The current firmware update ships as a bootable ISO. Burn it to a CD/DVD (or a flash drive if you can work it out), hold down "option" at boot, and you'll be looking at a DOS prompt in no time. I verified this two days ago when I misread the firmware version on the website and downloaded an updater for the version I already had.

I remember, back in the early 80s, some friends and I pooled our allowance, bought an Atari joystick, then tried to make an adapter for the 9-pin Apple IIe joystick connector- not realizing the reason the Apple joysticks were so damn expensive was because they were analog.

Not for my last 6 computers have I seen a 9 pin serial port.

The world's biggest Lego Land. Do they sing "Everything is Awesome!" while they work?

Very true. Multiculturalism and pluralism, like urban living, requires liberty and individualism.

The way I usually put it is "limited but strong"./ Limited in topics they can intervene on, strong enough to defend their competency.

True. I'm puzzled that no one has sued the bastard. I doubt there was ever a more blatant case of breach of fiduciary duty.

No. I was explaining, to you, how clicking an icon and typing into the command line are not the same. It's really not my fault you missed that.

No, it's not. Dragging the icon for the image into the icon for the image viewer is exactly the same, in that you're specifying "open this file with that application". Doublie-clicking is most certainly not the same, especially when Windows defaults to "hide known file extenstions" and your malicious application is named "bigboobies.jpg.exe" with an icon that looks like a thumbnail of some boobs. The user sees "bigboobies.jpg", thoughtlessly ignores that no other legitimate images on their system show a file extension, and double clicks it; the malicious application now executes. Hell, if known extensions are hidden, simply naming it bigboobies.exe and giving it a titillating icon would fool 99% of users, even power users.

Here's why:

Typing "image_viewer.exe bigboobies.jpg" would launch image_viewer.exe, which would then tell you the file was not found. Dragging the icon of the "image" to the icon for "image_viewer.exe" or typing "image_viewer.exe bigboobies.jpg.exe", were you not to notice the ".exe" at the end, would launch image_viewer.exe, which would then complain that the file you fed it was not an image. Double-clicking an icon triggers the default action for the file type of the file the icon belongs to; in other words, if it's a sneakily-named executable, it executes it.

This is one time me and the FOSSies are actually on the same page, as just like windows 8 was forced from on high and gave the users a big fat greasy finger so too is systemd being pushed by corporate with exactly zero fucks given about what the end users want.

Most end users don't care about the init system one way or another, since most end users don't ever mess with it. On the other hand, every end user was forced to mess with Metro. That's the difference.

Anything left after that goes to the people.

And corporations are people. The difference between you and them is that they actually can keep an eye on everything the government does, and put and keep up the pressure to get the laws and decisions they want.

you're an idiot

I acknowledge your feelings of inadequacy. But it would be more effective to improve yourself than attack random strangers online, especially since your ad hominems are less than impressive, too. Might I suggest learning basic reading comprehension as a start?

just because some asshats are screening new hire's facebook page doesn't mean we should surrender all privacy rights

I didn't propose we do.

really, everything about your post is upside-down...

Try adjusting your system configuration.

Not in the free world. Maybe where you live.

I didn't know extraterrestials are posting on Slashdot. Where is this free world you're talking about?

There's ultimately no way to makes laws other than "those in power decide," as every system is really that system under the covers - by the definition of "power."

I think having proposed legislation vetted by juries would help.

One beer? You're an idiot. Who'd want to live in a society where job loss and de facto permanent unemployment occurs at the slightest infraction?

Driving drunk is not a slight infraction, and many (most?) companies screen their employees for off-hour drug use nowadays - heck, I've heard that having Facebook pics of yourself drinking beer can get you disqualified from a job. We already have all the worst sides of authoritarianism, so why not get what few good things there are, too?

Giving someone money isn't speech, but it can be closely tied to speech in such a way that taking away your ability to do so effectively infringes upon your free speech rights.

I disagree. I rather suspect that most of the money that people might make from such speech (assuming drawings of children having sex is considered a form of speech) comes from the legal right to prevent other people from copying them. This legal right is granted "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

To be clear, I'm not advocating a ban on drawing, or the possessition of drawings, but I'm far from convinced that the right to free speech encompases a right to claim payment for drawing children having sex.