What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?

In , Char Jackson
wrote:

It would help a lot if you could fix that. It's probably a minor tweak
to your scripts.

Thank you for that suggestion.

I certainly could fix that, but not after the fact so I can't change what
is already posted.

I can fix it moving forward, in that only one nym can operate in any one ng
during any one time period, where I retire Q&R nyms on a random schedule,
about every few months or so.

But the fact remains, that there are (at least) two Usenet models.
a. chitchat (which I don't use - and where headers are critical)
b. Q&A (which I use - where headers are completely meaningless)

The only header that matters in the Q&A model is the subject line.

In the chitchat model, all the headers may or may not matter since the
chitchatters are chit chatting idly where what they say is far less
important, in most cases, than who they appear to be. In this idle
chitchat model, people post something like 90% or more to other people's
threads, and they basically don't try to add much detail since they rely on
many thousands of previous posts in prior threads to provide most of the
detail of who they are.

In the Q&A model, *all* the necessary detail is in the thread and in the
subject line, where none of the other headers have any meaning whatsoever.
In this Q&A model, the ratios reverse between which threads are posted to.

You may note, since the Q&A threads are not about idle chitchat, but about
obtaining a specific technical answer, that it's IMPORTANT to keep the
trolls like Slootweg and Wolf and Andy Burns out, since they will DESTROY a
thread just as dumping a pile of **** on top of a picnic table destroys the
picnic.

Once trolls infest a thread, any thread, the thread is effectively dead,
but how you handle trolls is different, I posit, between the two models.

In the chitchat model, you ignore trolls, since you're not likely to stop
them (remember, once they **** on your picnic, the thread is dead already).

However, in the Q&A model, the trolls like Slootweg, Burns, and Wolf will
still **** on your picnic table, but the strategic goal is to get them to
act like adules.

Yes. These trolls like Slootweg, Burns, and Wolf have already ruined the
thread by ****ting on the picnic table - you can't stop that since it's a
fact that they do it - but what you can do is call them out for it in the
threads you CARE about to get an answer.

You don't call them out on ALL the times they troll, as they mostly troll
in other people's threads - which are easy to ignore their **** on those
picnic tables - but you directly confront them on the Q&A threads, because
you CARE about obtaining an answer.

Back on topic, we have the following items that are generally agreed upon.
1. Windows Store apps
2. Cortana searches
3. DirectX (for gaming)
4. Access 2TB of RAM (instead of 512GB, 192GB, & 128GB previously)
5. HiDPI scale text & GUI to 200% (not just 150% previously)
6. Full-screen console mode ?
7. Timeline (as of April 2018 release)
8. Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) on 64-bit (compare with Cygwin)
9. ?
10. ?

In news wrote:

Now take a deep breath and *read* and try to *understand* what he
*actually* wrote.

Tell me what you *think* he wrote and then tell me how my response did not
directly address what you think he wrote.

In news wrote:

What the heck is up with you!? First you thank me for my technical
input (on Cygwin versus WSL) and less than an hour *later*, I'm back to
"Frank Slootweg the troll".

Frank Slootweg the troll was written first since you *were* trolling, which
is 90% of your posts, where only 10% of your posts are not fact free
trolls.

I'm not going to look at the time stamp because I batch these things so
they can be posted out of order, but even so, I respond to what you write.

When you act like a child, I respond to you accordingly.
When you act like an adult, I respond to you accordingly.

That you can't fathom that simple fact is the problem.

To wit...

Just because you act like an adult in 1 out of 10 posts, where in 9 of
those 10 posts you act like a child, doesn't mean you won't be called out
for exactly what you are.

You are what you write, Frank Slootweg.
And when you act like a child, I tell you that you act like a child.

Only you are confused by such honesty.

Char Jackson wrote:

The issue that Andy described, and with which I'm in agreement, has
nothing to do with two or more nyms in the same thread

Yes, to be clear I'm not accusing 'Bob' of having a conversation between
multiple socks in a single thread.

Bob J Jones wrote:

I can fix it moving forward, in that only one nym can operate in any one ng
during any one time period, where I retire Q&R nyms on a random schedule,
about every few months or so.

What's the need for retiring/inventing them? I can understand you
wiping and re-installing devices if you choose, would it hurt to put the
same ID back?

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news wrote:

I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones
while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching
a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his
son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone
the whole time, treating the game of catch as a
"manageable distraction". I suppose he probably
would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him,
but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he
was doing.

Hi Mayayana,

Q: Where are the accidents?
A: They don't exist.

Warning: OFF TOPIC!
I only speak fact.

I'm posting this because I like you and because I respect you.

So I am posting this FACT as one adult to another.

I realize this is completely off topic, where, as you know, I try to stay
on topic because I ask questions that have technical answers and then I
leave, so I don't use the chitchat model of Usenet that most others use (I
use the Q&A model).

While I agree with you on the father:son football catch, that he should
give his undivided attention to his child, and I too found the guiding
hands punchlines hilarious, I have to point out to you a FACT.

Yup. A fact.

Just like intuition doesn't work with quantum mechanics, intuition doesn't
work with accident rate statistics either.

The fact is that nobody on this entire planet (and, trust me, everyone has
looked) can find any relationship whatsoever (up, down, or otherwise) in
the overall accident rate in each of the 50 states of the USA (together or
separately) to the absolutely astoundingly utterly huge explosion in
cellphone ownership rates

Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called
"Paul", but you just weasel excuses.

The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more
dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths
since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there
has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety
improvements with cars.

However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts"
(aka opinions) don't gel with reality.

End of story.

In news
Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called
"Paul", but you just weasel excuses.

The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more
dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths
since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there
has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety
improvements with cars.

However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts"
(aka opinions) don't gel with reality.

End of story.

OFF TOPIC.

WARNING: Adult logical factual thought is below.

Almost everyone thinks like you do.
Hence I'm not surprised at anything you intuit.

Even I would intuit what you do, if I wasn't a logical adult thinker.
Just like almost everyone doesn't realize that quantum entanglement exists.

It's not intuitive this quantum mechanics stuff.
It's just not.

But the reason scientists believe in quantum mechanics isn't intuition.
It's science.

Experimental science.
Empirical results.

Facts.

Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate.
The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None.

That's a fact.

You can dance all around that fact, just like physicists had to dance
around quantum entanglement or the uncertainty principle or the duality of
light, none of which is intuitive - but all your dancing has to account for
the facts.

And the facts are plain, and uncontrovertible.

There has been zero (and everyone knows this) absolutely zero effect on the
accident rate in the USA in all fifty states due to the utterly
fantastically high explosion of cellphone ownership percentages in a
certain time period.

There's no effect before.
There's no effect during.
There's no effect after (now that the ownership rate has plateaued).

Everyone. Yes. Everyone is intuitive.

Just like everyone has trouble with empirical results of quantum physics,
everyone has trouble with that fact.

But that fact is a fact.
And, it's the *best* dataset there is on the planet for that fact.

So what you're trying to do is offset a fact with bad data.
You can dance all you want with your bad data.

But any conclusion you come up with that flies in the face of fact is just
your intuition speaking - since the fact that you can't avoid is the
elephant in the room - which is that the accident rate in the USA hasn't
been affected one blip by cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing (and
presumed use).

BTW, there *is* a reason for this - but until you recognize the fact is a
fact, the reason will never be able to be comprehended by you.

Only an adult who is a logical thinker - a scientist - a person who will
accept a fact for a fact - can get to the second stage - of why - of why
cellphone ownership rates have no bearing whatsoever on accident rates.

In fact, *all* safety laws - every single one - individually or combined -
have no first order effect on *anything* (except revenue generation) which
is another proven fact (they only have one second-order effect - which is
on length of hospital stay for "injuries" - but that includes seatbelt laws
in addition to cellphone laws).

Bear in mind that I only speak facts and that I comprehend detail, which
most people don't do.

So read my words carefully since they are fact.

What you're trying to do is offset

In , Andy Burns
wrote:

What's the need for retiring/inventing them? I can understand you
wiping and re-installing devices if you choose, would it hurt to put the
same ID back?

Privacy.

Specifically privacy from robot aggregation.

It's really that simple.

In , Andy Burns
wrote:

The issue that Andy described, and with which I'm in agreement, has
nothing to do with two or more nyms in the same thread

Yes, to be clear I'm not accusing 'Bob' of having a conversation between
multiple socks in a single thread.

I appreciate that you clarified this point, where, with that clarification,
I apologize for having thought you were accusing me of that transgression.

Remember, I don't troll.

I ask questions. And I focus on the answers. And I summarize the answers.

And I respond to each valid request. And I shoot down trolls for strategic
reasons, even though I know that once a troll ****s on the picnic table,
the picnic is already ruined.

It turns out, after being on Usenet since the beginning, that the ones who
accuse everyone else of being the trolls, are the trolls themselves, where,
the facts always seem to be that these who accuse others are almost always
the ones with the least technical knowledge.

People like Wolf K. add zero value to any thread.
Frank Slootweg is a special case, as is nospam, since about 95% of their
posts are fantastic fabrications - but - about 5% (maybe even 10%?) of
their posts actually contain on-topic value.

Look at, for example, each of Frank Slootweg's posts in this thread.
I'm not going to bother to count them, but 9 out of 10 of Frank Slootweg's
posts are childish drivel, where 1 out of 10 (roughly) is on topic
technical value.

The problem with people like Frank Slootweg is that he thinks that just
because he posts like an adult would post for 1 out of 10 of his posts,
that he should be treated as an adult should for the other 9 of his clearly
childish posts.

As you know, my use model is simple.

*If people post as children - I treat them as children."
*If people post as adults - I treat them as adults".

Remember, the old adage of ignoring those trolls only works in the chitchat
model where you don't care if the thread comes to an answer.

If you care about the results of the picnic, then when people like Wolf K
and Frank Slootweg childishly **** on the middle of the picnic table, two
things are clear that are a result - since there are no other viable
options:
1. The thread is ruined the minute they **** on the picnic table, and yet,
2. Strategically, calling them out for it helps lessen it for the future.

In article , Bob J Jones
wrote:

Remember, I troll.

ftfy

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news wrote:

Now take a deep breath and *read* and try to *understand* what he
*actually* wrote.

Tell me what you *think* he wrote and then tell me how my response did not
directly address what you think he wrote.

Being the dishonest jerk that you are, you've - again - snipped not
only the relevant context, but also the part of my response where I
point you specifically and exactly to the bit you should re-read and
re-parse again.

Anyway, Char Jackson has re-explained, so there you are.

Andy Burns wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:

The issue that Andy described, and with which I'm in agreement, has
nothing to do with two or more nyms in the same thread

Yes, to be clear I'm not accusing 'Bob' of having a conversation between
multiple socks in a single thread.

Don't worry. Nobody is confused about what you wrote.

I'm sure that also Mr. EMAK knows exactly what you mean, but just
tries to falsify and misrepresent your point, so he can continue being
a jerk.

And when he's cornered (in this case by you), he pulls his 'privacy
from robot aggregation' BS-card again.

He's one very sick puppy! :-(

Bob J Jones wrote:
In , Andy Burns
wrote:

What's the need for retiring/inventing them? I can understand you
wiping and re-installing devices if you choose, would it hurt to put the
same ID back?

Privacy.

BS. Absolutely *nobody* buys that nonsense argument. Yet you persist.
Why? Because you *want* to be a jerk.

Specifically privacy from robot aggregation.

Also BS. As has been said umpteen times before, the way you fake/forge
headers makes it *trivial* for 'robot aggregation' to collect your
posts. That is, if anyone would be silly enough to even want to do that.

That you're too stupid to even realize this, speak volumes about your
self-professed 'intelligence

It's really that simple.

Indeed, It's very simple, you're a jerk [1].

[1] And as mentioned several times befo No your (diagnosed) mental
disorder is NO excuse.

"Mayayana" on Tue, 1 May 2018 08:35:19 -0400
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"Bob J Jones" wrote

|
| This seems to be the best we can collectively come up with that all will
| agree upon as functionality in Windows 10 that isn't in Win7 or WinXP.
|
| 1. Windows Store apps
| 2. Cortana searches
| 3. DirectX 12 in the OS
| 4. Access 2TB of RAM (instead of 512GB, 192GB, & 128GB previously)
| 5. HiDPI scale text & GUI to 200% (not just 150% previously)
| 6. Full-screen console mode

MS Office 2019. Was that mentioned?

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/...g-and-support/

That's going to push a lot of suckers into
Win10. Interestingly, MSO 2019 will only be
available in Click-To-Run form, which is a
transitional format, essentially a "cloud app"
without the subscription.

It's becoming like one of those dreary sci-fi
movies, where a nasty, autocratic ruler crushes
life inside the gates of a protected city, while
life outside the walls of the city is free but
dangerous.
Microsoft are quickly moving toward total
control of a kiosk Windows computer, while
the rest of us will have to cobble together
Linux, older Windows versions, and whatever
hardware still works with the older Windows
versions.

So I guess that's Windows 10 killer app #8:
Protection under Microsoft's dictatorship.

_Oath of Fealty_1981 Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

On Fri, 04 May 2018 16:08:24 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Mayayana" on Tue, 1 May 2018 08:35:19 -0400
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"Bob J Jones" wrote

|
| This seems to be the best we can collectively come up with that all will
| agree upon as functionality in Windows 10 that isn't in Win7 or WinXP.
|
| 1. Windows Store apps
| 2. Cortana searches
| 3. DirectX 12 in the OS
| 4. Access 2TB of RAM (instead of 512GB, 192GB, & 128GB previously)
| 5. HiDPI scale text & GUI to 200% (not just 150% previously)
| 6. Full-screen console mode

MS Office 2019. Was that mentioned?

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/...g-and-support/

That's going to push a lot of suckers into
Win10. Interestingly, MSO 2019 will only be
available in Click-To-Run form, which is a
transitional format, essentially a "cloud app"
without the subscription.

It's becoming like one of those dreary sci-fi
movies, where a nasty, autocratic ruler crushes
life inside the gates of a protected city, while
life outside the walls of the city is free but
dangerous.
Microsoft are quickly moving toward total
control of a kiosk Windows computer, while
the rest of us will have to cobble together
Linux, older Windows versions, and whatever
hardware still works with the older Windows
versions.

So I guess that's Windows 10 killer app #8:
Protection under Microsoft's dictatorship.

_Oath of Fealty_1981 Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle


I don't get this. Microsoft is a company that sells things. If you don't
like it, then buy somethings else.
--
Jim S