The ribbon is supposedly quite popular among newer users, I don't like it but apparently it's good for people who aren't used to the old interface. You still have the windowing UI if you want it, it works just like before even, I rarely see the Metro interface myself and when I do it's usually just for a few seconds while I'm typing the name of the program I want to use.
In practice the Metro UI isn't a big deal for me, at all. I expect that the vast majority of people will agree if they give it a little time.
I seriously doubt that MS is dropping the desktop or considering it legacy. The reality is that Microsoft is unifying their interface across phone, tablet and computer and since tablets are the future and tablets use touch, touch is the priority. This is obviously imperfect for those of us who still use traditional form-factor computers, but in 5-10 years we'll be a minority (if not sooner).
I think that Metro is actually Microsoft, for the first time in a long time, being ahead of the curve. I expect Apple will be following suit within a few years.
PROTIP: Large swaths of the population are morons.
Gentoo may be the bestest ever for the techbros to show off their e-peen, but the reality is that catering to the most technically inclined people is not a winning strategy, giving people the means to do what they want with the least amount of effort is the best goal for an OS meant for mass consumption.
Opening up a program in Windows 8 is either Windows key then type the name of the program or Windows key click if the program is on a tile on the main screen. It's really not a problem.
You can multi-task, where does it say you can't? All you have to do is skip the Metro apps, which shouldn't be a problem if you're multi-tasking since that very fact means you have non-Metro programs that you're currently using.
A lot of your complaints are either addressed in WP8 (resolution, SD card, screenshots), not unique (Flash, Silverlight) or incredibly neckbeardy (FLAC support? Really?). The only reason I'm not using the WP7 that I won is because the service is too expensive through AT&T.
I work in a call center where we still have physical phones (though we only use headsets), I remember hearing about one supervisor call where the sup eventually advised the customer that there was nothing more to discuss and he was going to end the call, he picked up the receiver, de-activated the headset then hung up the receiver, just for the sound.
I woudlnt' count on it. China is cutting back on exports for rare earths, other sources are coming online, but battery costs will likely stay high for a while.
You might want to take a second look at places like Northern Ireland. Things like Predator drones are only useful in places wehre collateral damage isn't a concern. In an urban environment in the US they'd be almost useless.
Assassinating Bin Laden leaves the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan AND gives them a martyr to use for recruiting. Also there's plenty of people who whine like crazy over assassinations of any kind regardless of how justified.
As ScentCone said agreeing to not wage war only benefits those who are willing to break their word.
We didn't break the rules against the British, there were no rules, we just did something different.
Assange does what he does because he's an anarchist who believes there shouldn't be any governments.
There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq, few that were technically actionable, but plenty good ones nonetheless.
I saw an amusing thing going the other direction recently. I'm generally a pinko, hippie communist so I hang out on a couple sites that are...less than welcoming to gun rights. One of them just posted a reminder abotu how terrible it is that people abandon their 4th Amendment rights in a blind panic when someone screams about terrorism, just a couple weeks after posting that people shoudl abandon their 2nd Amendment rights in a blind panic when someone screams about school shootings.
Of course, there's a question today of whether or not firearms are still relevant in a world where fighter jets, cluster bombs, and ICBMs exist. Firearms are becoming increasingly irrelevant, since the disparity is quickly reaching the point where citizens would need to be given far more advanced weaponry than any reasonable person would suggest if they would want to have a hope of overturning their government.
Not true, most of the things you listed off are nearly useless in an insurgency scenario. Fighters and cluster bombs would be of value in attacking existing militia camps in the sticks in Montana, but would be useless at taking out insurgents in cities. If the government is dropping ICBMs on their own cities it means they're losing badly.
The most important disparities in my eyes are SAWs, LAVs, mortars and grenade launchers. Even then the military isn't goign to be using much in the way of mortars or grenade launchers in urban areas.
Not only is gun ownership high adult males are GIVEN assault rifles, not "assault weapons" but actual mother&%#*ing assault rifles. Yet the Swiss streets aren't rivers of blood, perhaps gun ownership doesn't have to correlate to violence?
No engagement or discussion, just "you are a troll/anti-American/a coward".
Having a discussion is hard when both sides are running on emotion instead of fact and when one side would see any gun crime over 0 as a valid reason to impose significant restrictions.
To be fair there's probably a lot of unreported crime here as well. I expect it's more common in smaller towns where crimes can be worked out unofficially. I would be very interested to know the ACTUAL crime rates of the US and the West/North European countries, but I doubt anyone actually has that information.
The guns are enough to GET the rest of those things (except the tactical nukes). Tanks are not particularly useful in fighting insurgencies, they are actually quite vulnerable to infantry in urban settings. The guns the government have are little better for the most part, burst fire capability is nice but of limited use. SAWs and GPMGs are useful for suppression and not having them would be an issue. On the other hand citizens aren't restricted by government contracts on what we buy, I can get an accurized AR platform rifle firing a VASTLY superior round with the result being a better gun than the infantry has and I can put whatever accessories I want except for underbarrel shotguns or grenade launchers (or suppressors in some jurisdictions). We also can get better body armor.
As for the question of could we win, in a word yes, but it's a blanket question and a blanket answer when there's a LOT of nuance involved. We aren't LIKELY to win unless things have gotten VERY bad, but it's certainly a decent possibility.
It's a people problem, always has been. But treating it as a gun problem is a convenient way to advance an agenda while screaming about "THE CHILDREN!!!!!"
We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys.
Because you have functioning social safety nets, a distinct lack of still oppressed former slaves, and cultures that don't promote the cult of self over all else.
At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
What is the French Revolution?
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
Exactly, and this is one of my many complaints about the AWB, we should be taking steps to fix the underlying issues in a manner that doesn't require stripping away rights. I would bet that if you dropped American gun laws into a typical Scandanavian country the crime rate would barely ripple. It's a people problem, not a gun problem.
It amuses me when people complain about the Windows Phone 8 upgrade restrrictiosn when the phone in my pocket is still running Android 2.2, it was supposed to get 2.3 but LG decided they'd rather put out a new phone to run 2.3 instead. 2.3 was released less than 4 months after I got my phone.
Microsoft has posted ONE quarterly loss I believe in it's entire history and if not it's entire history then only one in the last decade or so. Even that was probably a strategic financial move that didn't have to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can keep typing until the one you want is at the top, I haven't had to click on anything for a while.
The ribbon is supposedly quite popular among newer users, I don't like it but apparently it's good for people who aren't used to the old interface. You still have the windowing UI if you want it, it works just like before even, I rarely see the Metro interface myself and when I do it's usually just for a few seconds while I'm typing the name of the program I want to use.
In practice the Metro UI isn't a big deal for me, at all. I expect that the vast majority of people will agree if they give it a little time.
I seriously doubt that MS is dropping the desktop or considering it legacy. The reality is that Microsoft is unifying their interface across phone, tablet and computer and since tablets are the future and tablets use touch, touch is the priority. This is obviously imperfect for those of us who still use traditional form-factor computers, but in 5-10 years we'll be a minority (if not sooner).
I think that Metro is actually Microsoft, for the first time in a long time, being ahead of the curve. I expect Apple will be following suit within a few years.
PROTIP: Large swaths of the population are morons.
Gentoo may be the bestest ever for the techbros to show off their e-peen, but the reality is that catering to the most technically inclined people is not a winning strategy, giving people the means to do what they want with the least amount of effort is the best goal for an OS meant for mass consumption.
What Jaktar said.
Opening up a program in Windows 8 is either Windows key then type the name of the program or Windows key click if the program is on a tile on the main screen. It's really not a problem.
You can multi-task, where does it say you can't? All you have to do is skip the Metro apps, which shouldn't be a problem if you're multi-tasking since that very fact means you have non-Metro programs that you're currently using.
Within that 18 months you'll get an update to the new version of the OS, which has it's own 18 month update plan.
You can sync contacts and calendar with Outlook, it's kind of a pain though. It has cut and paste.
A lot of your complaints are either addressed in WP8 (resolution, SD card, screenshots), not unique (Flash, Silverlight) or incredibly neckbeardy (FLAC support? Really?). The only reason I'm not using the WP7 that I won is because the service is too expensive through AT&T.
I work in a call center where we still have physical phones (though we only use headsets), I remember hearing about one supervisor call where the sup eventually advised the customer that there was nothing more to discuss and he was going to end the call, he picked up the receiver, de-activated the headset then hung up the receiver, just for the sound.
I woudlnt' count on it. China is cutting back on exports for rare earths, other sources are coming online, but battery costs will likely stay high for a while.
Both of the things I said are true, neither of them are dependent on the the things you're claiming they are.
You might want to take a second look at places like Northern Ireland. Things like Predator drones are only useful in places wehre collateral damage isn't a concern. In an urban environment in the US they'd be almost useless.
Assassinating Bin Laden leaves the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan AND gives them a martyr to use for recruiting. Also there's plenty of people who whine like crazy over assassinations of any kind regardless of how justified.
As ScentCone said agreeing to not wage war only benefits those who are willing to break their word.
We didn't break the rules against the British, there were no rules, we just did something different.
Assange does what he does because he's an anarchist who believes there shouldn't be any governments.
There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq, few that were technically actionable, but plenty good ones nonetheless.
I saw an amusing thing going the other direction recently. I'm generally a pinko, hippie communist so I hang out on a couple sites that are...less than welcoming to gun rights. One of them just posted a reminder abotu how terrible it is that people abandon their 4th Amendment rights in a blind panic when someone screams about terrorism, just a couple weeks after posting that people shoudl abandon their 2nd Amendment rights in a blind panic when someone screams about school shootings.
Of course, there's a question today of whether or not firearms are still relevant in a world where fighter jets, cluster bombs, and ICBMs exist. Firearms are becoming increasingly irrelevant, since the disparity is quickly reaching the point where citizens would need to be given far more advanced weaponry than any reasonable person would suggest if they would want to have a hope of overturning their government.
Not true, most of the things you listed off are nearly useless in an insurgency scenario. Fighters and cluster bombs would be of value in attacking existing militia camps in the sticks in Montana, but would be useless at taking out insurgents in cities. If the government is dropping ICBMs on their own cities it means they're losing badly.
The most important disparities in my eyes are SAWs, LAVs, mortars and grenade launchers. Even then the military isn't goign to be using much in the way of mortars or grenade launchers in urban areas.
Not only is gun ownership high adult males are GIVEN assault rifles, not "assault weapons" but actual mother&%#*ing assault rifles. Yet the Swiss streets aren't rivers of blood, perhaps gun ownership doesn't have to correlate to violence?
No engagement or discussion, just "you are a troll/anti-American/a coward".
Having a discussion is hard when both sides are running on emotion instead of fact and when one side would see any gun crime over 0 as a valid reason to impose significant restrictions.
To be fair there's probably a lot of unreported crime here as well. I expect it's more common in smaller towns where crimes can be worked out unofficially. I would be very interested to know the ACTUAL crime rates of the US and the West/North European countries, but I doubt anyone actually has that information.
The guns are enough to GET the rest of those things (except the tactical nukes). Tanks are not particularly useful in fighting insurgencies, they are actually quite vulnerable to infantry in urban settings. The guns the government have are little better for the most part, burst fire capability is nice but of limited use. SAWs and GPMGs are useful for suppression and not having them would be an issue. On the other hand citizens aren't restricted by government contracts on what we buy, I can get an accurized AR platform rifle firing a VASTLY superior round with the result being a better gun than the infantry has and I can put whatever accessories I want except for underbarrel shotguns or grenade launchers (or suppressors in some jurisdictions). We also can get better body armor.
As for the question of could we win, in a word yes, but it's a blanket question and a blanket answer when there's a LOT of nuance involved. We aren't LIKELY to win unless things have gotten VERY bad, but it's certainly a decent possibility.
+1
It's a people problem, always has been. But treating it as a gun problem is a convenient way to advance an agenda while screaming about "THE CHILDREN!!!!!"
We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys.
Because you have functioning social safety nets, a distinct lack of still oppressed former slaves, and cultures that don't promote the cult of self over all else.
At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
What is the French Revolution?
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
Exactly, and this is one of my many complaints about the AWB, we should be taking steps to fix the underlying issues in a manner that doesn't require stripping away rights. I would bet that if you dropped American gun laws into a typical Scandanavian country the crime rate would barely ripple. It's a people problem, not a gun problem.
Or you can just use DuckDuckGo
It amuses me when people complain about the Windows Phone 8 upgrade restrrictiosn when the phone in my pocket is still running Android 2.2, it was supposed to get 2.3 but LG decided they'd rather put out a new phone to run 2.3 instead. 2.3 was released less than 4 months after I got my phone.
Microsoft has posted ONE quarterly loss I believe in it's entire history and if not it's entire history then only one in the last decade or so. Even that was probably a strategic financial move that didn't have to happen.