# This is slow on Cygwin, so give Cygwin users a warning
if($^O eq "cygwin" or $^O eq "msys") {
::warning("Finding the maximal command line length. ".
"This may take up to 1 minute.")
}
> And maybe there are even fewer people to worry about this, because when the moved to the city, those people stopped having children.
> Who is this good for? Is it good for you?
Well, as a global population reduction is sorely needed, this is good for pretty much everybody. There's absolutely no way we can keep extracting resources and polluting at the rate demanded by our current enormous population (which has more than doubled in my life time).
Unfortunately, your theory isn't working, as the population still grows.
Foreigner from the socialist Nordics here, so perhaps I'm brain washed or something, but I don't get it. After some brief Googling it appears that you mean they have proposed a tax on a service that for some reason used to be tax-exempt.
Why was it tax-exempt? Why should it be?
What sets it apart from any other service where you pay someone to do something for you - such as cook you a meal, transport you somewhere or build you a house?
An alternative take is that we've endured thousands of years of propaganda aimed at keeping women as child bearing, house keeping slaves, and we're finally starting to see the end of that in at least some cultures.
But of course, it's only "propaganda" when you don't like it.
Both priests are assumed to understand Latin. The situation they want to avoid is starting up a conversation with someone in a language they don't know.
So the options are:
1) Use Polish, with the risk of being rude if you happen to speak to the Spanish priest
2) Use Latin and ask "do you speak Polish?", and both the Polish and the Spanish priest will understand.
You could of course argue that it's not so very rude to accidentally try to strike up a conversation with someone in a language they don't know, but apparently Tade0's father thinks it is.
> But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples.
How does that matter? The point isn't that the reader should know that "oh, this is a reserved address". The point is that there should be no room for the address that's actually being used by someone to end up being used incorrectly just because it showed up in some random documentation.
Much like how you probably wouldn't be thrilled if your phone number was used as an example in some random documentation somewhere.
Well, TRAMP was preceded by ange-ftp, which let you edit files remotely over ftp. I was using that in 1995, and I didn't get the impression then that it was brand new, so it had probably been around for a while already.
Of course, if your problem is "/usr won't mount", then it's likely that the ftp server isn't running either, so the advice still makes sense.
Alright. I didn't know that. "Just call them" did not sound like it included any kind of authentication procedure.
But giving birthdate (available to anyone via a single query in a public database) and (sometimes?! - what?!) PIN over the phone wouldn't really be considered good enough here. Birthdate is, as I said, public knowledge. And a phone is too insecure a medium for transmitting a password.
I'm not super interested in an long argument about whether it's reasonable that this isn't considered secure or not. I'm just letting you know what reality looks like. And the reality is that "just call them" is not a solution, because such information will simply not be handed out over the phone.
Odd point to raise in a thread about a family killed while waiting at a bus stop in broad daylight. Do you think reflective clothing would have changed the outcome of the event significantly?
I guess there's a difference between talking about how many requests a system is capable of handling, and how many they actually get.
At least when i encountered the discussion initially (some thirty years ago) I'd say we usually talked about how many requests the system was capable of handling. Then requests per second was the obvious unit since a request usually took less than a second to process (obviously depending on the system and so on - but mostly), so using that unit often gave a fairly low, comprehensible number.
Was it ten? A hundred (very impressive)? Perhaps even a thousand (very, very impressive!)?
Multiply those numbers by 60, and there's suddenly a lot more mental gymnastics involved. By 3600 and you're well into "all big numbers look the same" land.
> Gaming stuff needs a bit more bleeding edge packages.
Not sure I agree. I've been gaming on Debian since 2005, and while it certainly was some work in the beginning, it's been pretty painless for the last five years or so. I'm on Debian stable (mostly) at the moment, and don't really know what "bleeding edge" packages I would be missing.
Well, yes, that sentence definitely simplified matters a bit. The fact is though, that those who expressed concerns about Microsoft - in that particular thread, and in others - were generally ridiculed in roughly the tone I imitated in my original post.
Of course there were people raising concerns, though. I figured that was pretty obvious in my original post. If there hadn't been any people raising concerns, nobody would have had to dismiss them - condescendingly or not.
So yes, I (incorrectly) used the word "everyone" to mean "a lot of people" in a sentence where I figured it was quite obvious that that's what I was doing, and in a way I've seen it used before in English so many times that I thought it was a common and accepted pattern. Perhaps I am wrong about the last bit though. ESL speaker, so that's quite possible.
No idea why this is so...