|
Ok, let me reword it then: google could stop kowtowing to Big Content.
|
|
|
|
|
If they were happy to break the law and endure yet more hassle and multimillion fines from the EU, yes, I suppose they could.
|
|
|
|
|
If they just kept the old system of manually reviewing DMCA requests then there's no law broken, just effort spend. It would be more expensive for them obviously, but youtube would have been a better place for it.
They could have made it harder to file the requests to compensate. Ban automated scripts and such.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I got really confused by Playboy, thinking they meant Gameboy...
My mom still plays Tetris on my old Gameboy. Uhhh... I hope that's actually Gameboy 
|
|
|
|
|
Titties on Playboy.
Tetris on Gameboy.
It's not that hard until it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Call me crazy but I expect the right-clicking on an app (tile) and choosing Uninstall might remove the unwanted apps from the menu...not the case...there they are, the only change is that the are not updating anymore. Maybe it's another one of those weird things with the start menu where a restart is required to find the program you just installed???
I'm really trying to get used to it, and coming from Win7, it's been a little frustrating mostly dealing with the start menu for all apps, which is not quite wide enough to show the difference between 'Microsoft SQL Server 20..' from 'Microsoft SQL Server 20..' 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. You're crazy!
If you want to remove any item from the start menu you need to choose the Unpin option. Uninstalling doesn't remove the pinned icon because it isn't part of the original install. I don't think that's actually a change (but I could be wrong) from the pinned items in the Win 7 menu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: ...not quite wide enough to show the difference between 'Microsoft SQL Server 20..' from 'Microsoft SQL Server 20..'
I can imagine that coming from Windows 7, this Start menu must feel like a huge downgrade in functionality. And it really is a POS compared to it. Seems like they put a lot more thinking into the design than functionality, and the sad part is that the result doesn't even look particularly good. It's made for apps obviously, applications play a second role in it. I'm sure when people wanted the Start menu back, they didn't think or dream of this.
Renaming them to "MS SQL Server 20xx" (or a name even shorter) might help to reveal the full name in the menu. And keep your list smaller than 512 items, because the database cannot handle more entries (duh!).
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't have any trouble getting rid of the tiles, but not only that, we now have giant icons in the start menu. The right click menu looks great, why can't we get that for the left click start menu? Why does every new release of Windows eat more and more of my screen real estate? I want things smaller not LARGER! I don't want any icons anywhere. They are a complete waste of space. I suppose that there is a large group of users that never learned to read and hieroglyphs are the only way that they can find something (let them buy Apple products!). And that is ok if you only have a couple of things on your desktop, but like most developers, I have 100s and icons just do not cut it.
From what I can see so far, Windows 10 is ok and has appeared to function reasonably well. Right now I only have a development VM upgraded. However, once all of the security and privacy items have been taken care of and the useless phone apps removed from the desktop, it is worse than Windows 7 from a UI standpoint with no discernible benefits. Actually, Windows XP was better than Windows 7 and at least XP always repainted the screen correctly, which NOT something that Windows 7 does. Windows 7 is at least better than XP for multi-threading. And presumably security issues are being reduced as well.
Edge sucks though. I have not been able to get the F12 developer features to open at all. There is virtually nothing that you can customize and is about as bare bones as you can get. Even IE is better (for now). The user agent string tries to fake being Chrome, but it is not difficult to detect. Microsoft may want us to treat it like Chrome, but there is a bunch of stuff that Chrome does correctly that Edge does not. For example, @font-face has a "format" clause. If you include that in Edge the font will not load. All of the other browsers (even older ones) treat that correctly. Edge also does not recognize the .eot fonts.
I have made some progress by tweaking the registry. But only a little. In HKCU\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics, I set
BorderWidth = 0 (it was -15, which is 1 pixel on my machine, it is -12 for some people).
PaddedBorderWidth = 0 (it was -60)
CaptionHeight = -315 (it was -330)
CaptionWidth = -270 (it was -330)
IconSpacing = -1110 (it was -1125)
IconVerticalSpacing = -1110 (it was -1125)
MenuHeight = -270 (it was -285)
MenuWidth = -270 (it was -285) Setting this wider does not appear to affect the start menu.
ScrollHeight = -240 (it was -255)
ScrollWidth = -240 (it was -255)
In HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System, I added
EnableLinkedConnections = 1 (it was not present before)
and set
EnableLUA = 0 (it was 1 before, but setting the UAC slider all the way down did not completely turn off CUA notifications).
Note that these last two changes I would NOT make to a user installation. However, as a developer, it seems that everything that I do triggers an alert and causes problems. So, in a development VM (and with heavy security otherwise) I do run as Administrator (but I don't surf in those machines either).
I have not been able to change title bar colors or style, or anything about the "FLAT" interface. I think it is using completely different code that ignores all of the older settings. It is horrific to look at, though.
If anybody has any other hints, let us know.
|
|
|
|
|
2/3 of psychology studies are not repeatable[^]
My gf is getting her MA in psychology, and I've been looking at some of the studies that other people have written. Simply looking at the statistics, it became clear to me that a lot of studies are based on bad math and statistically insignificant fluctuations in correlations.
And then of course, those studies get cited when creating new studies, and so forth. The whole field is a ridiculous house of cards.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Although more related to psychiatry, there's an interesting video called 'Making A Killing: The Untold Story Of Psychotropic Drugging' that exposes a lot of the industry. Available on youtube if you search for it. In the end a lot of it goes about money.
|
|
|
|
|
And how do you feel about that? 
|
|
|
|
|
And the computer industry is different now? How much bashing is done of <pick a="" topic=""> without a thorough examination? There are good and bad in all, but do we look or just jump on board with the bashing?
|
|
|
|
|
Have you had a look to QA and the moderation queue? 
Although there are a lot of people having a look and concerned about quality... there are (as well) a lot of trush getting through
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Feynman, in Six Easy Pieces, has some rather interesting things to say about psychology. He asks the question of whether psychology can be called a science. I can't remember his whole argument as although the book is called 'Six Easy Pieces', I think a better title would have been 'I know how to make you feel really stupid'.
The meta analysis of studies based on studies, can be abused in what is known as 'confirmation bias' - that is only using data that confirms your hypothesis and excluding data that contradicts your hypothesis. This can happen in any science and there are definitely cases of this in medicine.
I remember a study I worked on where the dominant variable in a study was found to be whether or not the patient had been prescribed suppositories. As this was a study led by a US team(the UK part of the team was quite happy publishing this data), this was deemed to be too risqué and a mad dash was made to find a variable that was more palatable to the readership of the study.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the one hand, any psychologist will agree that extrapolating from one person to the entire population is ridiculous. On the other hand, neither the researchers nor the reviewers have a thorough grounding in statistics.
This failing is true of all of the social "sciences", and is IMO why most published studies are not worth the bits required to transmit them.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, a study has shown that 63% of all studies have made up numbers 
|
|
|
|
|
And the other half are just wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of numbers... What about 9082365?
|
|
|
|
|
Dive into any field of knowledge and most people are fake.
The Good thing is some people are real and knowledgeable
With friendly greetings,
Eric Goedhart
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The whole field is a ridiculous
(personal opinion alert) : I wouldn't say the "whole" field, but I think most of it is crap...utterly; especially with psychiatrists.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
