Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
It's about respect. It's about equality. Argue. Please do.
Takes two to tango, and there's only so much time it's worth spending on composing carefully reasoned responses to irrelevant nonsense and childish insults.
More than happy to continue having a civil, well reasoned discussion with folks capable of maintaining their side of one.
-
We're talking about making arguments in order to persuade. How is rhetoric not exactly what we're talking about?
That makes you sound to me like a lawyer/career politician.
There was/is rhetoric but the rhetoric shouldn't be confused with the underlying issue. That exists (or not) and is moral and right (or not) even if a word is never said about it. That is what I think we are (or should be) talking about - whether it is right or not, not how persuasively Martin Luther King or Stephen Fry put it.
-
How is rhetoric not exactly what we're talking about?
Using rhetoric, co-opting it and talking about it are three distinct activities.
-
It does take two. That is absolutely true. But having two requires having at least one. Retracting all your civility because you perceive the same in your opponent just means that no recovery is now possible.
Here in the US, parents and teachers try to teach us this in school. It seems to wear off sometime around highschool, or whenever the nearest presidential election begins being televised.
-
only legal issue is they can't get a slip of paper?
You seriously don't believe that's an adequate expression of the problem, right?
Given that, it shouldn't be a surprise why Nazis look like left wingers to Americans.
I'm pretty sure that Nazis look like the other party to either of the Democrats or Republicans. And, in classical lazy nonconformist fashion, Libertarians or Greens will claim that both parties are Nazis. But the reality is that comparing the cronyism of the Republicans or the federal sledgehammer wielding socialism of the Democrats to the National Socialist Party is wrong on both counts. Neither party resembles them in any real way. Add to this the contextual shift that the right wing's leaders from 40 years ago look like lefties to them now...
In the past, people didn't get sexually active until they were older than today. I've heard that in Europe in the middle ages, the average age was closer to 18. I've also read that consummation generally didn't happen until sexual maturity.
I wonder what history books you've been reading...
Your attempt to derail a discussion about marriage equality into an oppression ratings contest is contemptible, as is the disrespect you show for the institution of marriage by dismissing it as "a slip of paper".
I just wanted to repeat this.
One of my favorite examples of this is how lefty Australians seem to be much more favorable towards republicanism than righty Australians. Which is very much the reverse case in the US.
It seems like a bivalent classification system is as naive in politics as it is with gender.
the latter of which shows that black people generally but obviously not monolithically have the opinions I have mentioned.
Has it occurred to you that "not monolithically" breaks the logic of using "black people" descriptively?
the current party line that homosexuality is inbuilt and not something you can change, except that we know that's not 100% true
This... isn't even an argument. I mean, the fact that oppression worked in the past means that we ought not be bothered to not do it now? Clearly, the problem isn't black people being black, it's them not being slaves, which is a choice, you know. If they would just choose to get back in their place, we'd be fine with them. I mean, they did it in the past, right?
Finally, the attitude that I can't even say "I am not in favor of gay marriage" is itself intolerant.
The fact that your posts aren't being deleted and you're not being banned is a demonstration of tolerance. Claiming that you should receive no flack for arguing for these ridiculous view, that taking the time to argue with you is "intolerant", shows that you have no idea what the word means. I don't know if you're in the US, but if so, the whole point of freedom of speech is that you're free to say it, not that you're free not to hear what anyone else has to say.
-
That makes you sound to me like a lawyer/career politician.
WTF are you talking about? I should feel bad because I know the meaning of the words that I use?
There was/is rhetoric but the rhetoric shouldn't be confused with the underlying issue.
I certainly don't disagree with that. Which is why I made the arguments I made. So do you agree with me on that stuff or is this last statement incorrect?
-
Using rhetoric, co-opting it and talking about it are three distinct activities.
Yes, sure. But that's irrelevant to the fact that @LurkerAbove doesn't seem to understand any of them, or that it's appropriate to use the word rhetoric when dealing with any of those.
-
Retracting all your civility because you perceive the same in your opponent just means that no recovery is now possible.
Cite, please.
Also, counterexample: you might notice that Boomzilla and I are communicating with each other in a perfectly civil fashion in this thread, despite my having told him to fuck off several times in the past.
-
WTF are you talking about? I should feel bad because I know the meaning of the words that I use?
No. What I mean is it sounds like you think the only purpose is to persuade another party. You did say "we're talking about making arguments in order to persuade". I disagree with that and I think it's a little sad that you see it like that (like a lawyer/career politician would). If it is like that then, of course, rhetoric is the right word, but I don't think it is like that and that's partly why I think it's a poor choice of word. The other reason is because it is often used in the derogatory sense.
You agreed with what I went on to say. I don't see why you fail to see the connection.
-
To be clear, I'm not specifically targeting you, though you have been party to this mess. It is quite obvious that this is happening everywhere in this thread. Outside this thread, it is on the rise on the internet in general, most clearly practiced by the sort of "feminists" who call other feminists misogynist for disagreeing with them on issues of journalistic integrity.
-
Are you new here?
-
I'm pretty sure that Nazis look like the other party to either of the Democrats or Republicans.
Yes, Democrats are typically pretty ignorant of history.
But the reality is that comparing the cronyism of the Republicans or the federal sledgehammer wielding socialism of the Democrats to the National Socialist Party is wrong on both counts.
It's like you didn't even read my post.
Add to this the contextual shift that the right wing's leaders from 40 years ago look like lefties to them now...
There has been a massive strain of Progressivism in the Republican party, and still is. Not terribly surprising when you realize that one of the giants of early Progressivism was a Republican (TR). Still, they didn't go nearly as close to full retard as the Democrats did.
Has it occurred to you that "not monolithically" breaks the logic of using "black people" descriptively?
How "not monolithically" does something need to be? The controversial California ballot amendment on same sex marriage succeeded (or failed? the result opposed SSM, whatever it was) in large part due to the votes of blacks, whose turnout was quite large that election, probably as a result of voting for Obama. Survey data that I've seen shows that black Americans are less likely than other racial groups to support SSM.
-
-
-
If you mean, "That's what this place is like. Deal with it." then you must realize the issue: you are now advocating the continuation of the status quo. You don't seem to be arguing this point on the topic under discussion.
-
No. What I mean is it sounds like you think the only purpose is to persuade another party.
Stop listening to your shoulder aliens and read what I wrote. I was criticizing a particular piece of rhetoric for its dishonesty and emotional manipulation.
You did say "we're talking about making arguments in order to persuade". I disagree with that and I think it's a little sad that you see it like that (like a lawyer/career politician would).
Except we were talking about what people were saying to argue for that position. I think it's a little sad that you disagree with the obvious.
-
Source?
A quick trip to google returned this:
-
Cite, please.
Here's an example:
Today's Democrats think it's awesome that public sector workers be unionized and a crime against humanity to prevent it. They are typically flabergasted to find out that one of the Fathers of the modern Democratic party, FDR, thought that public sector unions were horrible ideas for the obvious reasons (i.e., the negotiating parties both have natural incentives to collude against the public).
-
VaelynPhi:
It certainly seems like the rational thing would be a separation of concerns.14, 15
I believe you have misunderstood my comment. I am suggesting that all couples be required to apply for civil standing under the same criterion completely separately from what this is called. In other words, if the government issues marriage licenses, they are civil documents that have nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. In other words, 'tradition', 'religion', and all of that other bullshit doesn't apply. Whatever further component the couple chooses to involve, religious or otherwise, is a whole other matter.
"Marriage" as the government defines it and "marriage" as religion or traditions define it do not belong in the same definition in the dictionary. I'm not proposing that we call the civil component of this "civil unions" or some other term. In fact, I don't personally care what they call it. I'm just saying there is a definite difference between the issuance of a marriage license and the marriage ceremony: one is a matter for government, the other is not. In the former case, there is absolutely zero involvement of history, tradition, religion, or even biology. It is merely a matter of how the legal system defines individuals and their rights.
On the flip side, the notion that marriage is only a government matter is naive. It is clear that at least a portion of the population (including those in same-sex marriages/unions/partnerships) involves non-secular components. This doesn't mean they have any right to interfere in the civil definition of marriage on the basis of those non-secular concerns. It just means that treating them like they don't exist is silly. Buy my point here is that if, say, a priest wants to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, the government has no business either validating or denying validation for that; it's a religious ceremony, not a civil matter.
Honestly, were I the Emperor of the United States, I'd just abolish marriage as a government institution entirely and replace it with something else; though clearly I can't call it "civil unions". My BF and I have considered a handfasting, especially with its yearly renewal; between us, we regard it as a matter of time before we get legal recognition and aren't particularly concerned with it.
-
Why does https://www.hex-rays.com/products/ida/support/download_freeware.shtml need UAC approval when I start it up in Windows XP compatibility mode?
Because in XP compatibility mode it's trying to assert SeDebugPrivilege (access the memory of any running process that doesn't hold SeTcbPrivilege), which is required in Windows XP for any debugging at all, but not required in Windows Vista or later, where you can debug your own processes without escalation.@flabdablet said:The traditional Windows approach to the same kind of use case has generally involved baking passwords into the scripts, with varying degrees of obfuscation.
The proper Windows approach is to create a scheduled task and bake the credentials into the task (secured by Actual Security, not obfuscation). But, like UAC, "proper" got confused with "possible"...@created_just_to_disl said:I'll enable it back and - if I either get less than 5 prompts in 10 days, or have cause to cancel at least one of the prompts in the 10 days - keep it enabled.
Proviso: Exclude Java's updater from your criteria. It breaks all the UAC rules, Oracle knows it breaks all the UAC rules, Microsoft has publically derided Oracle for breaking all the UAC rules, and Oracle's response was to shrug and make it break even more UAC rules. But it's the only app I know that's that bad; the rest are extremely tame.@Quietust said:UAC prompts should only happen in the following situations:1. the program was explicitly invoked to run elevated (i.e. Run as Administrator)2. the program's manifest explicitly says that it should run elevated3. the program lacks a manifest, and a heuristic has classified the program as an installer that likely needs to run elevated (generally for stuff like "setup.exe")4. the program lacks a manifest and is flagged as requiring elevation for compatibility (e.g. you ran it, it didn't work, you closed it, then you accepted the Program Compatibility Assistant's recommendation to rerun it elevated)
This is correct, unlike much of the UAC stuff in this thread. Also, if you have UAC turned off, virtualization is turned off as well, which actually might make programs break more (specifically those that write to the Windows folder or the Program Files folder of an MSI-installed app).@created_just_to_disl said:If a program runs unelevated and it tries to do something that isn't allowed, it will not display a UAC prompt - it will fail to do whatever it was attempting to do. In any case, if the prompt DOES appear, then the only thing Windows knows is "the program wants to run with increased privileges"; it doesn't know why.
There is one notable exception, though - if a program tries to write to its own installation folder (or a registry key in HKLM), then Windows filesystem/registry virtualization kicks in and redirects it to a user-specific location so it won't actually require elevation (and subsequent read attempts will give it a combined view of the install folder and your user-specific changes). Of course, this doesn't apply if your program is manifested as UAC-aware, in which case the operation will simply fail (and you should've also manifested it to require elevation).
F:\Whatnot
Well, duhhh; default NTFS permissions apply to all volumes, not just C:. Check the Security tab of Properties and fix the permissions. When you're too warm, take off the jacket; don't strip completely naked!@created_just_to_disl said:Do I need to go and mess with the access rights of each folder I create to allow it to be used by non-privileged programs?
You can change it on the root of the volume and it will cascade down into all the folders that don't specifically forbid it (like Program Files, Users, and Windows). I don't recommend doing this on the system volume though since that opens the possibility of malware overriding those subfolder-based prohibitions.@boomzilla said:TRWTF? If that's correct, it sounds like a very user hostile action. And not in a Jeff sort of way.
It's been that way since NTFS first came out as a way to enforce quotas and "cleanliness". FAT, FAT32, XFAT, and UDF partitions have no security, so floppies, flash drives, and CDs/DVDs/BRs are as wide open as goatse.@dookdook said:Not that any of that has much to do with my original Java/Firefox issues...
Sure it does, it's just UAC is OS-wide. You want to get togrumpy catmath software that nobody bothered to try to get working on Windows because they're afraid it'll "just work", and you won't let anything that's trying to protect you from terrible, terrible security vulnerabilities get in your way.@blakeyrat said:The problem is shitty application developers who don't know anything about how the OS they've chosen to develop in works, and also don't give a shit about shipping software with huge bugs.
+1@FrostCat said:Here's an example: when I was about 5, I stuck a my finger in an electrical outlet. You know what happened? I got a shock, and because I'm not a moron I never did it again.
+1@VaelynPhi said:Yes, but as has been pointed out already, if all UAC gives the user is a nag screen, they'll eventually just see it as something to click through, eliminating its functionality. Any information it could give the user would encourage them to take the prompt seriously.
Which is why, when Microsoft introduced it, they had clear guidance for what was supposed to happen for apps written post-Vista, one of them being: "Only show this as late as possible, after warning the user in your own UI, with a shield on the thing that triggers it, and only when absolutely necessary." And then Java fucked it up.@VaelynPhi said:I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be made to have more information. Something knows that the process user doesn't own that file or have permissions, or else UAC couldn't have been triggered.
Except for COM (an ancient temple the map to which has been all but lost), UAC can only be triggered when starting a program, and all the information you get is "this program wanted to start as Administrator." When a process tries to do something that requires elevation and it isn't elevated, it just gets told "Access denied", period, no user interaction given.@VaelynPhi said:Or even better, run it chrooted so it thinks it can do whatever it wants. [I may just be tossing these out to stir up @blakeyrat...]
Yep, that's built-in, and with UAC on it's invisible.@tarunik said:and I wouldn't be surprised if the Windows 7 installer did a similar thing.
Nope. All servicing is known-offline servicing, starting with Vista. The Windows XP installer, on the other hand...@mott555 said:This is a reasonable compromise. Gays get what they want, the religious folks aren't forced to redefine things.
While I feel it's a reasonable compromise too, the religious folks have already rejected it. They feel allowing people to receive the same "bundle" of civil rights as marriage, without being religiously "sanctioned" as a marriage, devalues marriage too much and is therefore "insulting" and "blasphemous" and other nasty words.
-
Yes, Democrats are typically pretty ignorant of history.
::sigh::
It's like you didn't even read my post.
Or I wasn't just replying to you.
...early Progressivism was a Republican (TR).
I doubt the politics of this period is even relevant now, except historically.
How "not monolithically" does something need to be? The controversial California ballot amendment on same sex marriage succeeded (or failed? the result opposed SSM, whatever it was) in large part due to the votes of blacks, whose turnout was quite large that election, probably as a result of voting for Obama. Survey data that I've seen shows that black Americans are less likely than other racial groups to support SSM.
At least a single sigma would help. It's not surprising that blacks voted against it; they tend to be more religiously conservative, on account of all that Christian brainwashing that happened back in the 1800s that had something to do with The Late Unpleasantness. I wouldn't really know, though; after all, Democrats are typically pretty ignorant of history.
-
you are now advocating the continuation of the status quo. You don't seem to be arguing this point on the topic under discussion.
That's because I see no important parallel between the fundamental right of minority groups to be free of persecution and the petulant demands of immature Internet blowhards to have their every worthless utterance taken seriously.
-
It's been that way since NTFS first came out as a way to enforce quotas and "cleanliness". FAT, FAT32, XFAT, and UDF partitions have no security, so floppies, flash drives, and CDs/DVDs/BRs are as wide open as goatse.
Hang on...are you saying that when you create a directory you only get read permission since forever? Because that's what I was reading there. I think the real issue was that he wasn't authenticated, which is a whole 'nother kettle of wax.
-
Or I wasn't just replying to you.
But you were contradicting my post.
I doubt the politics of this period is even relevant now, except historically.
That seems trivially true. But historical stuff was what we were talking about, so thanks for the validation.
I wouldn't really know, though; after all, Democrats are typically pretty ignorant of history.
Now you're getting it!
-
If you're not an administrator (and, starting in Vista, an elevated administrator), the root of the drive has been read-only since forever, yes. Unless you play with permissions otherwise, standard users can only write to their user folder by default.
-
As I think I probably made clear before @Rhywden abandoned arguing with me on the other thread, I think "safe" is somewhat overrated.
Society has been greatly harmed by an insistence on excessive safety, and a certain amount of pain is an excellent teacher. Here's an example: when I was about 5, I stuck a my finger in an electrical outlet. You know what happened? I got a shock, and because I'm not a moron I never did it again.
Oh, right the "proof by anecdotal evidence". First of all, since some people survived falling out of a plane without a (functioning) parachute this obviously means that falling out of a plane surely isn't the dangerous activity everyone makes it out to be!
Secondly, things such as cardiac arrhythmias obviously don't exist in your world. Or did you actually think that just because your heart didn't stop outright that there was no chance of something else going wrong?
-
If you're not an administrator (and, starting in Vista, an elevated administrator), the root of the drive has been read-only since forever, yes.
Right...but we're talking about a directory he created. I thought. Yes, I'm familiar with the root of the drive thing.
-
First of all, since some people survived falling out of a plane without a (functioning) parachute this obviously means that falling out of a plane surely isn't the dangerous activity everyone makes it out to be!
Yeah, I have a very different standard for things I'll do myself (or maybe even let my kids do) and things I'll allow for people I'm responsible for. I think playing with power sockets is definitely something I wouldn't let other people's kids do. Especially in a situation where there is a lot more liability (e.g., a school) and you're basically expendable.
I have a hard time believing @FrostCat isn't just trolling you on that stuff. And I'm not sure if your reaction to his trolling is funnier or if his ridiculous position on letting school kids stick stuff into power sockets is actually serious.
-
I read most of that but I didn't need to, because only someone as dumb as you would think I don't disapprove of pedophilia by the rest of my statements.
-
You're so determined to be offended that I thought I'd make it easier for you.
Not at all, you're just a bigot who can't deal with disagreement?
See? I can do this just like you can.
-
Except we were talking about what people were saying to argue for that position.
Then we are at cross purposes but I believe you replied to (and disagreed with) me (in post 377) and not the other way round. As what you were disagreeing with was a follow in to what I was saying about the use of the word rhetoric (in post 357 - the 'rhetoric' of the black civil rights movement), which FrostCat later agreed was the wrong word, I naturally assumed that's what you were talking about:When you first used the word:
@boomzilla said:And that's where a lot of the power of this sort of rhetoric comes from
I assumed that "this sort of rhetoric" was referring to the same thing and calling it rhetoric again. A reasonable assumption and I'm not convinced you weren't. Even if not I still think it is a bad idea to use that word when talking about what people are saying on subjects like this because it has more than one meaning and none of them are complimentary.I think it's a little sad that you disagree with the obvious.
If you regard argument=rhetoric as 'obvious' then that is more than a little sad because it is not true. It implies you, in fact, do not know the full meaning of either or both words.
A scientific argument, for example, should never be rhetoric: persuasion should be nothing more than a natural by product of its logic and evidence. It should not be its motive.
-
The last two words explain that.
How do you square that with the fact that some gay men say they're unable to have sex with women? I didn't say "everyone can choose not to be gay." I said it that way on purpose.
To accept one minority's claim to fair treatment as just and proper but to reject another's suggests some sort of hypocrisy.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't do that, right? I just said the two struggles aren't the same, and some black people don't appreciate people saying they are.
I mean, I qualify these things deliberately, and then unintelligent people like flabbydablet strip out all the qualifications and accuse me of positions I don't hold, and then claim they're the reasonable one.
-
If I understand your position correctly, you're advocating a much larger change to the institution of marriage as it's presently understood than I see as desirable.
As things stand now, the relationship commonly understood as marriage is a complex hybrid of state and religion and family and tradition. To me, that fact speaks to its centrality as a social principle: it's always been conceptually messy because it cuts across so many aspects of the way we organize ourselves.
It seems to me that making a serious attempt to clean that up could actually dent the institution in ways that straightforward removal of the gender-based restrictions to the state aspects of existing arrangements would not.
Laws that refer to marriage simply ought not contain gender-specific language. From a drafting standpoint that's really a very small change, but it seems to me that the literally legitimizing social effects of it would be both positive and profound.
-
The fact that I told somebody I can no longer be bothered putting together arguments for to fuck off doesn't mean it was me who just Godwinned this thread.
Goodness, but you're stupid. Godwinning doesn't mean "I won."
-
I assumed that "this sort of rhetoric" was referring to the same thing and calling it rhetoric again.
OK, I think I see where we diverged. The sort of rhetoric I was talking about wasn't saying stuff like, we shouldn't deny people rights. It was the sort of statement that associated SSM opponents with burning crosses and so forth.
If you regard argument=rhetoric as 'obvious' then that is more than a little sad because it is not true.
I do not. I'm talking about people using statements that are emotionally charged and misleading to make others sympathetic to a point of view.
-
Feminists (not the ones for whom feminism is just voting Democrat, but the ones, e.g., running gender studies departments) believe that it's all choice. And women need to choose to be lesbians.
Snort. With, no doubt, a complete lack of awareness of the implications.
-
cracker-white
RACIST!
ultraconservative
I'm not accusing you of this but it's funny how, to a leftist[1] anyone to their right is "ultraconservative," but there's not really an "ultraleftist."
[1] Note the other l-word I didn't use.
-
Snort. With, no doubt, a complete lack of awareness of the implications.
I've heard it said that there are 3 types of feminists.
- Feminists who are wrong
- Feminists who are crazy
- Feminists who are wrong and crazy
People who think I'm talking about modern day equivalents to suffragettes aren't paying attention and will be given the mocking they deserve.
-
This is a reasonable compromise. Gays get what they want, the religious folks aren't forced to redefine things.
This is basically what I said.
I'll even go one step further; while I'm not comfortable with it, if a given church wanted to marry gay people in this new sense we're talking about it, I wouldn't even object. I mean, I'd gripe about it, but who doesn't gripe about stuff they don't disagree with.
To certain people, though, anything less than enthusiastic acceptance of the idea of gays being married is heterodoxy worthy of being burnt at the stake, probably in blissful ignorance of the historical irony.
-
Historically people get married about the time they're biologically capable of having children, and then have children.
Wrong, btw. There's no argument you can make for gay marriage that isn't also an argument for polyamory (notice the word shift I used.) Or, frankly, for bestiality or incest.
Sweet, the right wing lunatics have finally arrived with their retarded slippery slope arguments.
Clearly the law can't be written in a way that allows only specific types of marriage to be legal, that wouldn't fit in the 140 character law limit, right?
-
Yeah, I have a very different standard for things I'll do myself (or maybe even let my kids do) and things I'll allow for people I'm responsible for. I think playing with power sockets is definitely something I wouldn't let other people's kids do. Especially in a situation where there is a lot more liability (e.g., a school) and you're basically expendable.
I have a hard time believing @FrostCat isn't just trolling you on that stuff. And I'm not sure if your reaction to his trolling is funnier or if his ridiculous position on letting school kids stick stuff into power sockets is actually serious.
Well, my position is that we don't know who is reading his idiotic notions and might take him up on it.
-
If you're not an administrator (and, starting in Vista, an elevated administrator), the root of the drive has been read-only since forever, yes.
Not quite. You've always been able to create folders in the root folder, and then do whatever you like inside those. On XP, that used to happen by giving Create Folders permission to Authenticated Users on the root folder only, and Full Control permission to CREATOR OWNER on subfolders and files.
A quick check of a fresh Win7 VM shows that the CREATOR OWNER stuff isn't there any more; instead, the root's subfolders and files inherit permissions for Authenticated Users that allow everything except "delete subfolders and files", "change permissions" and "take ownership".
-
-
Sweet, the right wing lunatics have finally arrived with their retarded slippery slope arguments.
Could you quote one, please? The @FrostCat quote you used sounds similar, but lacks the vagueness that an actual slippery slope fallacy needs.
-
Has it occurred to you that "not monolithically" breaks the logic of using "black people" descriptively?
Of course. I was using a shorthand rather than trying to assume all people of one ethnic group have the same opinions on a given topic.
At the moment the best thing I can find is http://www.gallup.com/poll/154634/acceptance-gay-lesbian-relations-new-normal.aspx which shows that nonwhites have a lower moral acceptance of gay marriage. I've seen survey results showing a significantly lower percentage for blacks, but, oddly, the articles I've found on a quick search just now don't break it down any further. The closest I can come--and I'm not vetting these sites in any way, except to try to filter for obvious satire--is stuff like this: http://forthdistrict.com/5-reasons-gay-is-not-the-new-black/ or this http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-civil-rights-movement-similar-to-the-gay-rights-movement (it looks like the comments are about 60-40 "they are similar" but a 3-to-2 majority isn't exactly decisive)
-
I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be made to have more information. Something knows that the process user doesn't own that file or have permissions, or else UAC couldn't have been triggered.
You seem to think UAC triggers whenever a user tries to perform a restricted operation. It doesn't.
Quick test. Use notepad, wordpad, word, openoffice, whatever. Save a document in Program Files.
It fails, access denied, no UAC appears.
UAC only appears when it's asked to. Whether it's needed or not. And it doesn't know why- Although the program making it appear may.
-
How do you square that with the fact that some gay men say they're unable to have sex with women? I didn't say "everyone can choose not to be gay." I said it that way on purpose.
I think sexuality is a continuum: a matter of which stimuli excite which neurons in the brain and to what amount. We are all different in that respect to some degree or other. What I have never seen is any ever evidence that anybody has ever chosen their sexuality (without lying to themselves in the process). All those with experience who have spoken about it (that I've ever heard of) say the opposite.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't do that, right? I just said the two struggles aren't the same, and some black people don't appreciate people saying they are.
Then fair enough and I apologise if need be (I'm too tired of this now to work out if it is). I do, however, reiterate that there are also similarities as well as differences as with all minorities struggling against injustices and whether X-minority people appreciate some rhetoric being used or not shouldn't factor into whether Y-minority people deserve something. It reminds me of the deflection and divide and rule tactics that a ruling group would use (have used) to keep the status quo.But I don't believe you want to oppress or persecute gay people. I think you have non-bigoted reasons for not wanting marriage to be allowed between 2 people of the same gender. I disagree and think it should be.
-
This is because modern left wingers (and their historical precedents) often choose to confuse people with language in order to get the people to go along with them.
For every Democrat calling the Republicans racist religious zealots, you've got Republicans calling Democrats liberal communist/socialist nanny staters. It is rather hilarious to see either side claim the other is the clearly the only on that does it.Show me a left winger who has actually said that slavery is freedom,
It's pretty funny really, the last person to say that particular phrase was a lunatic right winger in Nevada that was trying to dodge taxes on his usage of government-owned public land. The conservatives that were backing him ended up dumping his ass so fast once he said that though, so it's certainly not a thing they'd like to say publicly.
-
This... isn't even an argument. I mean, the fact that oppression worked in the past means that we ought not be bothered to not do it now? Clearly, the problem isn't black people being black, it's them not being slaves, which is a choice, you know. If they would just choose to get back in their place, we'd be fine with them. I mean, they did it in the past, right?
You didn't read what I wrote very well. Black people were treated as chattel because of their skin color. I'm simplifying a little, of course. You can't consciously choose to change your ancestry, right? Not all gay people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Therefore, one issue relates to a universally inherent property, and the other...doesn't. In fact, a few decades ago, some time before the push for gay marriage, it was common to insist being gay was a choice.
The crack about black people choosing to be slaves is a poor ad hominem I won't address except to reductio ad absurdum it by pointing out that by your logic, gays already have marriage equality: a gay man can marry a woman just like I can.
-
[quote="frostcat]
In the past, people didn't get sexually active until they were older than today. I've heard that in Europe in the middle ages, the average age was closer to 18. I've also read that consummation generally didn't happen until sexual maturity.
[/quote]Either that's the dumbest thing I've ever read on here, or you were intentionally trolling @flabdablet.
