|
I'm not gonna worry about rodent feces when manure spreaders are considered standard equipment on a farm. And I'd rather see that in use than something like RoundUp used in industrial quantities.
As for insect parts...there's an entire movement that's trying to get people off of meat and onto "protein substitute products" made entirely of insects. To prevent cow farts and thus reduce global warming, y'know?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: manure spreaders
Manure spreaders spread the manure on the ground - not into the package. And tell me - how (or more precisely, what) will weed the fields if they don't use Roundup? Do you think it's better for you?
And, per eating insect being an improvement over cattle and not enhancing global warming with the much more global-warming active methane in their farts? Check this out: insects, as in termites (an often eaten species) are enormous producers of methane[^]. Estimates range up to 40% of methane emission (and that include emissions from rotting vegetation &etc). It will go up when insects are 'farmed' for food. And consider this: WTF will we feed the insects and how do we get it?
If you want to do this right - then stop eating any sort of animal protein. Huge amounts of farmland land could then be re-forested, for example, further decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Until then, you can consider yourself a personal source of excessive greenhouse gases, even when you don't fart.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. 
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid."
Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn.
Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning.
Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
modified 19-Nov-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Donathan.Hutchings wrote: The only way I think that a device like that could be useful is if the spoon could analyze the chemicals used in whatever you were eating.
Careful. Elizabeth Holmes has probably patented the idea.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I take for granted that you are aware of the SmartFork: SmartFork[^]
This fork has been on the market for a few year now, at USD 99.99 per fork. If you lift the fork to you mouth too often your mobile will buzz, warning you that you are eating too fast. Also sold as HAPIfork.
The accompanying knife does not have any similar functionality. Somehow I wish that it had a similar function, buzzing my mobile if I stab other people too often. Of course it would never buzz my mobile, but I am eating in a healthy way, too, so the fork doesn't buzz my phone either. Or rather: It wouldn't have, if I had decided to spend USD 2400 on a set of 24 of them for my next big party.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 10 version history - Wikipedia[^]
"Terry Myerson, executive vice president of Microsoft's Windows and Devices Group, said that the goal of this model was to reduce fragmentation across the Windows platform"
Sorry, 2k, XP, 7, were pretty easy to follow you know. 1505, 1511, 1609, 1492, 1984, and whatever the hell next is to come just ISNT!
Bloody idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: whatever the hell next is to come just is NT!
Gawd, let's hope not ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Those numbers follow a very easy pattern YYMM of the release...
And we have two of them yearly, first half and second half so on the fast lane you may have 19H2 and 20H1 (and even 20H2) now...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
We need two releases a year with different UIs, and different instructions on the net on how to do simple things, like change a network to private, and this is simplifying it?
|
|
|
|
|
No!
The numbering is simple - the update (process and content) is a mess... So I'm done with Windows in my personal life... use it in work (but not 10)...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
"no!" I agree, I feel the same thing about windows 10.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Those numbers follow a very easy pattern YYMM of the release...
Except nobody considered what would happen with the release next March.
Windows 2003, anybody?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Except nobody considered what would happen
Or nobody cares anymore? 
(It still will be W10 Build 2003)
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying, but as a developer, if you want to support Windows 10, then as long as you target the lowest common denominator, it's easier to do so than including any previous mix of 8.1/7/Vista/XP/etc.
Is there really any feature in Windows 10 that a dev is relying on that wasn't in the first release?
|
|
|
|
|
It isnt about that, it is about clarity, simplicity.
Moving the OS number from the major to the minor number, and than saying "Look, we dont produce any new OSs, they are all Windows 10!!!!!!" Isnt fooling anyone!
|
|
|
|
|
What you're describing is hardly what MS is doing these days. They're no longer producing huge, monolithic upgrades that take 3 years between releases. They're no longer trashing/redesigning whole areas from scratch. And that's the point Terry Myerson was trying to make. You don't agree with that?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think two new versions a year is more or less fragmentation than the three versions, 2JK, Xp, 7, that spanned what, 10 years?
|
|
|
|
|
The way I see it, yes, it's less of a headache.
If you're writing a .NET app and want to target Windows 10 (any version), which version of .NET should you be using to allow the most people to run it without having to update their runtime first?
Apply the same question to previous Windows versions. I suspect you'll have to do a lot more research. And your installer's requirements list will become a lot more difficult to put together.
Now repeat with PowerShell. And any other technologies you can just take for granted exists on 10.
|
|
|
|
|
To me it is more management, more to think about.
From my side old windows apps always ran on later ones, so no problem there, the issue is which is the oldest you support.
Is that so hard a decision?
So I had a 10.1511 and tried to install an 1806 HLK client, it said 'get stuffed'.
So clearly it isnt working as well as intended.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: From my side old windows apps always ran on later ones, so no problem there, the issue is which is the oldest you support.
Is that so hard a decision?
Ok, let's take again my .NET example. Newer versions of Windows (not just 10) no longer have 2.0/3.5 pre-installed out of the box, so you may as well commit to 4.[something]. 4.0? 4.5? Newer? 4.0 is out of support. I'm not so sure about 4.5. A quick Google search shows that you're guaranteed that all Windows 10 versions will have at least 4.6, so I'd say it's a good starting point and should remain in support for a good while still.
Munchies_Matt wrote: So I had a 10.1511 and tried to install an 1806 HLK client, it said 'get stuffed'.
Had to look up HLK (Windows Hardware Lab Kit?), but it seems obvious to me that it works like a Windows SDK or a DDK and is tied to an OS release. There was a Windows SDK for Windows 7, and a separate one for 7 + SP1. Installing the newer SDK on the original (pre-SP1) 7 would fail. No surprise then, and no surprise now.
I dunno, just continuing to play devil's advocate here. As much as I'd rather pretend 8/8.1/10 never happened, if I had the choice to support 7/8/8.1 OR "all versions of 10", I'd rather pick 10 as it's a lot closer to being a single, unified OS than 7/8/8.1 are, relative to each other.
All of that said, I can't say I'm terribly happy with the number of Win10 versions there could be out there. I wouldn't mind if they reduced the pace.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: ike a Windows SDK or a DDK and is tied to an OS release
The server is, well, has to be a 2012 or later server, but the client side, the bit you install on the test machine, *should* be capable of supporting any previous version of windows 10. This is what the docs say, this is what I was told on the driver forum group. But when I tried it...
'get stuffed, your not having that'
My gripe is that there are more versions to get your head around. Have you seen the help on the net to do various things? Each version has its own GUI, its own way of doing it. It is getting silly. In five years we will have 20 versions of windows 10!
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: This is what the docs say, this is what I was told on the driver forum group. But when I tried it...
'get stuffed, your not having that'
So then that's a bug (it's supposed to work) and somebody needs to fix it.
I think sticking to the lowest common denominator (the oldest version of Windows 10 still supported) is viable for now, unless you're really on the cutting edge and using things that only exist on the later builds. I'm not seeing any compelling feature that I must integrate with my apps.
That brings it down to a single OS target, despite the build sprawl. I treat all those builds as one and the same, and so far it's been working out just fine for me. Obviously YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
If it works for you, OK.
Another annoyance is the subtle changes in the GUI, such that to do something, you have to know five ways of doing it , and the help on the net is starting to get very bloated.
|
|
|
|
|
On the bright side...these sorts of subtle changes are generally for the better. And they're not the sorts of things that affect most developers, in terms of coding.
|
|
|
|
|
If they had labeled it OSwX, they probably could have gotten away with it with far less critical comments whenever there was an OSwX update.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
