anyhow? This is MS we're talking about. Of course it's ads. Turn that shit off and be done with it. Hell, you see the same thing on a Kindle, except you can't turn it off - unless you buy a more expensive version (or maybe upgrade? I dunno about that part).
Change the damned settings. It's RIGHT THERE in the summary.
And that was a very, very long time ago. It was a solved issue when I enlisted. That was 1975.
I really don't think Joe Average is gonna give a shit. Joe Average really don't mind and Joe Average is the target market. Hell, I don't even give a shit. I'd just turn it off. Then again, I've either used no lock screen or a blank lock screen for a very long time. There's not much chance of me seeing ads - and I hate ads. Hell, I've been blocking ads since the mid 1990s. Not even *I* would bother getting out pitchforks and torches for this - assuming I used Windows. Just turn the damned thing off. It's not like it's hard - even Joe Average can figure it out, if he's so inclined. This knee-jerk reaction isn't even remotely rational. It's literally seeking reasons to be outraged. If you don't like it, turn the damned thing off.
It is. You should (if you haven't) see it on very modern hardware. I have it on a "mobile workstation" right here and, oh my... I've even installed it on some *very* older hardware (stuff from 2005) and it runs just fine. I think the slowest I've installed on was a 2.0 GHz w/3 GB of RAM and a spinning platter HDD. I spent about a day using it on that system and it was/is just fine.
I like LXDE and I've not yet tried the LXQt that is coming in 16.04... It should be interesting. I'm hoping that it is as quick and stable.
Yeah, that was fixed in about six months as I recall. It had to do with the failure to realize that they had to be kept clean, more than anything else. Some say it was actually just a simple miscommunication, but I'm inclined to think it was just incompetence. It hasn't been a problem since the poster was probably born. It was a solved issue by 1975 - I can speak to this first-hand.
That would be epic! I'm willing to throw some dollars at a "mission" like that. Unfortunately, I don't have any contacts there any more. (Years ago, for about a dozen years, I was an MS MVP.) I'd throw a few bucks to help make that happen so long as it's ethical and legal. Depending on how well they sanitize inputs, maybe you can get goatse there - but I'm not gonna help pay for that. I will, on the other hand, download the ISO and run it from a VM and take screen shots of it.
I don't use Windows but, you know - come on now... If you turn on something that displays web content on your lock screen then... Well, you get stupid shit like this. It's the lock screen. You're not looking at it. Pick something else if you want to watch your lock screen. Seriously...
I fail to see the justification for outrage here. And no, "slippery slope" isn't justification for outrage. I love me some torches and pitchforks, don't get me wrong. But this? This hardly seems like something to be outraged about. I'm kind of surprised it's not already an option in older Windows OSes.
You might want to look into frangible rounds. They're pretty reliable these days. They're nice if you're planning on using them in a building such as your home.