The AWS web interfaces for managing things like ECS clusters etc is so terrible that I'm absolutely convinced it's done that way on purpose to force people to use the APIs instead of the web interface. Not only that, every AWS product's web interface is completely different from the others - there is no commonality across the different products other than the single fact that they all suck.
Does every AWS product team leave the web UI to some random intern that can't be trusted to work on the actual product? Is there no single 'aws.css' theme that's mandated to be used by all of the web interfaces?

No, it's more like you getting in someone to fix the roof and it turns out that nobody keeps stock of the materials that went into your ancient roof and nobody is interested in dealing with the lead and asbestos that you're comfortable living with. So fixing a single broken rafter requires the replacement of all of the supporting beams and putting in new ceiling boards which also requires putting in new cornices and an updated paint job. And then because your existing light fittings are all 100W space heaters in disguise, those get replaced with modern LED bulbs at the same time, horrifying you in the process.

While it's nice to think that security fixes can be isolated from cosmetic changes, that's not always possible, because there are times when implementing a security fix requires a large amount of rework to underlying components, and it makes no sense to backport all of that rework into every earlier version so you have to get the updated UI that's built on top of the new updated components as well.

No, I'm talking about actual education. Not like the drivel you're exposed to over there:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Believe me, I see firsthand how a governing party's interference in education secures votes for generations to come. If you keep the kids stupid and unquestioning, and especially if you reinforce some religious garbage into their impressionable minds, you end up with uneducated adults who vote for the man who lies just as often as he breathes, because their church leader told them to vote for the lying corrupt adulterer just before they collected their tithes and boarded their private jet.

If your electoral structure is such that you only get to choose between the less terrible of two terrible candidates, then perhaps your great democracy isn't that great after all. And the only way to realise that is by being provided with an education that's not politicized by someone with a fleet of yachts to care for, because you can be completely certain that they are going to implement policies to ensure that their fleet of yachts is well maintained ahead of any sort of benefit to the children they're responsible for.

And yet 70 million people looked at that ungraceful, undignified, stupid moron and decided "hmm, yes, this is the man who best represents my interests and the interests of our country to the rest of the world".

It seems that there's more education that's required for the general American population rather than for the candidates, so that people like Trump never get the chance to embarrass their country for 4 years. If the public decided to elect a talking orangutan as their leader, it's the fault of the public, not the candidate. Trump's election is less a reflection of his stupidity and lack of dignity and grace, rather a reflection that he represents the interests of approximately half of the adult population of your country.

So the OS should just "shoot the entire content" of pixels that have not been rendered, because they are not visible?

Printing and taking a screenshot are two completely different things. And the OS doesn't know if your application supports printing, let along making it print to this mythical page-with-no-borders-and-is-actually-an-image-instead-of-a-page.

So you're now advocating for additional bloat in the OS to implement functionality that you think should be available to "any sane OS" but actually does not exist in any sane OS, because any sane OS will not attempt to render pixels that are not being displayed.

So you're calling this functionality in the browser "bloat", but then you're also calling for this bloat that's currently limited to a single application to be expanded to the OS instead?

It seems pretty clear that neither you nor BAReFO0t (making a similar reply to the comment above here) aren't developers in any fashion. Controls that aren't visible aren't rendered, so the OS screenshot tool has no way of getting those pixels from the application because the application hasn't drawn them yet. And you can't try to trick the application into drawing them when they're not visible because you'd inevitably break the layout because you're now putting the application into a state that it never expected to be in. And you especially can't do this in a browser because the controls could very well represent content that will only be downloaded when the control comes into view, so now your screenshot either has a blank space or is blocked while the browser fetches the content it needs to download.

Then the screenshot will come out garbled and you and BAReFO0t will cackle with glee at how useless Microsoft is that they can't even take a screenshot properly.

This is functionality that can only be reliably implemented within the application itself.

Replying instead of modding you down.

The screenshot feature being added to Edge allows you to scroll the page while selecting the screenshot region, allowing your screenshot to capture more of the page than what was visible in the browser window initially.

The Windows screenshot feature doesn't know about scrollbars, it only knows about pixels on the screen, so to achieve the same functionality you'd need to take multiple screenshots, manually scrolling the page between each one, and stitching them together.

But you'd know this if you read the article instead of instinctively commenting based on the presence of 4 words in the summary.

https://github.com/MicrosoftEd...

2. What do you mean "ebooks bought off Amazon?" If you mean Kindle Books, there is a Kindle App for that. If you mean generic EPub format books, here's a list of Apps that will Open them, starting with iOSÃ(TM) intrinsic App, iBooks.

Try buying an ebook from the amazon/kindle app. You can't. Apple has decreed that ebooks are digital goods, so they are subject to the rules around IAP, meaning you can't use your own checkout process for ebooks, you have to use Apple's, meaning Apple gets 30% of the sale.

You can check out tens of thousands of dollars via the amazon app and pay nothing to Apple. So Apple has already implicitly admitted that there is no issue with Amazon's payment gateway. But try adding a $1 ebook to the basket and you can't. Suddenly, there's a product that Amazon's selling which Apple has decided can't be sold via Amazon's payment gateway.

And Apple will absolutely do everything in its power to continue enforcing that ridiculous distinction, because if they back down, they'd have to back down on every other app selling digital goods via their own payment processor, including Epic selling Fortnite skins or any random app unlocking a feature via in-app-purchase.

"Ebooks bought off Amazon" are the best example ever to highlight that Apple's rules around using their payment processor are pointless, and purely exist to force themselves into taking 30% of every transaction.

But Apple compels you to use their payment platform even if you already have access to another one.

Take the Amazon app. You can happily check out a basket for tens of thousands of dollars using Amazon's checkout screen and there's no issue. But try to add an ebook to your basket. You can't. Because Apple has decreed that ebooks are digital goods, so they have to be subject to the Apple Tax.

They've acknowledged that they have no problem with you using Amazon's payment screen, so why must they have a problem with using that same screen for a different item from the same store? It's because if they were to allow Amazon to sell ebooks through their own payment portal, they'd have to allow all digital goods to be sold via external payment gateways, and they'd lose that sweet 30% of all those transactions.

So they've had to create this artificial distinction between physical and virtual goods, and keep having to come up with creative ways to continue justifying that digital goods are somehow different and they absolutely have to be processed via Apple's payment mechanisms or the world would fall apart.

I have no problem with Apple providing a payment gateway, and for charging a 30% fee for using that gateway, even though 30% is daylight robbery. I do have a problem with them forcing you to use that gateway and no other.

Besides, Apple's already been in the news in the past few weeks for trying to compel Wordpress to add purchases to their free app despite the fact that it didn't sell anything. So in this case, Apple was trying to compel Wordpress to pay them a royalty for their apps, despite Wordpress not receiving any payments from the app. Regardless of the later retraction and almost unheard of apology, it still is a case of Apple compelling a developer to pay them a royalty despite not being in any way entitled to one.

Try to buy an ebook from your favourite online shopping app. You can't. You can buy products to the value of tens of thousands if you like, but try to buy that "digital" item and Apple will demand their 30% cut. Why? What's different? They've already accepted that they have no issue with the app's payment mechanism for all its other products, why prevent the sale of ebooks?
Because admitting that ebooks, a digital item as defined by Apple, can be sold via an online shopping app via its ordinary checkout process, would also mean they'd have to admit that selling a Fortnite skin via Epic's payment mechanism is effectively the same thing, and they are desperate to maintain this idea that there is somehow something different between a digital item and a physical item, something so different that it justifies them charging 30% for facilitating that transaction and every other digital sale on an iDevice.
So as a user, I am unable to add an ebook to my shopping basket and checkout in a single order. I have to instead go to the website and add those items there, *and checkout on the site*, because you can't checkout the ebook from the app even if its already in your basket, because Apple's arbitrary rules say this is the way it must be.

As a user, I have no problem making the decision for myself as to whether I should trust a random app's payment screen or preferring to rather use Apple's payment mechanism. Apple thinks I'm too dumb to make that decision, so they've eliminated the choice, all for the great fee of 30% of the transaction.

Came here to say this. Pascal was designed as a teaching language, to get students familiar with programming concepts without having to focus on syntax, but being aware that syntax is important.

program programname
begin
end

This is the basic structure for your program. It makes sense. It has a name, a begin and an end.

Then somewhere around the early 2000s it was decided that it was a waste of effort to teach Pascal when it's not used in the real world, so most academic institutions decided to switch their entry-level courses from Pascal to Java, where the first thing you see is

public class ProgramName {
    public static void Main(String[] args) {
    }
}

And the intro to programming students are immediately told 'just ignore all those words, you'll be taught about them later'.

I'm pretty sure we'd have a lot more developers (and of a better quality too) if entry-level courses used the right tools for the job.

Only if they pay me for my QA services. Otherwise they can hire a proper QA team and stop trying to get unpaid labour out of me, my equipment, my electricity and my bandwidth.

In what way are you providing QA services? Your PC is doing this without any effort from you. You aren't providing any direct feedback. If you wanted to do that, you'd explicitly opt into the Insiders program.

No, I want the ability to totally disable this massive security hole. This means nobody gets data from my computers.

Then turn it off.. Why are you trying to mess with hosts files instead of using the officially supported channel for managing telemetry? What security hole does it open?

At least be honest and call it what it is: spyware.

What's it spying on? Every time the word 'telemetry' appears, it just brings out people like you shouting 'spyware!' with no further explanation or justification. You've been conditioned by FUD and typical blinkered M$ hatred.

Alarmist much?

What exactly is with the rabid hatred for telemetry? Don't you *want* crashes to be reported to your software provider, so that they can be assessed and fixed?

And in this particular case, since telemetry is being collected anyways, don't you *want* to make sure that it goes only to Microsoft, and not to some random third party?
Redirecting to localhost doesn't help, if malware's able to open a listener on your machine.

But anyways, let's just continue chanting 'telemetry bad' and then continue to bash Microsoft when bugs that would have been identified and fixed via telemetry are not identified and fixed, because of this irrational hatred of the word.

If the malware has modified your system to pull Windows Updates from a fake source, then it's possible that information would be included in telemetry. In which case it would need to also block or redirect the telemetry data as well, or the infection would be detected.