So how do you propose to address the inevitable vulnerabilities in firmware that hasn’t been updated? A tech must be physically present to flip the switch before updating?
TNG is one of my favorite shows of all time, and I can't answer most of these. I feel like I've watched the entire show at least a couple of times all the way through, but I definitely don't pay attention to the individual episode titles.
This is one step away from: "In season 4, episode 3, what was the exact code Data used to lock out the Enterprise?"
I've seen the show many times through and I know which episode every single one of these are from. But with a few exceptions I don't remember the name of any of them. It's just not a thing my brain picks up.
The take home thing is a vial into which you put a stool sample and mail it back. Then it gets tested for signs of colon cancer. I've seen them advertised on TV as well.
That is not a colonoscopy. That is a stool sample and as other replies noted this gets sent out every two years to every one. In the UK from age 60 Australia seems to be from 50.
If that tests positive then you get a colonoscopy to check more things.
If you have had colon cancer then you get a full colonscopy evry two years and an MRI every year.
No it is not an alternative to a colonoscopy it is a different test.
If this test finds something then the next step is not treatment it is you need a colonoscopy.
It is a test that cuts down on the number of colonoscopies needed and is cheap enough to find problems earlier than everyone having a colonoscopy which is just unaffordable,
I've got extremely normal marketplace health insurance and my doctor is at an extremely normal overworked large regional health chain, and I would have to argue with him to get an at-home test; the whole system is set up to funnel us all into colonoscopies.
I often think old GUIs have a nice, functional look to them. This one is no exception. I notice (what I assume is) the shuffle toggle looks unfamiliar. This is from way back before that UI became a convention! I see the repeat icon has stuck around. So interesting!
Microsoft (and Apple) poured a ton of money into usability research in the early 90s and it showed. I vaguely remember the story through how many versions of the trash icon Microsoft went for Windows 95 to get it right.
For me it was a bit sad to see the mad and creative UX world of the homecomputer era being bulldozed over with the minimalist uniform results of the scientific usability research.
Little did I know that a mere quarter century later we are back were we once started and everyone as clueless as we were in the 90s goes overboard everywhere as if there was no tomorrow.
Yeah, and it sadly makes me miss the nicely ordered and easily usable world - I'm gettin' old I guess.
Functionality isn't hidden and buttons looked like buttons (instead of the modern trend of having unstyled text or tiny icons having a 50-50 chance of being a button).
The flat design trend really confused me. It really took off when high resolution screens started getting popular too, really made no sense. Wish we'd bring back Skeuomorphic design. Bring back that wood grain and metal textures. Bring back the fun UI's and app themes. Bring back real buttons!
I would say they should have only deleted the data that was found to be illegal, but if that data was all over the place... I find it hard to sympathize.
I, too, was in the navy and supervised this very exercise on a ship. The exercise simulates a doomsday scenario that presumes satellite comms are out after a nuclear strike. Ships and other stations retransmit the messages over HF in order to eventually reach nuclear-armed subs for assured second strike capability. HF, with its semi-BLOS (beyond line of sight) range, is used to form a global communications network without satellites. The range of course depends on how much signal bounces off the atmosphere, which is why many stations are needed for redundancy. The whole exercise is Top Secret.
It's baffling that you can't see that what OP is getting at is that there is not in fact any 'file manager he likes'. 50 half baked solutions are just that - half baked solutions.
"Just learn hundreds of different tools, spend dozens of hours reading all their man pages, understand all their limitations, and pick the correct one before starting your task, all so you can accomplish something completely ancillary to the task you actually want done. Geez, it's not hard."
Unfortunately, just because you have choices that doesn't mean those choices are good.
I was forced to the file explorer on Windows, and the file explorer was good so I didn't mind. I was also forced to use MS Paint. And it was good for a long time, until they added layers. Now my primary use case of it (pasting an image and cropping it) doesn't work as well as it used to.
On Linux I don't even have that choice. There are choices, yes, but none of them do what I want anyway.
What truly drives me insane is that if you say "I just want what Windows does" people tell you that it's not Windows, it's "different(tm)." Then you ask why do Linux software sucks in comparison to Windows, and you get told "well, it's because Windows has $ to spend in R&D." So it's double-think. Developers are aware proprietary software spends tons of money they don't have in R&D, and yet they shy away from just copying the results because they don't want to be Windows.
I just want Windows, but with freedom. I don't want "different" if it's not going to be better.
> Then you ask why do Linux software sucks in comparison to Windows, and you get told "well, it's because Windows has $ to spend in R&D."
Are there actually people who claim this? Microsoft has plenty of money but the premise that they use it to improve the user experience seems contrary to evidence.
When something sucks on Linux with no alternatives it's usually because most people don't use the feature you want, e.g. because there is another way to do the same thing and more people are doing it that way, and then no one bothers to make thing you want because their desire to have that is already being satisfied by something else.
Of course, one of the choices you have is to build the thing you want yourself, which is why it works out that way. The chances of someone having done that go up the more people want it to exist. When the number is low, you have to decide if you want it enough for the person who makes it for everyone to be you. And it's fine if your answer is no, but now you know why that thing doesn't exist.
"Choice is bad because I might have opinions and then instead of the computer saying no I might switch to software that better suits my preferences. I just want a corporation to tell me what to want"
It’s more like, “I already have opinions and preferences and despite the various options available, none of them suit me well and so choosing any one results in a high degree of compromise, and so the next best thing is using a different one depending on the circumstance which brings its own compromises.”
Should it? In terms of window management, what's ideal? Should every program have to implement tabs and then have its own tab manager, and bookmarks and favorites? If we take a step back and look at the bigger window management problem, what makes the most sense for most users? Monitors these days are relatively cheap, so the fight for screen real estate isn't the same problem as it once was. The onus is on the operating system to make it better for the user to arrange things how they want things to work.
Although obviously unserious, I would argue a baby harness is mostly the opposite of what an agent harness does. A baby harness constrains and contains the baby, while an agent harness controls but also empowers the agent.
reply