Posts by skizzerz 12 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Dec 2014
Why settle for yearly? Once we choose a base name our esteemed hacks can change it up every paragraph or two!
As an example (going with another commentard's example of Edge Lords because it got a chuckle out of me):
First mention plays it straight, simply say Edge Lords.
Next time you need to mention it in the article, Edge Lords for Business. Then Edge Lords 365. Then Visual Edge Lords. And so on.
Should work with most of the name suggestions here honestly. If there's a couple favourites can even rotate between them, win-win!
Glad to give you a challenge ;)
I've got 3 systems I'm throwing at it, one of them only part time since the noise and heat would keep me up at night otherwise (plus it seems to have some overheating issues if it runs at full blast for too long despite having liquid cooling).
Part time i7 6700k with 2x 2080 Ti founders editions -- at least one of the GPUs tend to sit idle more often than not though
Full time VM on a dual xeon e5-2620 v4 with 8 cores allocated (need the rest for my other VMs)
Full time i7 8700b
So... beating all of that with a single 1080 Ti is rather impressive, so kudos :)
Based on the very bottom of https://www.acronis.com/en-us/ransomware-protection/ it says "FREE for everyone" for this product, next to saying "Personal" and "Business" for two of their other products. As such, I believe it is indeed allowed for commercial use.
I use Acronis True Image for my backup solution at home, which comes bundled with this ransomware protection. I have no idea how well it actually works against actual ransomware, since I've never actually had ransomware on my home network yet. I can say that it has annoying false positives with respect to Visual Studio 2017's installer for their Python stuff, where it constantly puts up prompts asking you if it's ok that some bad process named "pip" is trying to modify 2,341 files or whatever because you're doing an upgrade. I'd imagine it'd be the same if you ran pip via the command line but I've never actually tried that. I imagine that other package manager exes will cause similar false positives whenever doing upgrades.
Trump will be likely unable to do anything about this law; it passed the Senate with a unanimous vote, and the Republicans control the Senate right now.
I'm surprised El Reg didn't pick up on one particular part of the bill that impacts IT in particular (bolded): "The term “covered communication” means a written, oral, or pictorial review, performance assessment of, or other similar analysis of, including by electronic means, the goods, services, or conduct of a person by an individual who is party to a form contract with respect to which such person is also a party."
If my reading is correct, this would mean that you can no longer be contractually forbidden from posting benchmark results of things, as I know enterprise database vendors are wont to do among others.
Windows (or NTFS rather) has proper symlinks in addition to junctions, both are created by using mklink from an elevated command prompt, no external tools required. Junctions are also not the same as hardlinks (mklink can make hardlinks too), and are actually more similar to symlinks but implemented in a different manner (and only work on directories). In NTFS, hardlinks (mklink /H) and symlinks (mklink for files or mklink /D for directories) behave pretty much the same way as on UNIX platforms. NTFS junctions (mklink /J) are an entirely different animal, while the end result is superficially the same as a symlink, they only work on local directories and must use absolute paths (whereas symlinks can point to shares and such). The main user-facing difference between a directory symlink and a junction in NTFS is that deleting a symlink via del will delete the symlink file, whereas attempting to delete a junction via del will forward that request to the directory it's pointing at (thus deleting the files at the target). I believe the most "equivalent" feature to an NTFS junction in unix would be mount --bind.
Touch Events is indeed a W3C recommendation, see http://www.w3.org/TR/touch-events/ - I don't remember the specifics but it was determined at one point in time that Apple's patents did not actually cover this API.
It hasn't been touched since October 2013, however, and Google's extensions to make it suck less are not on a standards track afaict.
Everything else in your post looks right though.
While I cannot comment on the selection method used to find people to poll, the background information section was heavily biased. It mentions repeatedly that the idea is President Obama's and that Obama is the one leading the charge to get this to happen by putting forth the proposal (which is actually false, Obama stated that he supports Title II but acknowledges that the FCC can do whatever the hell it wants because he has no power over them). By mentioning Obama, you get the predictable reaction from the people who self-identified Republican in that the majority of them absolutely hate the idea. An unbiased question would have left Obama entirely out of it as that detail is irrelevant to what the FCC is actually proposing. Additionally, the only other fact stated was regarding broadband investment, which has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality at all -- the ISPs have even gone on record to their investors saying that the outcome of this won't impact their investments. The cherry-picking of that investment figure without giving other facts or a link to other facts may have also biased the results.
They likely derived that statistic by the percentage of people who have the (enabled by default) "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" checkbox ticked. Aforementioned checkbox is the whitelist feature mentioned in the article; if you untick it then the only ads that are whitelisted are those that you manually whitelist yourself (such as by disabling ABP for a page/domain).
I do not understand the fixation on making navigation headers all-caps. It's been recommended time and again that making things in all-caps decreases usability due to removing shape cues from the words (since each letter is now the same size) -- there is a decent writeup on this on UX Movement[1]. While other studies show that this is simply due to practice/learned behavior[2], it still results in increased time spent reading and comprehending the title bar to determine areas of possible interest.
Also, I'm not sure if you're being cute and changing the bar text based on IP geolocation, but the title reads "DATA CENTER" for me (I'm in the US). Since I'm visiting a co.uk site, I'd rather see the British spelling of "Data Centre" in the navigation bar.
As for positives, I do like the reduced clutter, and article images when done right can help provide a glimpse at what the article is covering as well as setting the overall tone of how the text is read. Giving an option for logged-in users to disable it may be for the best, however, as by looking at the comment thread not everyone feels that way. I have no opinion on the visited link color; I'm rather young so I find the grey just as easy to pick out as the former red (whereas the grey actually de-emphasizes the article whereas the red makes it stand out more, I'm guessing this was the basis of the change).
[1] http://uxmovement.com/content/all-caps-hard-for-users-to-read/
[2] http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition.aspx - This article cites papers by three authors Woodward, Smith, and Fisher. I was able to find the Smith and Fisher papers freely available online via a quick search as well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
