Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
That is weirdly specific; I cannot fathom why it'd only be with the eldest daughter.
1st in line to the throne I'm presuming there's an unwritten 'with no elder brothers' there. Though with the primogeniture changes, it should really apply to the eldest son as well. Or simply 'eldest child.'
-
We could throw it open to a vote?
There's no point. Only @Matches hates me and everyone else thinks I'm wonderful, so it would be very one sided.
-
-
1st in line to the throne I'm presuming there's an unwritten 'with no elder brothers' there. Though with the primogeniture changes, it should really apply to the eldest son as well. Or simply 'eldest child.'
It all depends on the Kingdom's Unworthy Adulterous Citizen settings.
-
it should really apply to the eldest son
I think it's more, the eldest son can deny that it's his kid (and the law hasn't been updated for DNA testing) while the eldest daughter would have more trouble hiding the pregnancy, and should she have a son, he'd be in line for the throne.
-
I think it's more, the eldest son can deny that it's his kid (and the law hasn't been updated for DNA testing) while the eldest daughter would have more trouble hiding the pregnancy, and should she have a son, he'd be in line for the throne.
-
In a world where dictionaries accept a word's antonym as its definition...
...one man takes a stand...
BOOMZILLA!!
Coming to theaters in the Winter of 2015
This film is rated TWTF - not suitable for any audience.
-
-
You fixed the "it always worked fine since day one". Good man.
I suppose it's just that you have no reading comprehension, it's been pointed out that there was a bug and I also noted that it apparently did not FUCKING WORK AT ALL UNLESS RUN IN ADMIN MODE. What difference does it make if I set it to run in admin mode or if it had to request the admin privs itself? It's just that it's been what, 3 years since DiabloIII came out, so I didn't remember jumping through those hoops until it was mentioned.
-
I installed it on day 1 and don't remember having any problems with UAC or having to launch as admin. My anecdotal evidence trumps yours
-
-
My anecdotal evidence trumps yours
and the guy who found the Blizzard admission of the bug's evidence tops yours.
It only affected certain OS/drivers apparently.Like I said, ON MY WIFE's COMPUTER. On my computer with windows8 it worked just fucking fine, and in winXP it worked fine.
-
Oh yay, someone else who'd rather blame Microsoft than the developers of broken software...
That's not under debate. You're right.
The point is UAC itself was broken (perhaps overshot the mark is more accurate) when Vista came out. Here is a Microsoft blog that details the "Customer-driven engineering" (jump to that section for the point) that fixes what's broken in UAC in Windows 7.
I do not object to the concept of protecting the system*. I DO object to the system stopping me EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN' TIME I TRY TO DO SOMETHING. Vista failed in the business world because of this point alone (hence the longevity of XP and MS extending support of XP to this year. Hell, MS even extended downgrade rights to XP until 2020. How crazy is that?)
So UAC was a necessary step, but as implemented initially a very painful one that created a lot of backlash. Between MS adjusting it back and developers getting with the program on how to properly write software, it's practically part of the woodwork now, so to speak. Finally, I do consider it ok to disable UAC when initially installing all your programs on a fresh setup of Windows, but don't agree leaving it off on an ongoing basis - the latter is asking for trouble.
*UAC is ON on my Windows 7.
-
Nobody picked up on the third misused word. Three glaringly misused words in a single sentence by a normally articulate poster; if that's not an obvious troll, I don't know what is.
That's because we have a high standard for trolling here on thedailywtf. Obvious trolls are not up to that standard. The ideal troll should be as close to qualifying for Poe's Law as possible.
> boomzilla:
In a world where dictionaries accept a word's antonym as its definition...
...one man takes a stand...
BOOMZILLA!!
Coming to theaters in the Winter of 2015
This film is rated TWTF - not suitable for any audience.
That's just a remake of Don Quixote. Lame.
-
the very first thing you do in a fresh Windows install (even before opening IE for the one and only time ever to download the firefox installer) is to go to the control panel and disable UAC
Nope.
-
That's just a remake of Don Quixote. Lame.
Every generation needs its own Don Quixote.
-
The point is UAC itself was broken (perhaps overshot the mark is more accurate) when Vista came out.
I'm not doubting the UAC in Vista was a bit much, considering the amount of garbage it had to put up with from decades of poor practices. But equally it's unfair to lay the blame on Redmond; the amount of shims and other assorted magicks in modern Windows they have to add and support just to keep businesses happy is, frankly, ludicrous. Not to mention that the vast majority of complaints scattered around the 'Net are from home users, who would be using programs Microsoft probably didn't even know existed, let alone supported with shims and other shit like that.
-
There is only one person in the world i hate, and it isn't you Keith.
-
-
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)
I was hoping to find someone who actually knew how UAC worked, instead of all the people who, I guess, somehow think that UAC prompts on every access denied and magically rewinds the program to try whatever failed again.
How in the world do they think UAC can look at Diable3.exe, say "Oh, 15 minutes from now when the user changes some setting, it'll need write access to this ini that's protected, better pop a UAC prompt!"
I usually paraphrase Chris Jackson, and say
UAC appears only in 1 of 3 ways
- The program ask it to (Manifest, explorer.exe accessing certain directories)
- The User or Admins ask it to (Right Click Run as Admin, Check the "Always run as admin" box, GPO or PCA which essentially just checks that box for you)
- Windows thinks it's in installer (IE, named Setup.exe, an MSI not specifically flagged as Non-Admin, etc)
-
-
-
Do you think I'm some sort of monster?
Thatssssss a nisssssse housssssse you've built there.... -BOOM-
-
-
-
oh goddess! it burns us! it burns us! why did you use one of that company's ad images?!
-
Why not?
-
Because they're[1] food is good.
[1] yes.
-
I refuse to support that company for the same reason i refuse to support Apple.
they make a good product, but management has issues.
specifically with that company management is very vocally against a right that I believe everyone should have.
-
Eat beef?
-
specifically with that company management is very vocally against a right that I believe everyone should have.
Firstly, no they aren't. Secondly, I'll bet you don't. The related abuse of the word "equality" should go with the rest of the awful language discussion in this thread.
-
chicken is ok, but not their chicken.
(while i enjoy vegetarian fare, i can't commit to the lifestyle. i like meat too much)
-
chicken is ok, but not their chicken.
I hate that so many places only serve white meat. My favorite fast food chicken is Popeye's.
-
You missed the double entendre
-
the right to marry whomever i damn well feel like, so long as they are legally capable of consent and do give such consent, being free of coercion or other methods of manipulation?
yeah that's something that everyone should be able to do.
-
did i? dang... i need to get better at catching those.
-
the right to marry whomever i damn well feel like, so long as they are legally capable of consent and do give such consent, being free of coercion or other methods of manipulation?
yeah that's something that everyone should be able to do.
Cool. Siblings, polygamy, parents and children.
Still, everyone had exactly the same rights. Legal marriage doesn't really have anything about if you actually love someone.
The current debate isn't about making anything more equal, just about changing the restrictions. I think it's a good change, but the language typically used to support it is rife with sloppy thinking and misleading rhetoric.
-
Cool. Siblings, polygamy, parents and children.
well for purely health of children/general population we might not want to relax the siblings/cousins rule. I'l confess i completly forgot about that until you mentioned it.
@boomzilla said:I think it's a good change, but the language typically used to support it is rife with sloppy thinking and misleading rhetoric.
True enough, from both the reds and the blues and the.... what do we colour call the middle? the purples? the greens?
-
Siblings
It's weird to my mind, but assuming no children are forthcoming then what's the harm?polygamy
not my thing, but if all parties are aware and consenting then why not?parents and children
This one is a bit more hazy to my morals. Even when they're grown up, parents can have a big effect on their offspring so consent might be a bit of a grey area.
-
-
specifically with that company management is very vocally against a right that I believe everyone should have.
Well, you're letting your dislike of Chick-Fil-A's political position interfere with your enjoyment of an otherwise-funny joke.
That's your prerogative, of course, but it's generally why I avoid starting talking politics or whatever: if someone feels the need to bring that into every discussion, it makes things tedious.
-
the right to marry whomever i damn well feel like, so long as they are legally capable of consent and do give such consent, being free of coercion or other methods of manipulation?
yeah that's something that everyone should be able to do.
So you want to redefine an institution as old as mankind is with no concern for what adverse social effects it might have?
I support legal equality. I have no problem with civil unions. I take exception to trying to hijack the social institution of marriage, which, remember, is all about providing a safe environment for raising children.
-
providing a safe environment for raising children.
so you're excluding @accalia as a possible safe environment for raising children?
-
It's weird to my mind, but assuming no children are forthcoming then what's the harm?
For one thing, marriage has historically been about raising children. So consider this: what is the meaning of "getting married" when you're planning to not use it for the primary reason? "I want to join Delta's frequent flyer program, but I never get on airplanes." Why?
-
so you're excluding @accalia as a possible safe environment for raising children?
Har har.
-
So infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about widowed pensioners past the menopause?
Also, adoption
-
So you want to redefine an institution as old as organised religion
FTFYThe modern Western version of marriage is very deeply rooted in the Abrahamic religions' definition of marriage; in fact, it's essentially identical. Admittedly, the legal definitions are starting to be relaxed in the more progressive countries, but it'll take a long time before the generally accepted religious version of 'one man, one woman' is torn down fully. And even the more progressive rules being brought in still don't allow polygamy.
-
I'm new here. Where do I find the dislike button?
-
So infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about widowed pensioners past the menopause?
That's not a wide historical use case. Historically people get married about the time they're biologically capable of having children, and then have children.
TBH the cases you mention are, historically, noise, and can really just be ignored or treated as what they are: rare exceptions. Two gay people or two known-sterile people (remember that historically you didn't out you weren't jointly fertile until after you failed to have kids) getting married is a separate case.
Besides, I already said I don't have a problem with civil unions. You want joint bank accounts, automatic medical power of attorney, all that stuff? I'm fine with that. I just don't appreciate the cultural appropriation.
-
And even the more progressive rules being brought in still don't allow polygamy.
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.