- 2001:4860:4860::8888

- 2001:4860:4860::8844

If you hate typing that much, computers may not be for you.

There were no rules in DOS, or r_x permissions like Unix.

The DOS kernel itself didn't really impose any structure on the filesystem. All that mattered was:

- The two files that comprised DOS itself (MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS) had to be "inode" 0 and 1 on the disk in early versions,

- the kernel parsed \CONFIG.SYS on boot, and I think looked for \COMMAND.COM if you didn't specify a different shell with COMSPEC= in CONFIG.SYS. There were defaults if \CONFIG.SYS didn't exist, but of course all your DEVICE= stuff won't load and you'll probably not have a working mouse, CD-ROM, etc.

\AUTOEXEC.BAT was optional. That's it. Any other files could be anywhere else. I think the MS-DOS installer disk put files in C:\DOS by convention but that was just a convention. As long as COMMAND.COM was findable DOS would boot and be useable-and if you mucked something up you just grab your DOS boot floppy with A:\COMMAND.COM on it and fix it.

From what I recall most installers-if provided-made a directory in \ and put all their files there, mixing executables with read-write data. There was no central registry of programs or anything unless you were using a third party front-end.

Windows 3.x and 95 inherited the DOS legacy there.

Lol a quick Google search leads me to a Linked in post with all the gory technical details?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-x86-cpu-cache-m...

So that sticker will be a big "This TV requires a Walmart+ account - Sign up for Walmart+ and get free grocery delivery on orders over $30 and discounts at the self-checkout AND deals on streaming!" Their electronics department people will probably be trained to answer any questions and help people sign up on the app (if they're not already).

Walmart's pretty smart here.

Walmart is one of the most litigated companies ever, and probably has 10+ active lawsuits against it at any given time. So if they're getting into this, they're fairly sure it will work legally now and in the future.

The battle against personal-data-collection by default on TVs is probably lost at this point. It's over. Non-smart TVs will probably become specialized, super-expensive corporate-class expenses out of reach of most people before too long.

Projectors are capable of creating a big image on a wall like a TV, and while it's not as bright, it comes with much less privacy invasion, and is also portable. That's where I'm likely spending my future TV dollars until those gets caught up in this as well.

"... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I don't understand how "person X created this so anyone who does something similar has to pay him and his kin for all eternity" promotes progress. In fact, it does the exact opposite - at some point you can't do or say anything through any persistent media without paying legions of lawyers, trusts, and corporate entities.

Someone at school has parents who aren't watching their children and allowing them unrestricted Internet access? This is where the bounty-hunter private-right-of-action morality-police laws that seem to be gaining traction can be put to some actual good use instead of, for example, hunting down trans people in Kansas. If someone's child is showing other children inappropriate material because their parents are negligent, the other parents should be able to take those parents to court and recover damages if they can collect evidence. Once parents are fined for letting their children roam with an unrestricted Internet connection it'll stop pretty quick.

> they need help from the wider society they live in.

Help that is not material support (e.g. paying hospital bills, babysitting, etc.) is usually interference.

> I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults

Agreed, but I can handle myself on the internet (my parents did their job and I am also not a dog and know the difference between a screen and a real object), and shouldn't be tracked with verification nonsense because someone else can't.

I imagine any large about of RAM in audio equipment would strictly be for devices/functions that buffer large amounts of data as opposed to just decoding it.

An old Akai S1000 sampler I had a long time ago had slots for memory modules (some weird proprietary slot IIRC), but that was a musical instrument, not really a player of any kind.