And yet Microsoft is willing to stick an advertisement into a security update, so they clearly have no illusions about security updates being sacrosanct and instead treat them as mere product delivery mechanisms. Now people have to defend both against third party malware as well as Microsoft's own malware.
Since many corporations have policy rules to automatically install security and critical updates, they would have a very good case for suing over actual damages involved in fixing up the mess. Enough corporations and Microsoft might have to apologize. The drawback is that most IT departments are total fans of anything from Microsoft and wouldn't want to raise a fuss over this.
The US government has already shown that it is scared of Microsoft. Only the EU had the balls to stand up to obviously illegal activities, only it was ineffective because of the extremely long legal process it has.
Note that Windows 10 sill force upgrades for Home, Pro, Enterprise, and Educational editions. Yes, that's ALL editions. W10 Pro allows you to "defer" upgrades for a few months, but security updates can't be deferred. Enterprise and Education editions can stop all updates except for security updates which are required to be upgraded, but at a certain point there will be the next major upgrade (ie, Windows 11 except that they'll still call it Windows 10) and you won't be able to get that version without allowing all upgrades through. I think that Enterprise edition is not even available as an individual purchase so a home or small business can't even get it.
Notice that security updates will *always* be applied and you can't disable them on any edition. Sounds good perhaps. But also notice that just a few days ago Microsoft added a fucking advertisement to a "security" update. This means that Microsoft is perfectly willing erase the line between high priority security updates and and lowest possible priority general purpose updates. The only assurance we have that Microsoft will act responsibly in this matter is their word, and their word is useless as they have lied over and over again without even the decency to look slightly ashamed about it.
Now yes, there are ways to disable updates on Windows 10; but it's pretty harsh as it blocks all updates (basically disable the update service). There's also a tool from Microsoft that can be used to hide an update, but you have to use it after the fact to undo an update instead of proactively stopping them.
This update policy makes Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome look absolutely sane in comparison.
Why is why so many corporations are insisting on agreements that forbid class action suits, which is the only practical option an individual has to make corporations behave.
People in the old west were also much more likely to ignore laws, ignore the rights of others, and do whatever the hell they felt like at the time. The good old days weren't all that good.
Basically there's a significant number of people who believe that gun ownership is a vital part of their culture. They equate restrictions on gun ownership akin to government regulations about what sorts of apples can go into Mom's apple pie. It doesn't help that the NRA has moved from being a safety and enthusiast organization into a political one that encourages paranoia that the government is trying to ban guns outright. Because a guns are a part of culture this is all a part of what they think is the larger culture war.
It's politics. If you don't let crazies have guns then it's the first step on the slippery slow towards rounding up all citizens and putting them into work camps.
I hear the argument that G+ spoiled Youtube, but if G+ and Youtube are the same company then that makes no sense. I'm just trying to point out that they're the same company so stop blaming one small division and keeping a massive grudge against it instead of focusing on the real problem.
No, it's not native savage. It's about the native residents who were pushed off the land or killed in order to acquire the land by others. Spoils of war. Sometimes by the newly arriving government, other times by squatters who later had their occupied land legitimized by the newly arriving government.
It's a bit trickier in California as the the US did grant some rights to the earlier Mexican landowners which can result in the occasional surprise in during title searches. But those Mexican landowners also stole the land originally. Possibly in the past some native American groups took the land from other native American groups, and so forth back through prehistory. Utlimately though all the land was taken from others, so standing up today and claiming "it's *mine*" is true only so far as the current government is willing to back up your claim with force. Speaking about the "rights" to the land is pretty much a fiction we tell ourselves, as these rights exist again only so far as the current government in power is willing to grant them and able to enforce them.
All the land was originally stolen. Well, ok, some people will say it wasn't stolen because the native Americans didn't have a system of laws that could kick out the squatters. The people taking it didn't consider the natives to be full human beings worthy of having rights, so they wouldn't have cared anyway. In the case of California, all that land was taken away from Mexico as spoils of a war venture (though many larger landowners kept their lands that they had stolen earlier). Then the government parcels it out to citizens. Of course, after a hundred years or so you can't just leave and give the stolen property back, too much time has passed and too many new generations. So practically speaking we may as well say that the property is owned. But there is no innate right to that land ownership if it was originally acquired through theft; if you disagree be prepared to show evidence of native American ancestry.
But if you go to most places in the country, people own their homes and can't be easily evicted. Whereas housing is so extremely expensive in San Francisco compared to everywhere else nearby (this was true even back in the 80s) so they have to rent. And they're also not living near their jobs, there are many people in San Francisco who commute through three counties to get to their jobs. So being evicted might actually save them lots of time and money, though it might be slightly more difficult to find their favorite brand of coffee.
San Francisco doens't have much industry left. There's still a financial sector, and a few wannabe tech companies making idiotic apps, but not much else. Head down to San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, etc, and there are more jobs. In fact, Google is getting bitched at for finding a more efficient way to transport San Francisco residents from their expensive homes to their high paying jobs 50 miles away. It would make economic and practical sense to have those workers living closer to where they work. At least in Manhattan you have some practical and economic ways to commute into the city where many jobs exist, but we've got the opposite situation here as there is a lot of commute leaving the urban core to go outwards to the jobs.
Yes, distributing people aruond the state would be good. And outside the state too, let's not be parochial here. But there seem to be people preferring to live in San Francisco who refuse to live anywhere else which is why they put up with insane housing costs and insane commutes even though it hurts them in the long run.
I understand the frustration. The few people who were actually born in the city are seeing an influx of hipsters preferring to live in their city and make their lives miserable. But I don't know how you convince the newcomers that San Jose or Milpitas might be a nice place to live.
I'll bite, why don't people just live somewhere else? What is so damn special about those cities that people have an obsessive disorder to live in them? It is not about the jobs or economy because so many people commute out of San Francisco to get to their jobs. San Francisco has turned into a residential city with few industries of note. So it sort of makes it a suburb; with the worst features of suburbs combined with the worst features of urban cores. There are so many other places to live that are cheaper and closer to where they work. The Bay Area is not out of housing, it is not even out of affordable housing.
No, we just need to educate them that there is wide availability of housing outside of the city if only they could open their eyes. The city keeps adding disincentives to discourage people from living there but they don't seem to get the hint. There's no reason to build more housing there if the morons would actually acknowledge that the world does not end at the city borders. More jobs, better jobs, cheaper housing, better housing, larger housing, better schools, better smells, just across that border.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet Microsoft is willing to stick an advertisement into a security update, so they clearly have no illusions about security updates being sacrosanct and instead treat them as mere product delivery mechanisms. Now people have to defend both against third party malware as well as Microsoft's own malware.
Since many corporations have policy rules to automatically install security and critical updates, they would have a very good case for suing over actual damages involved in fixing up the mess. Enough corporations and Microsoft might have to apologize. The drawback is that most IT departments are total fans of anything from Microsoft and wouldn't want to raise a fuss over this.
OSX screws this up too on a regular basis.
The US government has already shown that it is scared of Microsoft. Only the EU had the balls to stand up to obviously illegal activities, only it was ineffective because of the extremely long legal process it has.
Note that Windows 10 sill force upgrades for Home, Pro, Enterprise, and Educational editions. Yes, that's ALL editions. W10 Pro allows you to "defer" upgrades for a few months, but security updates can't be deferred. Enterprise and Education editions can stop all updates except for security updates which are required to be upgraded, but at a certain point there will be the next major upgrade (ie, Windows 11 except that they'll still call it Windows 10) and you won't be able to get that version without allowing all upgrades through. I think that Enterprise edition is not even available as an individual purchase so a home or small business can't even get it.
Notice that security updates will *always* be applied and you can't disable them on any edition. Sounds good perhaps. But also notice that just a few days ago Microsoft added a fucking advertisement to a "security" update. This means that Microsoft is perfectly willing erase the line between high priority security updates and and lowest possible priority general purpose updates. The only assurance we have that Microsoft will act responsibly in this matter is their word, and their word is useless as they have lied over and over again without even the decency to look slightly ashamed about it.
Now yes, there are ways to disable updates on Windows 10; but it's pretty harsh as it blocks all updates (basically disable the update service). There's also a tool from Microsoft that can be used to hide an update, but you have to use it after the fact to undo an update instead of proactively stopping them.
This update policy makes Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome look absolutely sane in comparison.
Simple for you, baffling technobabble to the average Windows customer.
And then they take so many years to actually enforce things with Microsoft that the issues becomes moot.
Why is why so many corporations are insisting on agreements that forbid class action suits, which is the only practical option an individual has to make corporations behave.
What baffles me is that slashdot has so many people stills supporting Microsoft and calling their actions beneficial or normal business practices.
I wouldn't mind if they tried to leave again and we let them. Except then we'd have a horrendous refugee crisis.
No one is banning them, or trying to ban them. We're talking about regulations.
People in the old west were also much more likely to ignore laws, ignore the rights of others, and do whatever the hell they felt like at the time. The good old days weren't all that good.
Basically there's a significant number of people who believe that gun ownership is a vital part of their culture. They equate restrictions on gun ownership akin to government regulations about what sorts of apples can go into Mom's apple pie. It doesn't help that the NRA has moved from being a safety and enthusiast organization into a political one that encourages paranoia that the government is trying to ban guns outright. Because a guns are a part of culture this is all a part of what they think is the larger culture war.
It's politics. If you don't let crazies have guns then it's the first step on the slippery slow towards rounding up all citizens and putting them into work camps.
It's all about the bass.
I hear the argument that G+ spoiled Youtube, but if G+ and Youtube are the same company then that makes no sense. I'm just trying to point out that they're the same company so stop blaming one small division and keeping a massive grudge against it instead of focusing on the real problem.
You just gave me an idea on how to use a backstatter device to create a weapon.
Another settlement needs your help.
No, it's not native savage. It's about the native residents who were pushed off the land or killed in order to acquire the land by others. Spoils of war. Sometimes by the newly arriving government, other times by squatters who later had their occupied land legitimized by the newly arriving government.
It's a bit trickier in California as the the US did grant some rights to the earlier Mexican landowners which can result in the occasional surprise in during title searches. But those Mexican landowners also stole the land originally. Possibly in the past some native American groups took the land from other native American groups, and so forth back through prehistory. Utlimately though all the land was taken from others, so standing up today and claiming "it's *mine*" is true only so far as the current government is willing to back up your claim with force. Speaking about the "rights" to the land is pretty much a fiction we tell ourselves, as these rights exist again only so far as the current government in power is willing to grant them and able to enforce them.
All the land was originally stolen. Well, ok, some people will say it wasn't stolen because the native Americans didn't have a system of laws that could kick out the squatters. The people taking it didn't consider the natives to be full human beings worthy of having rights, so they wouldn't have cared anyway. In the case of California, all that land was taken away from Mexico as spoils of a war venture (though many larger landowners kept their lands that they had stolen earlier). Then the government parcels it out to citizens. Of course, after a hundred years or so you can't just leave and give the stolen property back, too much time has passed and too many new generations. So practically speaking we may as well say that the property is owned. But there is no innate right to that land ownership if it was originally acquired through theft; if you disagree be prepared to show evidence of native American ancestry.
But if you go to most places in the country, people own their homes and can't be easily evicted. Whereas housing is so extremely expensive in San Francisco compared to everywhere else nearby (this was true even back in the 80s) so they have to rent. And they're also not living near their jobs, there are many people in San Francisco who commute through three counties to get to their jobs. So being evicted might actually save them lots of time and money, though it might be slightly more difficult to find their favorite brand of coffee.
San Francisco doens't have much industry left. There's still a financial sector, and a few wannabe tech companies making idiotic apps, but not much else. Head down to San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, etc, and there are more jobs. In fact, Google is getting bitched at for finding a more efficient way to transport San Francisco residents from their expensive homes to their high paying jobs 50 miles away. It would make economic and practical sense to have those workers living closer to where they work. At least in Manhattan you have some practical and economic ways to commute into the city where many jobs exist, but we've got the opposite situation here as there is a lot of commute leaving the urban core to go outwards to the jobs.
Yes, distributing people aruond the state would be good. And outside the state too, let's not be parochial here. But there seem to be people preferring to live in San Francisco who refuse to live anywhere else which is why they put up with insane housing costs and insane commutes even though it hurts them in the long run.
I understand the frustration. The few people who were actually born in the city are seeing an influx of hipsters preferring to live in their city and make their lives miserable. But I don't know how you convince the newcomers that San Jose or Milpitas might be a nice place to live.
But those prices are still less than inside SF. And they're closer to the jobs.
I'll bite, why don't people just live somewhere else? What is so damn special about those cities that people have an obsessive disorder to live in them? It is not about the jobs or economy because so many people commute out of San Francisco to get to their jobs. San Francisco has turned into a residential city with few industries of note. So it sort of makes it a suburb; with the worst features of suburbs combined with the worst features of urban cores. There are so many other places to live that are cheaper and closer to where they work. The Bay Area is not out of housing, it is not even out of affordable housing.
No, we just need to educate them that there is wide availability of housing outside of the city if only they could open their eyes. The city keeps adding disincentives to discourage people from living there but they don't seem to get the hint. There's no reason to build more housing there if the morons would actually acknowledge that the world does not end at the city borders. More jobs, better jobs, cheaper housing, better housing, larger housing, better schools, better smells, just across that border.