Print them all and put them in labelled shoeboxes.
Print them all and put them in labelled shoeboxes.
Metro is not a newspaper, it is an advertising bulletin freely given away on buses and trains.
When the free upgrades were made available I upgraded two machines to Win 10: Eee PC from 7 Home (OEM) to 10 Home and Dell desktop from 7 Pro (OEM) to 10 Pro. In each case, but for different reasons, I reverted to Win 7 (it just didn't work that well on a low power atom based netbook with hard disk, and on the Dell it broke some of my games). Since then I installed an SSD in the Eee PC and on the Dell I switched my games from CD/DVD based to Steam. In both cases I then did a clean install of Win 10 and found that the original Win 10 activations were still good.
Here is the difference:
In China the government decides that you can or cannot view porn.
In the *Account Holder* who pays the ISP decides if he/she prefers to allow access.
It is a huge difference. The sensationalist click-bait reporting is inaccurate, disingenuous and deceptive.
I am in the UK. I am the account holder for the service I receive from my ISP at home via FTTC (Fibre To The Cabinet) and from my ISP on 4G (different company). In both cases by default, i.e. for new customers, the ISPs' filters block porn, gambling, notorious P2P sites (but *not* P2P protocols!) and so on. I *CHOSE* to disable them and I can browse any site (Ok, any site not explicitly forbidden by the High Court of a democratic, free nation with separation of state and judiciary, whose laws are enacted by a body with a democratic mandate).
Occasionally my young (below 10 years old) nephews and nieces visit and they like to use any available tablet or PC to find music, funnt videos etc. Before they arrive I open my landline ISP's page, log in and enable the filtering. After they leave I disable it.
I'm the adult, I'm the account holder and I have the choice. I choose to allow myself any and all kinds of gambling, porn, file sharing, political extremism etc. When minors visit me I choose to disallow the same things that their parents disallow.
This is not censorship. It is judgement and responsibility. Censorship is when *someone else* decides what adults may or may not see or hear. This is *NOT* the case in the UK. The ISP account holder has full control and responsibility. Nobody cares if you disable or enable filtering, it's just a checkbox you mark or not, according to your whim.
Judgement and responsibility are when *YOU, as an adult* have the choice. Minors do not get to decide these things, parents and responsible adults do.
To conflate censorship with responsible parenting (including acting in loco parentis) is inane, disingenuous, hysterical and stupid. Ultimately it discredits liberals and libertarians and does them no service.
In the EU when people say "free movement" what they actually mean is "cheap labour". That's great for multinationals and very large national businesses, but horrible for anyone trying to pay the mortgage/rent, maintain the family and so on.
He didn't retire. He didn't die. He bought a smartphone and became a new kind of superhero.
If I had mod points this post would get some positivity.
"Elegant!". Too often I see applications, desktop environments, Linux distributions, even languages, described as "elegant". Through experience I have learned to automatically mentally translate this into "ill conceived, badly implemented, fucking stupid, actually worse than useless".
You have to be a real arsehole to mod someone down simply because you disagree.
I like and prefer the mobile site on my Galaxy Note, and prefer the desktop site on my desktop, laptop and 7" tablet. Occasionally I might switch to the mobile site on my tablet (via Firefox user agent). I think this all works really well.
The mobile site was a great improvement for small screens and slashdot became actually legible. The big mistake was trying to impose a similar design on the desktop UI such that now there is a herd of people who automatically chorus their disapproval of the mobile site, seemingly as a reflex. Maybe you can enhance the main site site with some systemd syntax config options? That should keep them busy and let those of us who don't/can't read very tiny text on very tiny screens continue to enjoy one of the better mobile website UIs.
"... systemd isn't a solution for end-users, which is why you don't see any substantial changes. Its a solution for *developers*, freeing them from having to deal with the mountain of hacks, kludges..."
As an end user with desktop, laptop and a home server I notice systemd has proven to be useful. The transition from sysv to systemd in Debian testing was not much fun to experience but the end result is great. I get obviously faster boot times and also faster shutdowns. Occasionally I compile from source and install something I want to run at boot. Getting sysv init scripts just right was not always easy. I expected systemd to be similarly arcane; in fact it is really easy to write a systemd unit file and to add your daemon to the system startup.
For example to add a calibre ebook server to my home server init system I just added the following to
I think to any *nix user who has even a rudimentary understanding of how processes are described/presented in *nix and how command line options and arguments are input then this is *very* easy to understand. Just by looking at an existing service file of a familiar application you can understand how to integrate something new. It's all there in plain text. That feels very unix-like to me.
Anyway I'm fine with systemd. I hated it for a little while while running a testing system which was gradually moving from sysv to systemd but now I really can't complain.
And to any whiners: it's free software so the answer is not to complain but to contribute to an alternative or even just continue to use an OS which allows you to choose something else. Gentoo and Funtoo come to mind and would seem to be ideal for people who are insufferably picky and always right (no offence to gentoo or funtoo, I like them a lot, but I think I would enjoy watching people who are never, ever wrong and always know exactly what they need trying them out).
If I had mod points you would get some positivity from me.
Both Garrett & Sharp make reckless, decontextualised and highly aggressive allegations (see Garret vs Tso and Sharp vs Torvalds/Molnar on mailing list). Not micro-aggressions (whatever those are) but really nasty, disingenuous, slanderous attacks full of misrepresentation and bile, sometimes introducing very ripe language where it wasn't already present. But if you want to disagree with these two saints they reserve the right to only acknowledge disagreement that they don't really disagree with. Everything else on their blogs gets replaced with "fart fart fart fart" and the author is automatically disparaged/ridiculed. These two behave like spoiled children or little lords but claim the moral high ground!
I appreciate that both these characters made and perhaps continue to make contributions which benefit others. However, that doesn't make them unique, nor irreplaceable, nor does it give them the right to insist that other people comply with their personal tastes.
I've read several threads on lkml where Torvalds and Sharp or Torvalds and Garrett (and others). Sharp comes across as someone energetically and actively seeking to find offence, while Garrett gives the impression of someone actively seeking to deliberately misunderstand plain English in order to be able to shout down others while pointing and blaming (it's a time tested method of implying one is of better character than the "heretics" or the "wicked").
In contrast, in those same threads, Torvalds comes across as someone expressing his views with a great deal of humour and not a little patience. When he blows his top it's not on social issues, it's because people are either being lazy/careless, or trying to use Linux as a platform for social evangelism.
I really doubt Linux or Linus will miss Sharp or Garrett, either in terms of code or in terms of sub-machiavellian mailing list attention seeking.
For the record I think Sharp is a dick and Garrett is a pussy.
....that's right...despite it being extraordinarily similar to those devices, and targeted at an extraordinarily similar market and for actually identical reasons....it's in no way competing! *cough*
Excuse me. I seem to have developed a *cough*. But each *cough* is entirely unique and unrealted to the previous *cough*.
There is only one real *cough* in this comment. Any fool can tell the difference.
The real difference between the BBC Micro of 1981 and the BBC Micro Bit of 2015 is 34 years of changes in society and technology.
I was at school when the first BBC Micro appeared. My school built a special computer laboratory to accommodate two of these mystical devices! (they forgot to add burglar alarms and decent locks so it all got stolen). A year later the school acquired a ZX Spectrum which was housed with the science block. It was all very exciting, such that it occasionally and temporarily displaced burning interests in alcohol, cigarettes and certain photo journalism features of traditionally attired ladies in National Geographic magazine.
The BBC has a remit (to educate, entertain, inform). But this is not 1981. Which UK home that contains a person stimulated by maths, technology or computers science does not also already have a PC or and Android device?
This looks a lot like the BBC puffing itself up, and trying to needlessly and damagingly compete with people who are already informing, educating and entertaining, in much the same way that they are destroying the independent local press in the UK and crushing small production companies. George Osborne was not kidding when he described the BBC's ambitions and actions as having an imperial taint. If there is one thing an empire cannot tolerate it is an entity which offers an alterantive, however good, bad, big or small.
I'd be surprised if even one person had ever been prosecuted for ripping a CD for personal use. Commercial use/bootlegging/counterfeiting - of course. But I have never even heard or read of anyone suffering any penalty for ripping a CD for themselves. How would it be detected? Who would care? It's a civil matter so there is no involvement of the police or the state. How would the rights holder(s) ever detect the event of a copy being made, or be able to prove the provenance or a copy "discovered"?
In short it's a nice bit of make work for the lawyers and is of zero concern to everyone else.
btw I used to work at a regional police HQ and the gym CD player ran on ripped CDs and home burned compilations ha ha ha. Nobody gives a fuck - not the politicians, not the police, not the magistrates, not the state, not the performers - only the music industry lawyers.
But if anyone can cite even one verifiable instance of a person in England or Wales being sued, successfully or otherwise, for ripping an audio CD for personal use please, please, please post a link.
Still no facts.....just more insults.
It must be a conspiracy.
Some people carve careers, others chisel them.