I'm a heterosexual male. You can market to me without the T&A. It works for most other industries, so why is Microsoft using the same marketing tactics as cheap American beer companies?
Sure, they want to do this but it also generates major customer anger. What if your automobile maker decided to stop support on your car after only a few months, no new service bulletins, no recalls for major defects, and everytime you took it in for service you'd have to listen to a lecture about why you're a Luddite? Big lashback from the customers I would think. Yet Microsoft gets away with this sort of bad behavior and some customers even praise them for it. They lie about what they're doing and some customers go online to defend them.
I suspect since every future version will be called Windows 10 that they will start claiming end of life service for various CPUs over time as well. Skylake will be dropped because it will be too old some day, so not only are you required to get mandatory OS updates you also will almost certainly have mandatory computer replacements.
After the Windows 8 debacle when the Windows VP was fired, they claimed they had made a mistake and that they really do love the desktop users. But I strongly suspect that they've back slid on this and are anxious to drop the desktop altogether.
But enterprise is a core market of theirs. Most people at home can get away with nothing but a browser, so a Chromebook, iPad, or android tablet is cheaper and better for them. Maybe Microsoft is just surreptitiously trying to get out of the PC market altogether?
To be fair, I think a lot of Windows 8.1 is better than Windows 7, fewer crashes and less memory footprint. The only real fault was the Metro shit, you can hide it now but you can never uninstall it. Windows 7 was also a distinct improvement over Windows XP as well.
Windows 10 could have been an improvement except for their update approach that is hostile to the customers.
Some big corporations migrate as soon as possible, honest. Those were the companies that stuck Vista on everyone's computers and making plans about Windows 8 rollouts even while everyone else was laughing at the release candidate. And some defense contractors paid for by your tax dollars have migrated to Windows 10 already. There are companies that are so in love with Microsoft that it's illegal in most southern states. They will do whatever Microsoft asks them to do because they know they have zero skills to survive in anything but a Microsoft world.
Make backups all the time. The biggest problem with Apple computers is that you're forced to use their geniuses for support, and they're morons. You can't even open up the laptops anymore to do your own repairs or even change the battery (those do fail quite a lot in my experience). So the full backup means you can get a a replacement up and running very quickly compared to Windows. OSX backup with built in Time Machine is really nice and really easy to use. Whereas on Windows they change their backup style every other release, never make it easy to use, shoot themselves in the foot, then shoot their customers in their feet for good measure.
Then additionally take key files (baby pictures) and store them onto thumb drives as well, as those Time Machine backups will all be in OSX file system format which isn't easily readable elsewhere.
Still, there is Apple support whereas Microsoft support is an oxymoron and from my experience Dell support is pretty awful. Although all the support no matter who it is prefers you to just buy a new product and start from scratch, Apple is just more up front about that.
The apps do this for the same reason that web sites sign up for third party app services - it's free money for zero work on their behalf, and they don't give a shit if it pisses off their users. We're just monetization units to them.
I wouldn't mind turning all of these off. I don't need notifications for anything except my calendar. If I want to know if there is new email then I will open up the email app. The only other things that send me notifications are built in undeleteable and unwanted apps that keep reminding me to please use them and I'd love to infect whatever developers thought that was a good idea with my head cold.
Most "constitutionalists" mean they want original meaning and interpretation of the constitution, which was highly racist, but they also include all the amendments as well. For me I do not think it is useful legally to consider what the original founders thought about things because they don't understand the modern world and we're not living in theirs, but constitutionalists seem to put some sort of sacred weight to the founders.
Before the civil war this was true. The nature of the US government was essentially recreated after the civil war as an entirely different creature. Some people seem to forget this change, others resent it. From the start it was a democratic experiment and the civil war proved that it was flawed and failing, and the experiment restarted. Maybe it's showing signs of failing again?
The constitution was written originally with the concept of slavery being in the foreground. So it is full of all sorts of odd quirks and compromises, including the "great" compromise which allowed the constitution to actually be ratified, but a compromise that we today would consider abhorrent. The reasons for having a decentralized government was in part because of slavery (and of course some other ideals). But treating the US as a loose federation of independent states was essentially impractical.
It should not require a constitutional amendment in order for the government to act responsibly. It is a clear abuse of power on the government's part to try and this precedent from Apple, even if it is not technically illegal. It's just a matter for someone higher up to tell the FBI that they're overreaching and to give up and close the case, there are better things for them to be spending their time and budget on.
Apple may make this for just one phone, but the precedence will be set and the government can come back again and again and ask for more help. They claim that they won't but the government are known liars that should not be trusted. The government also consists of many organizations. The FBI can't make any promises on behalf of the DEA, the ATF, or all those DAs that are on fishing expeditions.
But Apple doesn't want to turn over the keys. Why should it? Why do you want Apple to hand over the keys? What is wrong with telling the government no? It's very clear that the government is only taking these actions to increase their power and not to help with any investigation of importance. When the former chief in the NSA for counter terrorism and cyber security backs Apple in this regard over that of the FBI, people should pay attention. In this matter the government is WRONG.
But should the FBI be able to compel *anyone* to help them? A random person on the street is held in contempt because that person refused to help in an investigation? Where in the constitution does the government have this power? Apple isn't quite a random person but its ties to the crime are extremely tenuous. It really sounds like the FBI is lazy or doesn't have the funds and is going to Apple for help as a convenience.
If the government somehow has the power to compel Apple to assist then I would strongly suggest that we change the government so that it no longer has this sort of abusive power. The government should be there to protect its citizens first and foremost, and part of that protection means it must limit and govern the actions of its law enforcement bodies.
This goes beyond searching. They have searched the bodies of the defendants, their homes, their phones, and so forth. They have run into a dead end in a very slim possibility that there may be more data. So they are conscripting the help of a third party. This is not searching with probable cause. It does not sound reasonable to me, though I admit that some people seem to think that acquiescing to any government demand in the name of terrorism is reasonable. As far as approval by the judiciary we won't know that until it gets to the highest court rather than treat a decision by some lower level judge as absolute.
A better analogy is asking a safe maker to open up a safe to which they do not know the combination, and to do so without damaging the evidence. This has been done in the past, though generally the safe maker doesn't have to do the manual labor only to point out some weak spots. In the case of the safes each request is independent and unique, and only someone naive thinks that the FBI is telling the truth that it is only going to have this sort of request only once. However if the safe maker makes too good of a safe that even they will have extreme difficulty in opening it, is it still reasonable to compel the safe maker to continue at great expense or hazard or loss of customers? How much of their time and payroll must they expend before it is unreasonable? How much certainty does the FBI need that the safe contains any evidence before subjecting the safe maker to this expense? Will presidential candidates declare that safes are not allowed to be too good?
Remember also that we have had senior members of the intelligence community suggest that all the FBI has to do is request the NSA do the hacking, and that the FBI is only requesting this of Apple in order to set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the security of the United States.
Apple is only anti establishment in the sense that all of Silicon Valley is anti establishment, meaning that it is not. It only looks weird to east coast conformists in suits. Apple got this reputation by focusing on engineers and hobbyists in the early days and later including artists, in other words it was not trying to just another buttoned up IBM clone focusing on business interests. Counter-culture was still fresh in people's minds when Apple was started but it was not a counter-culture company. It was no more radical than Microsoft was.
Meh. People pay to listen to someone sing, others pay to get a silly new gadget that makes people dumber. If we all were only paid if we did something useful for society we'd have a massive unemployment problem while people tried to justify why their web app to help you find the nearest coffee was important.
We only have his word that he's successful though. He's also being sued by relatively recent bad deals, forget the Taj Mahal fiasco he's been sued over casinos 12 years ago. He points out he never had personal bankruptcy but that's just passing the buck that his biggest deal was a flop which he was primarily responsible for personally. More recently, Trump Mortgage, Trump Travel, Trump Magazine, and other flops where he was more interested in pushing his name than making sound business decisions. And Trump University which was an outright scam.
For someone who starts off his professional life with $200 million, he should have a few billion by now even if he was lousy, and tens of billions if he was as good as he claims he is. But he's listing his name as an asset which doesn't sound like something normally accepted by accountants, however most of his big claims are really just having his name on other people's products like Trump Tower.
I just don't think he's all that good at business, and his fans are pretty gullible for believing him.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a heterosexual male. You can market to me without the T&A. It works for most other industries, so why is Microsoft using the same marketing tactics as cheap American beer companies?
Sure, they want to do this but it also generates major customer anger. What if your automobile maker decided to stop support on your car after only a few months, no new service bulletins, no recalls for major defects, and everytime you took it in for service you'd have to listen to a lecture about why you're a Luddite? Big lashback from the customers I would think. Yet Microsoft gets away with this sort of bad behavior and some customers even praise them for it. They lie about what they're doing and some customers go online to defend them.
I suspect since every future version will be called Windows 10 that they will start claiming end of life service for various CPUs over time as well. Skylake will be dropped because it will be too old some day, so not only are you required to get mandatory OS updates you also will almost certainly have mandatory computer replacements.
After the Windows 8 debacle when the Windows VP was fired, they claimed they had made a mistake and that they really do love the desktop users. But I strongly suspect that they've back slid on this and are anxious to drop the desktop altogether.
But enterprise is a core market of theirs. Most people at home can get away with nothing but a browser, so a Chromebook, iPad, or android tablet is cheaper and better for them. Maybe Microsoft is just surreptitiously trying to get out of the PC market altogether?
Perhaps everyone's fault for agreeing so readily to Microsoft's one sided contracts?
To be fair, I think a lot of Windows 8.1 is better than Windows 7, fewer crashes and less memory footprint. The only real fault was the Metro shit, you can hide it now but you can never uninstall it. Windows 7 was also a distinct improvement over Windows XP as well.
Windows 10 could have been an improvement except for their update approach that is hostile to the customers.
Some big corporations migrate as soon as possible, honest. Those were the companies that stuck Vista on everyone's computers and making plans about Windows 8 rollouts even while everyone else was laughing at the release candidate. And some defense contractors paid for by your tax dollars have migrated to Windows 10 already. There are companies that are so in love with Microsoft that it's illegal in most southern states. They will do whatever Microsoft asks them to do because they know they have zero skills to survive in anything but a Microsoft world.
Make backups all the time. The biggest problem with Apple computers is that you're forced to use their geniuses for support, and they're morons. You can't even open up the laptops anymore to do your own repairs or even change the battery (those do fail quite a lot in my experience). So the full backup means you can get a a replacement up and running very quickly compared to Windows. OSX backup with built in Time Machine is really nice and really easy to use. Whereas on Windows they change their backup style every other release, never make it easy to use, shoot themselves in the foot, then shoot their customers in their feet for good measure.
Then additionally take key files (baby pictures) and store them onto thumb drives as well, as those Time Machine backups will all be in OSX file system format which isn't easily readable elsewhere.
Still, there is Apple support whereas Microsoft support is an oxymoron and from my experience Dell support is pretty awful. Although all the support no matter who it is prefers you to just buy a new product and start from scratch, Apple is just more up front about that.
How is it not deceptive? It's listening to what television you watch and then reporting that to some backoffice all without telling you.
Oh they probably believed Cassandra but they weren't about to let something like that stop them from using all their favorite phone apps!
The apps do this for the same reason that web sites sign up for third party app services - it's free money for zero work on their behalf, and they don't give a shit if it pisses off their users. We're just monetization units to them.
There are some apps that let us turn off notifications which is the only thing they need services for.
I wouldn't mind turning all of these off. I don't need notifications for anything except my calendar. If I want to know if there is new email then I will open up the email app. The only other things that send me notifications are built in undeleteable and unwanted apps that keep reminding me to please use them and I'd love to infect whatever developers thought that was a good idea with my head cold.
That sounds a bit like a bonus to me.
Why are we talking about fantasy fiction again?
Most "constitutionalists" mean they want original meaning and interpretation of the constitution, which was highly racist, but they also include all the amendments as well. For me I do not think it is useful legally to consider what the original founders thought about things because they don't understand the modern world and we're not living in theirs, but constitutionalists seem to put some sort of sacred weight to the founders.
Before the civil war this was true. The nature of the US government was essentially recreated after the civil war as an entirely different creature. Some people seem to forget this change, others resent it. From the start it was a democratic experiment and the civil war proved that it was flawed and failing, and the experiment restarted. Maybe it's showing signs of failing again?
The constitution was written originally with the concept of slavery being in the foreground. So it is full of all sorts of odd quirks and compromises, including the "great" compromise which allowed the constitution to actually be ratified, but a compromise that we today would consider abhorrent. The reasons for having a decentralized government was in part because of slavery (and of course some other ideals). But treating the US as a loose federation of independent states was essentially impractical.
I write my code in MUMPS and comment it in Cherokee.
It should not require a constitutional amendment in order for the government to act responsibly. It is a clear abuse of power on the government's part to try and this precedent from Apple, even if it is not technically illegal. It's just a matter for someone higher up to tell the FBI that they're overreaching and to give up and close the case, there are better things for them to be spending their time and budget on.
Apple may make this for just one phone, but the precedence will be set and the government can come back again and again and ask for more help. They claim that they won't but the government are known liars that should not be trusted. The government also consists of many organizations. The FBI can't make any promises on behalf of the DEA, the ATF, or all those DAs that are on fishing expeditions.
But Apple doesn't want to turn over the keys. Why should it? Why do you want Apple to hand over the keys? What is wrong with telling the government no? It's very clear that the government is only taking these actions to increase their power and not to help with any investigation of importance. When the former chief in the NSA for counter terrorism and cyber security backs Apple in this regard over that of the FBI, people should pay attention. In this matter the government is WRONG.
But should the FBI be able to compel *anyone* to help them? A random person on the street is held in contempt because that person refused to help in an investigation? Where in the constitution does the government have this power? Apple isn't quite a random person but its ties to the crime are extremely tenuous. It really sounds like the FBI is lazy or doesn't have the funds and is going to Apple for help as a convenience.
If the government somehow has the power to compel Apple to assist then I would strongly suggest that we change the government so that it no longer has this sort of abusive power. The government should be there to protect its citizens first and foremost, and part of that protection means it must limit and govern the actions of its law enforcement bodies.
This goes beyond searching. They have searched the bodies of the defendants, their homes, their phones, and so forth. They have run into a dead end in a very slim possibility that there may be more data. So they are conscripting the help of a third party. This is not searching with probable cause. It does not sound reasonable to me, though I admit that some people seem to think that acquiescing to any government demand in the name of terrorism is reasonable. As far as approval by the judiciary we won't know that until it gets to the highest court rather than treat a decision by some lower level judge as absolute.
A better analogy is asking a safe maker to open up a safe to which they do not know the combination, and to do so without damaging the evidence. This has been done in the past, though generally the safe maker doesn't have to do the manual labor only to point out some weak spots. In the case of the safes each request is independent and unique, and only someone naive thinks that the FBI is telling the truth that it is only going to have this sort of request only once. However if the safe maker makes too good of a safe that even they will have extreme difficulty in opening it, is it still reasonable to compel the safe maker to continue at great expense or hazard or loss of customers? How much of their time and payroll must they expend before it is unreasonable? How much certainty does the FBI need that the safe contains any evidence before subjecting the safe maker to this expense? Will presidential candidates declare that safes are not allowed to be too good?
Remember also that we have had senior members of the intelligence community suggest that all the FBI has to do is request the NSA do the hacking, and that the FBI is only requesting this of Apple in order to set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the security of the United States.
Apple is only anti establishment in the sense that all of Silicon Valley is anti establishment, meaning that it is not. It only looks weird to east coast conformists in suits. Apple got this reputation by focusing on engineers and hobbyists in the early days and later including artists, in other words it was not trying to just another buttoned up IBM clone focusing on business interests. Counter-culture was still fresh in people's minds when Apple was started but it was not a counter-culture company. It was no more radical than Microsoft was.
Meh. People pay to listen to someone sing, others pay to get a silly new gadget that makes people dumber. If we all were only paid if we did something useful for society we'd have a massive unemployment problem while people tried to justify why their web app to help you find the nearest coffee was important.
We only have his word that he's successful though. He's also being sued by relatively recent bad deals, forget the Taj Mahal fiasco he's been sued over casinos 12 years ago. He points out he never had personal bankruptcy but that's just passing the buck that his biggest deal was a flop which he was primarily responsible for personally. More recently, Trump Mortgage, Trump Travel, Trump Magazine, and other flops where he was more interested in pushing his name than making sound business decisions. And Trump University which was an outright scam.
For someone who starts off his professional life with $200 million, he should have a few billion by now even if he was lousy, and tens of billions if he was as good as he claims he is. But he's listing his name as an asset which doesn't sound like something normally accepted by accountants, however most of his big claims are really just having his name on other people's products like Trump Tower.
I just don't think he's all that good at business, and his fans are pretty gullible for believing him.