What are you doing that MS is crippling your machine? I haven't had a Windows 10 update that was bad for me (I did update after the last group of bad updates hit...but that was some time ago). Windows 10 has been very stable for me.
Swift 3 is having a name change: it's now iSwift. Do more, faster with iSwift. Code! iSwift. It's magical, iSwift! Bring magic and buzzwords to end uers with iSwift! iSwift can do it all! Faster! Sleek! iSwift! Magical! User friendly! No more text interfaces for coding! iSwift! intelligent! iSwift secure! Do more, iSwift! Now supporting Retina! iSwift! Brushed Aluminium! Unibody iSwift!
Yeah. Shame on Microsoft for making people get off an OS that isn't receiving updates and for pushing for people to get off an OS that will stop receiving them in a handful of years. Yeah, how horrible. People should just run outdated and unsupported software, connect to the internet, and help spread malware. Yeah, freedom, 'MURICA. Yeah, you can't tell ME what to do my MY server is nothing like making companies stop dumping nuclear waste into drinking wells. Yeah. You go you freedom lover, you.
Reasonable != Affordable. You have a disconnect in logic. Laws cannot be written to the individual, it'll be a nightmare. What it's meant to do is say "So you didn't pay your $50 for your driver's license...so now you'll pay ONE QUADRILLION DOLLARS and have everything you own seized." The Constitution doesn't protect the poor anymore than it protects the rich.
It's not funding. These are not new fees. These are fees levied by the state already for an offense you committed. This is collecting what the state says you already owe...the better question would be why those who owe the money haven't paid it? An example would be someone who didn't renew their License Plate and owes a fee for that. Why should you get to be a special butterfly who doesn't have to pay your fees and get to tear up the roads that I, a good law abiding citizen, am paying to maintain...at no cost to yourself?
Donating money isn't the same thing as providing the actual service. Let's say he wants to give away internet to all of Minneapolis. Honestly we're only serving.001% of the US population...so let's go then with NYC. NYC's population (as of 2013) is 8.406 million. The US population is 318.9 million...so now we're into numbers that we can kind of shrug our shoulders and go "eh a difference was made". Now Manhattan Island itself runs 13.4 miles long and 2.3 miles wide (at its widest). How much cable would have to be laid (or purchased)? Now let's assume you have to run your drops to each household because you're a real philanthropist willing to put your money where your mouth is. I've seen estimates that put the number of buildings on Manhattan Island at around 60000 buildings. Many of those are multi-level buildings, but let's just be snarky and assume we have a magic wifi hotspot that will carry signal to as high of a floor we want with the same latency as CAT 5e. You still have to have techs go out and lay those drops. You'll need switches and routers for provisioning. You'll need staff to configure, setup, and maintain those. You also care about security so you'll need to be applying patches/updates. And you'll want firewalls.Now people are sometimes bad and the courts sometimes needs to knock a few heads in a legal manner for things like child porn or whatever. So you'll need some way to handle subpoenas for records and, of course, you'll need to store those. You'll also need staff to assist in managing the staff of techs, benefits, and vehicles. There's also tools and expendables you'll need to consider.
Are you starting to get a feel for where I'm going? You might have great ROI, but honestly you only pulled back about $350K. Take out taxes and broker fees and you might have enough to handle a few techs. Certainly not their benefits nor the managing staff's benefits. We haven't even gotten to things like software licensing, legal paperwork/attorney fees, and other administrative costs. Also there's the value of your own time to consider.
Giving away money is far easier than actually building/running an organization. To suggest a single digit billionaire has the capital to do this is ludicrous. As an example just Verizon's wire-line business pulled in 15.6 billion in 2014. That was a small amount of Verizon's total revenue of $157 billion. Of that only $9.625 billion remained as net income. It is simply not possible for an individual to give away free internet to any chunk of the population larger than maybe 1/4 of a percent.
"Were I a billionaire, I would give away services with no ads, no tracking, no analytics, just to undercut the monsters like Google and Microsoft to show that it doesn't have to be about the money. Apple has more money in the bank than most countries and they smile, all along letting little girls slave away in the tech sweatshops of China and elsewhere, making their wares for pennies on the dollar, yet expecting Americans to pay highway robbery prices for a device that costs less than 1/4 of the asking price to bring to market. There's a difference between making a living and making a killing. Shareholders are the moral death to any company."
No you wouldn't. People would expect you to fix things that were broken. Today's world is 24/7/365. I would agree that shareholders are killing social responsibility for corporations, as long as the shareholders we're talking about aren't the individual person trying to make a buck for retirement. The shareholders I think of are the algorithms that run complex software designed to buy/sell stocks as quickly as possible to undercut orders they see coming in "upstream." The stockholders I fear are big mutual fund brokers who don't care about individual companies, but about ROI and quarterly dividends. These are the types of shareholders that demand that companies with the domination of Walmart or Microsoft or Apple continue to show "growth". Even when there's nowhere left to "grow", but 3rd world countries who can't afford the products/services to begin with.
But you wouldn't give away services. You wouldn't stay a billionaire that long if you did...of course I assume you mean to make an impact with a meaningful amount of people (millions) and not like close family/friends.
Except that stereotype was started hundreds of years ago. Jews were fighting persecution from a religious basis when the Holy Roman Empire was around. That stereotype likely came out of "thin air" as just a "reason" (deserved or not) to continue the ongoing dislike of the Jews. It wasn't like one day some people noticed a lot of Jews were greedy bankers and something clicked. It was more like some king probably came up with that idea when they were asked why the Jews continually kept getting slaughtered, he looked around, saw a Jew with two loaves of bread, and said "LOOK AT HOW GREEDY THEY ARE, KILL HIM."
Hatred often predates stereotypes and allows for easier consumption of the stereotype as it requires close inspection of the hated party without subsequent reflection on your "side's" own similarities.
The Windows OS that runs on your machine is not yours. It's Microsoft's, that's the point of a License. Furthermore the lack of not updating is a major security risk for the entirety of everyone else. Microsoft *will* stop updating Windows 7. It's already transitioned out of Mainstream support. The upgrade is free. There is literally no reason to not upgrade (outside of maybe hardware upgrades). The philosophy for this comes from a security focused mentality. IT security isn't like immunization...there is no herd mentality. There is, however, the potential for an unsecured machine to negatively impact other users on a network. To put it in an analogy, it's sort of like the flu shot. You might have gotten the vaccine, but your coworker didn't and now your boss is telling you to pickup the slack. While you might be protected, there is the potential for other impacts (DDOS, spam email generation, easier point of entry into a secured network).
The days of allowing people to ignore updating their system should be over. Everyone should be updated with at least the security patches. If you have software that breaks...tough luck. We all have a hand in the pot, especially if you're hooked up to the internet. And Microsoft is removing your choice, because you only own a license (permission) to use their OS...you don't actually own it. At least that's the argument they've used in the past.
It's more of a pay-for feature in the normal Google Youtube apps. If you have Youtube Red (part of a Google Music account) you get these features. I would very much like to see a Passport with a better camera come to Verizon Wireless. I'd like a Priv, but I've heard the Hub on BB10 is a lot better because it doesn't require you to load multiple apps to reply to messages. Blackberry seems to favor a "native experience" which I think is stupid.
How so? It's all in the design of the system. The way around this would be an authenticated "heart-beat" type setup wherein I tell you that I'm OK until I don't tell you I'm OK. In that case it becomes the monitoring center's responsibility to dial the police. Instead from what I've surmised the system is designed so that it's mostly a "I'm OK unless I say otherwise", which is poor design. The medium of communication has nothing to do with it.
That's sort of like saying to a rapist, oh...hey...so I forgot to lock the doors to your cell and when you walked out 4 years ago I didn't realize my mistake. No that's my bad, you just stay free.
If that's the case then PRISM and every other NSA/CIA operation to spy on American citizens should be OK with you. That "secret court" that signed all of the orders should satiate your concerns whenever your phones get tapped again.
How is that sociopathic? If an employer says it wants it employees to be able to lift 60lbs to do their job and I can't do that, is the employer the sociopath since it's saying it can't hire me to do a job I can't do? The union contract, that the company agreed to, is saying the same thing. And your concession is dubious at best. Can I tell my home owners insurance company, when I leave my house, that I want my money back?
> so a portion of your income goes to Union fees whether you want the Union representing yourself, or not.
Why would you work for a company that has a union then? The union requires the contract to unionize employees, because otherwise you get into situations like Indiana where unions are toothless. They cannot enforce contracts and management can feel free to violate those contracts without much danger. Unions come about and exist today because companies continue to view their employees like simple "resources". To your average MBA grad, you're not much different than a pen or pencil. You're a resource to be scheduled, consumed, abused, and then terminated depending on whatever business needs there are. Today's employee protections provide a minimum and some unions help to extend that minimum into something worthwhile.
Blackberry pursued this model and failed to retain any real resemblance of market share. That's because Android is really more Android Apps + Google Services. If Microsoft were to go down this path it would require making concessions to Google to get access to their Play services. If Microsoft did that, they might as well just become an Android distribution, because no one is going to write apps for Windows Mobile if Android apps work just fine. The problem lies in that there's no compelling reason to switch off of Android for Microsoft. Especially since Microsoft has now released a ton of their apps for Android. I don't see how Microsoft will win the mobile game at this point.
This is based on your bias and your beliefs. Some of us value Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It's all subjective and I'm sure there are plenty of/.ers who think that we should never ever ever have any resemblance of a government, but there are plenty who would like to see government do some services that are currently being done, incompetently, by for-profit companies who are hell bent on sucking out every last penny from everyone they deal with.
There is programming that go into some of these devices, including pacemakers. I suspect it has to do with everyone's bodies being just a bit different and thus things like electrical signals/frequencies/etc are different and need to be accounted for to produce a monitoring pattern that is correct.
Except that's not true. Fiat currency is also supported by the military, economic, and diplomatic might of its host nation. Bitcoin is supported by some zit covered anarchist angsty teenager living in his mom's basement. What's hilarious is that he thinks that if he could get enough OTHER people to call his "money", that he "earned" by leaving a PC turned on and masturbating to anime, "legit" that he'll never need to develop the social skills necessary to get a real job and he'll be able to stay home all day in his PJs and never bathing while pwning n00bs on CoD. That's the real difference and that's why Bitcoin will never be anything more than a cute fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you doing that MS is crippling your machine? I haven't had a Windows 10 update that was bad for me (I did update after the last group of bad updates hit...but that was some time ago). Windows 10 has been very stable for me.
Swift 3 is having a name change: it's now iSwift. Do more, faster with iSwift. Code! iSwift. It's magical, iSwift! Bring magic and buzzwords to end uers with iSwift! iSwift can do it all! Faster! Sleek! iSwift! Magical! User friendly! No more text interfaces for coding! iSwift! intelligent! iSwift secure! Do more, iSwift! Now supporting Retina! iSwift! Brushed Aluminium! Unibody iSwift!
Yeah. Shame on Microsoft for making people get off an OS that isn't receiving updates and for pushing for people to get off an OS that will stop receiving them in a handful of years. Yeah, how horrible. People should just run outdated and unsupported software, connect to the internet, and help spread malware. Yeah, freedom, 'MURICA. Yeah, you can't tell ME what to do my MY server is nothing like making companies stop dumping nuclear waste into drinking wells. Yeah. You go you freedom lover, you.
Reasonable != Affordable. You have a disconnect in logic. Laws cannot be written to the individual, it'll be a nightmare. What it's meant to do is say "So you didn't pay your $50 for your driver's license...so now you'll pay ONE QUADRILLION DOLLARS and have everything you own seized." The Constitution doesn't protect the poor anymore than it protects the rich.
It's not funding. These are not new fees. These are fees levied by the state already for an offense you committed. This is collecting what the state says you already owe...the better question would be why those who owe the money haven't paid it? An example would be someone who didn't renew their License Plate and owes a fee for that. Why should you get to be a special butterfly who doesn't have to pay your fees and get to tear up the roads that I, a good law abiding citizen, am paying to maintain...at no cost to yourself?
Donating money isn't the same thing as providing the actual service. Let's say he wants to give away internet to all of Minneapolis. Honestly we're only serving .001% of the US population...so let's go then with NYC. NYC's population (as of 2013) is 8.406 million. The US population is 318.9 million...so now we're into numbers that we can kind of shrug our shoulders and go "eh a difference was made". Now Manhattan Island itself runs 13.4 miles long and 2.3 miles wide (at its widest). How much cable would have to be laid (or purchased)? Now let's assume you have to run your drops to each household because you're a real philanthropist willing to put your money where your mouth is. I've seen estimates that put the number of buildings on Manhattan Island at around 60000 buildings. Many of those are multi-level buildings, but let's just be snarky and assume we have a magic wifi hotspot that will carry signal to as high of a floor we want with the same latency as CAT 5e. You still have to have techs go out and lay those drops. You'll need switches and routers for provisioning. You'll need staff to configure, setup, and maintain those. You also care about security so you'll need to be applying patches/updates. And you'll want firewalls.Now people are sometimes bad and the courts sometimes needs to knock a few heads in a legal manner for things like child porn or whatever. So you'll need some way to handle subpoenas for records and, of course, you'll need to store those. You'll also need staff to assist in managing the staff of techs, benefits, and vehicles. There's also tools and expendables you'll need to consider.
Are you starting to get a feel for where I'm going? You might have great ROI, but honestly you only pulled back about $350K. Take out taxes and broker fees and you might have enough to handle a few techs. Certainly not their benefits nor the managing staff's benefits. We haven't even gotten to things like software licensing, legal paperwork/attorney fees, and other administrative costs. Also there's the value of your own time to consider.
Giving away money is far easier than actually building/running an organization. To suggest a single digit billionaire has the capital to do this is ludicrous. As an example just Verizon's wire-line business pulled in 15.6 billion in 2014. That was a small amount of Verizon's total revenue of $157 billion. Of that only $9.625 billion remained as net income. It is simply not possible for an individual to give away free internet to any chunk of the population larger than maybe 1/4 of a percent.
Better a jail cell than a beating with a piece of iron.
"Were I a billionaire, I would give away services with no ads, no tracking, no analytics, just to undercut the monsters like Google and Microsoft to show that it doesn't have to be about the money. Apple has more money in the bank than most countries and they smile, all along letting little girls slave away in the tech sweatshops of China and elsewhere, making their wares for pennies on the dollar, yet expecting Americans to pay highway robbery prices for a device that costs less than 1/4 of the asking price to bring to market. There's a difference between making a living and making a killing. Shareholders are the moral death to any company."
No you wouldn't. People would expect you to fix things that were broken. Today's world is 24/7/365. I would agree that shareholders are killing social responsibility for corporations, as long as the shareholders we're talking about aren't the individual person trying to make a buck for retirement. The shareholders I think of are the algorithms that run complex software designed to buy/sell stocks as quickly as possible to undercut orders they see coming in "upstream." The stockholders I fear are big mutual fund brokers who don't care about individual companies, but about ROI and quarterly dividends. These are the types of shareholders that demand that companies with the domination of Walmart or Microsoft or Apple continue to show "growth". Even when there's nowhere left to "grow", but 3rd world countries who can't afford the products/services to begin with.
But you wouldn't give away services. You wouldn't stay a billionaire that long if you did...of course I assume you mean to make an impact with a meaningful amount of people (millions) and not like close family/friends.
What's the internal throughput? Are you still limited to 30mbps?
Except that stereotype was started hundreds of years ago. Jews were fighting persecution from a religious basis when the Holy Roman Empire was around. That stereotype likely came out of "thin air" as just a "reason" (deserved or not) to continue the ongoing dislike of the Jews. It wasn't like one day some people noticed a lot of Jews were greedy bankers and something clicked. It was more like some king probably came up with that idea when they were asked why the Jews continually kept getting slaughtered, he looked around, saw a Jew with two loaves of bread, and said "LOOK AT HOW GREEDY THEY ARE, KILL HIM."
Hatred often predates stereotypes and allows for easier consumption of the stereotype as it requires close inspection of the hated party without subsequent reflection on your "side's" own similarities.
The Windows OS that runs on your machine is not yours. It's Microsoft's, that's the point of a License. Furthermore the lack of not updating is a major security risk for the entirety of everyone else. Microsoft *will* stop updating Windows 7. It's already transitioned out of Mainstream support. The upgrade is free. There is literally no reason to not upgrade (outside of maybe hardware upgrades). The philosophy for this comes from a security focused mentality. IT security isn't like immunization...there is no herd mentality. There is, however, the potential for an unsecured machine to negatively impact other users on a network. To put it in an analogy, it's sort of like the flu shot. You might have gotten the vaccine, but your coworker didn't and now your boss is telling you to pickup the slack. While you might be protected, there is the potential for other impacts (DDOS, spam email generation, easier point of entry into a secured network).
The days of allowing people to ignore updating their system should be over. Everyone should be updated with at least the security patches. If you have software that breaks...tough luck. We all have a hand in the pot, especially if you're hooked up to the internet. And Microsoft is removing your choice, because you only own a license (permission) to use their OS...you don't actually own it. At least that's the argument they've used in the past.
It's more of a pay-for feature in the normal Google Youtube apps. If you have Youtube Red (part of a Google Music account) you get these features. I would very much like to see a Passport with a better camera come to Verizon Wireless. I'd like a Priv, but I've heard the Hub on BB10 is a lot better because it doesn't require you to load multiple apps to reply to messages. Blackberry seems to favor a "native experience" which I think is stupid.
How so? It's all in the design of the system. The way around this would be an authenticated "heart-beat" type setup wherein I tell you that I'm OK until I don't tell you I'm OK. In that case it becomes the monitoring center's responsibility to dial the police. Instead from what I've surmised the system is designed so that it's mostly a "I'm OK unless I say otherwise", which is poor design. The medium of communication has nothing to do with it.
That's sort of like saying to a rapist, oh...hey...so I forgot to lock the doors to your cell and when you walked out 4 years ago I didn't realize my mistake. No that's my bad, you just stay free.
If that's the case then PRISM and every other NSA/CIA operation to spy on American citizens should be OK with you. That "secret court" that signed all of the orders should satiate your concerns whenever your phones get tapped again.
By shutting down companies who don't provide user data to the government whenever it's just requested?
> You and I both know this is becoming less and less the case.
Do you have any evidence to back your statement up?
> In this case especially with Uber, a couple of politicians have started all of this.
Actually Uber's employees started this and judging by what I've read it's being met with some happiness by Uber drivers.
How is that sociopathic? If an employer says it wants it employees to be able to lift 60lbs to do their job and I can't do that, is the employer the sociopath since it's saying it can't hire me to do a job I can't do? The union contract, that the company agreed to, is saying the same thing. And your concession is dubious at best. Can I tell my home owners insurance company, when I leave my house, that I want my money back?
> so a portion of your income goes to Union fees whether you want the Union representing yourself, or not.
Why would you work for a company that has a union then? The union requires the contract to unionize employees, because otherwise you get into situations like Indiana where unions are toothless. They cannot enforce contracts and management can feel free to violate those contracts without much danger. Unions come about and exist today because companies continue to view their employees like simple "resources". To your average MBA grad, you're not much different than a pen or pencil. You're a resource to be scheduled, consumed, abused, and then terminated depending on whatever business needs there are. Today's employee protections provide a minimum and some unions help to extend that minimum into something worthwhile.
Blackberry pursued this model and failed to retain any real resemblance of market share. That's because Android is really more Android Apps + Google Services. If Microsoft were to go down this path it would require making concessions to Google to get access to their Play services. If Microsoft did that, they might as well just become an Android distribution, because no one is going to write apps for Windows Mobile if Android apps work just fine. The problem lies in that there's no compelling reason to switch off of Android for Microsoft. Especially since Microsoft has now released a ton of their apps for Android. I don't see how Microsoft will win the mobile game at this point.
Honest question -- why would you want a cert you have to renew every 90 days? In case it gets stolen? I guess I just don't understand the point.
This is based on your bias and your beliefs. Some of us value Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It's all subjective and I'm sure there are plenty of /.ers who think that we should never ever ever have any resemblance of a government, but there are plenty who would like to see government do some services that are currently being done, incompetently, by for-profit companies who are hell bent on sucking out every last penny from everyone they deal with.
There is programming that go into some of these devices, including pacemakers. I suspect it has to do with everyone's bodies being just a bit different and thus things like electrical signals/frequencies/etc are different and need to be accounted for to produce a monitoring pattern that is correct.
This quote was never used by Jefferson. It's too bad you didn't read the webpage before you linked it.
Except that's not true. Fiat currency is also supported by the military, economic, and diplomatic might of its host nation. Bitcoin is supported by some zit covered anarchist angsty teenager living in his mom's basement. What's hilarious is that he thinks that if he could get enough OTHER people to call his "money", that he "earned" by leaving a PC turned on and masturbating to anime, "legit" that he'll never need to develop the social skills necessary to get a real job and he'll be able to stay home all day in his PJs and never bathing while pwning n00bs on CoD. That's the real difference and that's why Bitcoin will never be anything more than a cute fantasy.