What I'm sayin is that, as a person of "faith", you're more willing to write off stuff as "well it's just God's way" versus "there's a logical explanation". Why? Because you've written off the possiblity that there is no God or that there is a set of Gods or a God that isn't the same God you worship. You've done this without any evidence, without experimentation, and are OK with that. I would believe that would make you a much weaker scientist than one who knows (or believes) that EVERYTHING can be explained - even supposed "miracles".
I guess I just don't get how that can happen - how you can reconcile two vastly different thought processes. Like, I could never be an ultra conservative. I understand their though processes and why they think the way they do...but when I run the same inputs in my head, I come out with a different set of outputs.
I don't understand, then, how you can choose what is and isn't figurative. "Jesus turned water into wine" or "God passed along these commandments" could equally both be figurative. The whole entire book could be figurative...it's just people deciding whatever is convenient for them to believe. If that's the case, how is any of what is supposedly "God's word" sacred or even true?
This is why I find it hard to trust religious people when it comes to science. I don't mean to sound offensive, if I am, and please don't take it that way. But the mental leaps required to be a believer makes me wonder how a religious (well Christian in this case) person can devise and execute any scientific process in an impartial manner.
Science requires skepticism. Anything and everything is questionable until it can be proven, sometimes after many experiments. Religion in any form requires "faith". Faith is taking for something as truth when there is little to no factual evidence or basis. You believe in the god of Abraham because some book tells you that Abraham talked to this deity and blah blah blah. A scientist would remain skeptical and perhaps conduct experiements to test for the existence of an all knowing/all seeing deity.
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - I don't really care. But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned. That's at odds with science at its very core.
This is incorrect. Hateful/negative comments are not the same thing as political discourse. One is acceptable in most social situations and the other is generally racist/hateful rants that no civilized person really wants to hear.
None of that excuses your getting content that is meant to be purchased (whether by serving you ads or you paying money). In short, you're getting something for free. If you don't like it, why not avoid the content altogether? Because you're full of entitlement - the world "owes" you that TV show. You shouldn't have to do anything and the people who want to get paid for it - well bugger off.
So next time I feel like I need some free electricity to charge my electric car with - what's your address? And I'll probably use some of your water to wash it 3-4 times a day. You can foot the bill - I don't believe I should have to pay you for the water that I use - regardless if it's you footing the bill. Heck I may plug in a few old freezers too - that won't be a problem right? Oh and around Christmas time, I tend put up lights that jack my light bill up. I'm just gonna run a few extension cables to your house. I don't believe I should have to pay the extra electricity. It's just companies saying GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE.
Why? What's wrong with buttons? I literally do not understand this comment. Does a piece of technology just become outdated because it's old? SCREW THE WHEEL GUYS AND FIRE IS JUST SOOOOO LAME MAN!
My arguement isn't against your kind of thinking. My argument is against those who believe that somehow, I don't deserve to be paid for my work. Yours is a technological concern: you don't want malware. My concern is more of an ethical argument. If I serve an advertisement or charge for my work, it is not up to you to determine that the value I am asking for isn't worthwhile, but that you feel entitled to consume my content/work anyways. That is the argument FOR DRM or FOR advertising - because there are people who believe that they should just be able to run Windows for free...without paying for it. And when you have an army of people who work, almost professionally it seems, to crack the latest DRM (not for money, but for "freedom") then it's hard for me to say "Gee, people will just be honest."
Other industries have methods to prevent theft. They can literally physically prevent you from leaving the store, can record your physical body, and other methods. I cannot do that with digitial mediums - instead I have to rely on DRM to enforce my rights as a business to ensure that you are paying me for the work you are using. It's so bad that people will literally argue "I didn't steal anything - you still have your original work - you can only steal cars and physical stuff" as if their denying the income that I am entitled to isn't theft if nothing else in spirit.
I am not alone in this thought and I am not alone in hoping for harder and harder to break DRM. No I don't want it to be annoying - I want people to enjoy my stuff. I simply want what is owed to me based on the assumption that if I put a sticker on something to sell it, your only right as a customer is to get me to agree to accept a lower price - not pay me for what I'm selling (unless I agree to it).
> And I produced it, so you must pay me. It doesn't matter what you think of it, I put a lot of work into producing that gorgeous log, and I expect to be handsomely rewarded for all the work I did creating it! (this is what you sound like).
If I wanted your log, yes, that is exactly the correct thinking. You made it and it's yours to sell or not sell as you so see fit. If you want to sell it, then it would be unethical, immoral, and illegal for me to take it without paying for it. You literally have not refuted my point in the slightest.
> That's not what you get. You don't get that. Only idiots would agree to it. Also, it's not a sale.
In this hypothetical case, it's an agreement you would need to agree to before you would buy my product. Absolutely you can think only an idiot would agree to it. But that's just an example of how I could retain certain rights to my work in perpetutuity and as long as you're dumb enough to sign on the dotted line, I get what I want.
> Forever? Always? Is it phone home? Is your service escrowed to ensure that the viewer/consumer ALWAYS has access to the work they paid for, even when you and your company is gone?
Frankly it's not my problem once I'm gone. You seem to think that my desire to be paid for my work is silly and that people can just come and take from me whenever they so well wish with or without paying me for it. It's not even my "right" to be paid for the work I've done. Well that logic sort of reflects back to you on this question. If I'm dead, what are you going to do? Sue me? Ha. As if I'll care when I'm dead.
> So, yea, I don't want my credit cards taken, my ID stolen, my user ID and passwords to everything being accessed by someone else.
And I simply want to be paid for the work that I designed, created, and am now selling. But you're telling me I can't have that, but you should get everything you so desire. That's why people like me will always fight in favor of DRM. You have an entire generation of entitled, spoiled, children who believe that they shouldn't HAVE to pay me for my work. A lazy, entitled, spoiled generation who doesn't value hardwork because THEY have never had to work hard to get anything/do anything OR because they've never been a creator of anything. They've only been a user, a consumer, and thus have no concept of how much work it takes to build something. You seem to want me to agree that your pliight of "Duhh DRM bad" is righteous. I say, if you don't like it, don't buy a device with DRM on it - BUT IF YOU DO DO THAT don't be pissed because I decide to refuse to sell you my product(s). And don't get mad if I sue you and take all of the posessions you do own, if you decide to consume my content that I created that YOU didn't pay for.
It's hard to not side with the music/movie/software/gaming industry and at the end of the day IF you don't like it, it's not within your right to not pay for something that you SHOULD be paying for. Instead simply do not partake. Do not buy the product. Just be happy with fun games like BZFlag or Solitare or Librewriter. AAA title holders will always need to be paid for their products.
Yes, yes it is. I own the work. That's exactly like me coming up to you and stealing your wallet. You don't "own" that wallet. You don't "own" those credit cards that I'm going to use to fund my vacation with. In fact you should be perfectly fine with identity theft - I mean you don't exactly OWN your credit score either. So what's your mother's madien name, ID numbers - any ID, usernames/passwords to any account (you don't own those either)?
> If someone wants your stuff, feel free to negotiate for some sort of compensation.
I did: I made this, you must pay me $XXX.XX for it, otherwise you can't view it. That's the negotiation. Otherwise you can walk away and NOT view my work.
> Also, you are subject to a contract for releasing your work to someone else, that allows you exclusive rights to make copies. It's not a perpetual right - you only get it for a limited time.
"If you buy this work from me, you agree that I retain all rights of distribution and copying in perpetuity until such time that I give you written notice terminating this limitation from this sales contract. In all other cases you agree that by purchasing this product to agree to the terms and conditions setforth herein. Furthermore both parties agree that the jurisdiction in which this contract exists shall be under the jursidiction of the United States and that contractual disputes must be filed in the proper jursidcition."
That would be a sales agreement example stating you agree to my terms to access my content or the purchase simply doesn't go through. Contracts are a beautiful thing.
> Using DRM to restrict another party's ability to make their own copies is a breach of contract.
I've seen no court case that has ever said this. DRM is a methods in which I may, as the owner of the work, ensure that the viewer/consumer of my work has actually paid for my work. You're free to not purchase my work and its DRM. That's the beauty of the market - I'm not forcing you to choose me.
What's a way for me to get paid for the work that I do and still release content that doesn't "annoy" you? Furthermore this method of release should also ensure that others are not, unfairly, consuming the work I do without paying me for my efforts. When you come up with a way to help ensure I get paid for each person who views my content then I'll happily stand up against DRM.
It's obsolete from Microsoft's perspective. For years you people whined and complained about Microsoft not caring enough about security. Now they do and part of that means making sure drivers are up to spec, that they're trustworthy. The vendor could easily submit the driver and get it signed, but they won't most likely, because it's old. They don't want to support it anymore and if they don't want to, why do you expect Microsoft to? You can't have security without some sacrifices.
Player controls are limited when Ads play, because you are accessing content that costs money, time, resources, and energy to create. You need to pay for that, because I'm not putting up content so you can enjoy for free without giving anything back. Unless you're willing to pay my mortgage, bills, alcohol purchases, and otherwise buy me whatever I want whenever I want it, you owe me to view my content. If you don't want to pay by watching the ad that I make very little off of, then don't use my content. Don't look at it, don't watch it, don't think about it. In return I won't worry about you. I'm entitlted to be paid for what I say my stuff is worth. The only entitlement you have is to decide you don't like my price and not use/consume/access my content then. DRM exists because of freeloaders who think that they're too good to pay. They have no concept that life isn't free and I don't give a shit if you're too poor. Get a real (or better) job if you can't afford my stuff or go and use someone else's stuff. It's my right to be paid for the work I do. It's not your right to not pay.
Router failures shouldn't cause loss of data in any appreciatable amount. Enterprise level organizations should have automatic failover routers in place. This was far more than a simple router failure...so the real question should be: should companies be allowed to lie to their customers about major technical issues?
Sure. Without having to worry about WINE (since most of these tend to update fairly frequently) I'll need Quickbooks, Office 365, I have a handful of games I do like to play from time to time, Turbotax, and on occasion Visual Studio. No, I don't want crap open source replacements that only implement 30% of the functionality. No I do not want LibreOffice as it doesn't implement all of the features and sometimes has compatiblity issues from time to time that MS never has.
I need this to work with my hardware now and into the future without issues. I want to do as little configuration as possible - I don't have 6-10 hours a week to mess around with crap not working randomly. I also don't want to waste the money I spent. Can Linux do all of this? No, no it cannot. Frankly, I upgraded to Windows 10 from Windows 8.1 (which itself was an upgrade from Windows 7). I had no issues and I even had Bitdefender installed. Everything migrated just fine. I don't understand the resistance, personally, from a security aspect it just makes sense. I'm no Windows fanboy (I have a Thinkpad 11E running Fedora 24 and I dual boot Ubuntu just to keep up with the distribution).
Your "free place for you" comes with a LOT of hidden costs for most people and 99.9999% of the time, people like you just shrug their shoulders. You offer a half baked solution without understanding the current needs of the populace, because YOU want YOUR platform to be as popular as Windows. It's understandable, but fustrating as a technologist. You're inadvertently advocating to make an unsuspecting user's life more difficult without telling them of the pitfalls in switching OSes on a whim - espeically one that has poor commerical software support. Push them to Apple at least.
For residential, no. You have mobile apps to thank for that...people are spending less and less time on desktops and laptops and more and more time on tablets and smartphones for their personal use. None of this will be relevant to desktops. For home users, the Year of Linux on the Desktop isn't likely to happen.
You can't change out your engine. Once the battery life dies you'll have to box it up and pay for shipping to Apple's Authorized Car Care and Warranty Return Center...but only if you're car is 5 years old or less, otherwise you'll need to buy a brand new car. The tires will be permanently attached and brake pads cannot be upgraded. It'll come with a 5000 pin proprietary charging cable and you'll need to buy an adapter to charge it at other places. The nagivation system will try its best to drive you into water or off a cliff.
Oh and since Steve Jobs believed that legs and feet were hinderences your steering wheel and other controls will be done via a mouthpiece - car renters beware.
> The EMR business grew by several orders of magnitude when they went from optional (and rare) to being mandatory.
Let me guess - you've never seen a lot of hospitals. I work in Helathcare IT. EMRs were not rare and in many cases were not optional for use. They've been around and popular since the late 90s and early 2000s. The rest of your tinfoil spew isn't true. Yes, if you're using Medicare or Medicaid they NEED to know what was done so they KNOW how much to pay. If you use insurance - yes THEY need to know too. Otherwise HIPPA requires and forces hopsitals to protect that data and admittedly we sucked at it. We sucked at it, because hackers from Russia and China didn't use to think of us as a rich and juicy target. Now they do and in order to comply with the very FEDERAL regulations that you denounce, we are putting a LOT of effort into security practices.
And if you pay in cash then we don't send out your information to third parties. When we do send it's E2E encrypted and it's only a third party that requires it for some reason (such as a health insurance company) or another doctor that you chose to go to and you asked to get your records sent to them.
Lastly, nothing in your medical record points to your use or non-use of guns. Now your mental health state could be a different story and frankly...with what you posted...it's probably pretty evident to anyone who spends all of 2 minutes around you.
They confirm those because there's always that one patient who will say "nothing changed" and forget that they aren't taking that ONE medication regularly enough and then they get sick. They sue every doctor, nurse, and patient care tech. The hospital loses money and finds it harder to get paid because everyone from regulatory bodies to insurance companies points their fingers at them and say "it's your fault."
Blame the litigatious society we live in. Blame it on the anti-intellectual patients who'll believe in Dr. Quack on TV and their magical rotten grass drink that replaces immunosuppressants.
I will not sacrifice my comment style. He complains and we relent. He demands standards and we conform. He assimulates thousands of developers and we kowtow.The line must be drawn here, this far no further. And I will make him PAY for what he's done! I WILL BRING ABOUT BASIC COMMENT SYNTAX REM.
Why not C# then? It's open source, it has a native compiler, why are we doing YANPLTRWOPLHA (Yet Another Programing Language That Replicates What Other Programming Languages Have Already)?
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm sayin is that, as a person of "faith", you're more willing to write off stuff as "well it's just God's way" versus "there's a logical explanation". Why? Because you've written off the possiblity that there is no God or that there is a set of Gods or a God that isn't the same God you worship. You've done this without any evidence, without experimentation, and are OK with that. I would believe that would make you a much weaker scientist than one who knows (or believes) that EVERYTHING can be explained - even supposed "miracles".
I guess I just don't get how that can happen - how you can reconcile two vastly different thought processes. Like, I could never be an ultra conservative. I understand their though processes and why they think the way they do...but when I run the same inputs in my head, I come out with a different set of outputs.
I don't understand, then, how you can choose what is and isn't figurative. "Jesus turned water into wine" or "God passed along these commandments" could equally both be figurative. The whole entire book could be figurative...it's just people deciding whatever is convenient for them to believe. If that's the case, how is any of what is supposedly "God's word" sacred or even true?
This is why I find it hard to trust religious people when it comes to science. I don't mean to sound offensive, if I am, and please don't take it that way. But the mental leaps required to be a believer makes me wonder how a religious (well Christian in this case) person can devise and execute any scientific process in an impartial manner.
Science requires skepticism. Anything and everything is questionable until it can be proven, sometimes after many experiments. Religion in any form requires "faith". Faith is taking for something as truth when there is little to no factual evidence or basis. You believe in the god of Abraham because some book tells you that Abraham talked to this deity and blah blah blah. A scientist would remain skeptical and perhaps conduct experiements to test for the existence of an all knowing/all seeing deity.
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - I don't really care. But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned. That's at odds with science at its very core.
This is incorrect. Hateful/negative comments are not the same thing as political discourse. One is acceptable in most social situations and the other is generally racist/hateful rants that no civilized person really wants to hear.
Considering Facebook Messenger logs over 1 billion users....
None of that excuses your getting content that is meant to be purchased (whether by serving you ads or you paying money). In short, you're getting something for free. If you don't like it, why not avoid the content altogether? Because you're full of entitlement - the world "owes" you that TV show. You shouldn't have to do anything and the people who want to get paid for it - well bugger off.
So next time I feel like I need some free electricity to charge my electric car with - what's your address? And I'll probably use some of your water to wash it 3-4 times a day. You can foot the bill - I don't believe I should have to pay you for the water that I use - regardless if it's you footing the bill. Heck I may plug in a few old freezers too - that won't be a problem right? Oh and around Christmas time, I tend put up lights that jack my light bill up. I'm just gonna run a few extension cables to your house. I don't believe I should have to pay the extra electricity. It's just companies saying GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE.
Why? What's wrong with buttons? I literally do not understand this comment. Does a piece of technology just become outdated because it's old? SCREW THE WHEEL GUYS AND FIRE IS JUST SOOOOO LAME MAN!
My arguement isn't against your kind of thinking. My argument is against those who believe that somehow, I don't deserve to be paid for my work. Yours is a technological concern: you don't want malware. My concern is more of an ethical argument. If I serve an advertisement or charge for my work, it is not up to you to determine that the value I am asking for isn't worthwhile, but that you feel entitled to consume my content/work anyways. That is the argument FOR DRM or FOR advertising - because there are people who believe that they should just be able to run Windows for free...without paying for it. And when you have an army of people who work, almost professionally it seems, to crack the latest DRM (not for money, but for "freedom") then it's hard for me to say "Gee, people will just be honest."
Other industries have methods to prevent theft. They can literally physically prevent you from leaving the store, can record your physical body, and other methods. I cannot do that with digitial mediums - instead I have to rely on DRM to enforce my rights as a business to ensure that you are paying me for the work you are using. It's so bad that people will literally argue "I didn't steal anything - you still have your original work - you can only steal cars and physical stuff" as if their denying the income that I am entitled to isn't theft if nothing else in spirit.
I am not alone in this thought and I am not alone in hoping for harder and harder to break DRM. No I don't want it to be annoying - I want people to enjoy my stuff. I simply want what is owed to me based on the assumption that if I put a sticker on something to sell it, your only right as a customer is to get me to agree to accept a lower price - not pay me for what I'm selling (unless I agree to it).
> And I produced it, so you must pay me. It doesn't matter what you think of it, I put a lot of work into producing that gorgeous log, and I expect to be handsomely rewarded for all the work I did creating it! (this is what you sound like).
If I wanted your log, yes, that is exactly the correct thinking. You made it and it's yours to sell or not sell as you so see fit. If you want to sell it, then it would be unethical, immoral, and illegal for me to take it without paying for it. You literally have not refuted my point in the slightest.
> That's not what you get. You don't get that. Only idiots would agree to it. Also, it's not a sale.
In this hypothetical case, it's an agreement you would need to agree to before you would buy my product. Absolutely you can think only an idiot would agree to it. But that's just an example of how I could retain certain rights to my work in perpetutuity and as long as you're dumb enough to sign on the dotted line, I get what I want.
> Forever? Always? Is it phone home? Is your service escrowed to ensure that the viewer/consumer ALWAYS has access to the work they paid for, even when you and your company is gone?
Frankly it's not my problem once I'm gone. You seem to think that my desire to be paid for my work is silly and that people can just come and take from me whenever they so well wish with or without paying me for it. It's not even my "right" to be paid for the work I've done. Well that logic sort of reflects back to you on this question. If I'm dead, what are you going to do? Sue me? Ha. As if I'll care when I'm dead.
> So, yea, I don't want my credit cards taken, my ID stolen, my user ID and passwords to everything being accessed by someone else.
And I simply want to be paid for the work that I designed, created, and am now selling. But you're telling me I can't have that, but you should get everything you so desire. That's why people like me will always fight in favor of DRM. You have an entire generation of entitled, spoiled, children who believe that they shouldn't HAVE to pay me for my work. A lazy, entitled, spoiled generation who doesn't value hardwork because THEY have never had to work hard to get anything/do anything OR because they've never been a creator of anything. They've only been a user, a consumer, and thus have no concept of how much work it takes to build something. You seem to want me to agree that your pliight of "Duhh DRM bad" is righteous. I say, if you don't like it, don't buy a device with DRM on it - BUT IF YOU DO DO THAT don't be pissed because I decide to refuse to sell you my product(s). And don't get mad if I sue you and take all of the posessions you do own, if you decide to consume my content that I created that YOU didn't pay for.
It's hard to not side with the music/movie/software/gaming industry and at the end of the day IF you don't like it, it's not within your right to not pay for something that you SHOULD be paying for. Instead simply do not partake. Do not buy the product. Just be happy with fun games like BZFlag or Solitare or Librewriter. AAA title holders will always need to be paid for their products.
> No, that's not your right, not at all.
Yes, yes it is. I own the work. That's exactly like me coming up to you and stealing your wallet. You don't "own" that wallet. You don't "own" those credit cards that I'm going to use to fund my vacation with. In fact you should be perfectly fine with identity theft - I mean you don't exactly OWN your credit score either. So what's your mother's madien name, ID numbers - any ID, usernames/passwords to any account (you don't own those either)?
> If someone wants your stuff, feel free to negotiate for some sort of compensation. I did: I made this, you must pay me $XXX.XX for it, otherwise you can't view it. That's the negotiation. Otherwise you can walk away and NOT view my work.
> Also, you are subject to a contract for releasing your work to someone else, that allows you exclusive rights to make copies. It's not a perpetual right - you only get it for a limited time.
"If you buy this work from me, you agree that I retain all rights of distribution and copying in perpetuity until such time that I give you written notice terminating this limitation from this sales contract. In all other cases you agree that by purchasing this product to agree to the terms and conditions setforth herein. Furthermore both parties agree that the jurisdiction in which this contract exists shall be under the jursidiction of the United States and that contractual disputes must be filed in the proper jursidcition."
That would be a sales agreement example stating you agree to my terms to access my content or the purchase simply doesn't go through. Contracts are a beautiful thing.
> Using DRM to restrict another party's ability to make their own copies is a breach of contract.
I've seen no court case that has ever said this. DRM is a methods in which I may, as the owner of the work, ensure that the viewer/consumer of my work has actually paid for my work. You're free to not purchase my work and its DRM. That's the beauty of the market - I'm not forcing you to choose me.
What's a way for me to get paid for the work that I do and still release content that doesn't "annoy" you? Furthermore this method of release should also ensure that others are not, unfairly, consuming the work I do without paying me for my efforts. When you come up with a way to help ensure I get paid for each person who views my content then I'll happily stand up against DRM.
It's obsolete from Microsoft's perspective. For years you people whined and complained about Microsoft not caring enough about security. Now they do and part of that means making sure drivers are up to spec, that they're trustworthy. The vendor could easily submit the driver and get it signed, but they won't most likely, because it's old. They don't want to support it anymore and if they don't want to, why do you expect Microsoft to? You can't have security without some sacrifices.
Player controls are limited when Ads play, because you are accessing content that costs money, time, resources, and energy to create. You need to pay for that, because I'm not putting up content so you can enjoy for free without giving anything back. Unless you're willing to pay my mortgage, bills, alcohol purchases, and otherwise buy me whatever I want whenever I want it, you owe me to view my content. If you don't want to pay by watching the ad that I make very little off of, then don't use my content. Don't look at it, don't watch it, don't think about it. In return I won't worry about you. I'm entitlted to be paid for what I say my stuff is worth. The only entitlement you have is to decide you don't like my price and not use/consume/access my content then. DRM exists because of freeloaders who think that they're too good to pay. They have no concept that life isn't free and I don't give a shit if you're too poor. Get a real (or better) job if you can't afford my stuff or go and use someone else's stuff. It's my right to be paid for the work I do. It's not your right to not pay.
Why are you running obsolete hardware on a Windows 10 device? For that matter, why are you running obsolete hardware on Windows?
Router failures shouldn't cause loss of data in any appreciatable amount. Enterprise level organizations should have automatic failover routers in place. This was far more than a simple router failure...so the real question should be: should companies be allowed to lie to their customers about major technical issues?
Sure. Without having to worry about WINE (since most of these tend to update fairly frequently) I'll need Quickbooks, Office 365, I have a handful of games I do like to play from time to time, Turbotax, and on occasion Visual Studio. No, I don't want crap open source replacements that only implement 30% of the functionality. No I do not want LibreOffice as it doesn't implement all of the features and sometimes has compatiblity issues from time to time that MS never has.
I need this to work with my hardware now and into the future without issues. I want to do as little configuration as possible - I don't have 6-10 hours a week to mess around with crap not working randomly. I also don't want to waste the money I spent. Can Linux do all of this? No, no it cannot. Frankly, I upgraded to Windows 10 from Windows 8.1 (which itself was an upgrade from Windows 7). I had no issues and I even had Bitdefender installed. Everything migrated just fine. I don't understand the resistance, personally, from a security aspect it just makes sense. I'm no Windows fanboy (I have a Thinkpad 11E running Fedora 24 and I dual boot Ubuntu just to keep up with the distribution).
Your "free place for you" comes with a LOT of hidden costs for most people and 99.9999% of the time, people like you just shrug their shoulders. You offer a half baked solution without understanding the current needs of the populace, because YOU want YOUR platform to be as popular as Windows. It's understandable, but fustrating as a technologist. You're inadvertently advocating to make an unsuspecting user's life more difficult without telling them of the pitfalls in switching OSes on a whim - espeically one that has poor commerical software support. Push them to Apple at least.
What does Clinton hae to do with Trump inviting Russia to commit potential acts of war on the United States?
For residential, no. You have mobile apps to thank for that...people are spending less and less time on desktops and laptops and more and more time on tablets and smartphones for their personal use. None of this will be relevant to desktops. For home users, the Year of Linux on the Desktop isn't likely to happen.
But the units of measure that we use for our bombs matter.
You can't change out your engine. Once the battery life dies you'll have to box it up and pay for shipping to Apple's Authorized Car Care and Warranty Return Center...but only if you're car is 5 years old or less, otherwise you'll need to buy a brand new car. The tires will be permanently attached and brake pads cannot be upgraded. It'll come with a 5000 pin proprietary charging cable and you'll need to buy an adapter to charge it at other places. The nagivation system will try its best to drive you into water or off a cliff.
Oh and since Steve Jobs believed that legs and feet were hinderences your steering wheel and other controls will be done via a mouthpiece - car renters beware.
> The EMR business grew by several orders of magnitude when they went from optional (and rare) to being mandatory.
Let me guess - you've never seen a lot of hospitals. I work in Helathcare IT. EMRs were not rare and in many cases were not optional for use. They've been around and popular since the late 90s and early 2000s. The rest of your tinfoil spew isn't true. Yes, if you're using Medicare or Medicaid they NEED to know what was done so they KNOW how much to pay. If you use insurance - yes THEY need to know too. Otherwise HIPPA requires and forces hopsitals to protect that data and admittedly we sucked at it. We sucked at it, because hackers from Russia and China didn't use to think of us as a rich and juicy target. Now they do and in order to comply with the very FEDERAL regulations that you denounce, we are putting a LOT of effort into security practices.
And if you pay in cash then we don't send out your information to third parties. When we do send it's E2E encrypted and it's only a third party that requires it for some reason (such as a health insurance company) or another doctor that you chose to go to and you asked to get your records sent to them.
Lastly, nothing in your medical record points to your use or non-use of guns. Now your mental health state could be a different story and frankly...with what you posted...it's probably pretty evident to anyone who spends all of 2 minutes around you.
They confirm those because there's always that one patient who will say "nothing changed" and forget that they aren't taking that ONE medication regularly enough and then they get sick. They sue every doctor, nurse, and patient care tech. The hospital loses money and finds it harder to get paid because everyone from regulatory bodies to insurance companies points their fingers at them and say "it's your fault."
Blame the litigatious society we live in. Blame it on the anti-intellectual patients who'll believe in Dr. Quack on TV and their magical rotten grass drink that replaces immunosuppressants.
I will not sacrifice my comment style. He complains and we relent. He demands standards and we conform. He assimulates thousands of developers and we kowtow .The line must be drawn here, this far no further. And I will make him PAY for what he's done! I WILL BRING ABOUT BASIC COMMENT SYNTAX REM.
Why not C# then? It's open source, it has a native compiler, why are we doing YANPLTRWOPLHA (Yet Another Programing Language That Replicates What Other Programming Languages Have Already)?