There's more than that too. Often the software is a part of the purchase price. New features are added and customers are willing to pay for those features. Businesses are not going to readily change their business model into one where the machine is purchased and all software upgrades and features after that are free. I recall a case where a Russian distributor refused to sell our machines unless we added security features to block pirating the licenses.
And don't forget that there are often rational and reasonable laws and regulations on what can be changed in a product. If operation can be changed by modifying software then those software changes require approval. If that ECG is modified by some consultant for a hospital and it gives the wrong results resulting in patient harm, who gets held accountable for this legally? There are very practical reasons for keeping the source closed, as opposed to generic consumer devices.
Part of the issue is that the current form factor is wasteful of space just by itself, regardless of speed or storage. Stack more disks, add a second interface, and you can get more platters into the same amount of space and probably with less power.
But the white listing has done nothing. I still have seen no ads with ABP even with the white listing. Maybe I'm just careful about where I visit, but I wouldn't drop it until I start finding it to be ineffective.
Is there evidence that lives could be saved? Even if true, the FBI could always say that they want to put RFID tags into every person and newborns at birth in order to solve crimes and save lives. It would seem like a huge invasion of privacy and government intrusion, but that's only because care about our own personal rights. But when it comes to a third party we're a lot more blasé about what the government does to companies or people that aren't us.
We wrote it ourselves, and we also shared the software for free with no conditions attached. We also purchased software with license agreements granting us full use of the software in any and all conditions, licenses we could understand without consulting a lawyer. We also got personal service from the companies we purchased the software from and if there were bugs we'd often get an apology along with the patch.
Television is showing us content for free, so we put up with some unobstrusive ads that don't transmit diseases. Windows 10 is not free, we paid for it or for the OS that we upgraded from, and yet we still get the ads and a vector for malware. At the very least Microsoft could act like web sites and whine at us to please turn off adblock or else they'll go out of business.
"We heard from you, the customer, and decided to improve over the mistakes we made in Windows 8. Then we heard from our marketing department and decided we hadn't gone far enough."
He's a nice dog, you should buy him. Sure he'll bite all your children and neighbors, but castrate him and he'll mellow out. Just a simple reconfiguration that's not beyond the ability of your Average Joe.
Outrage is that these are OUR machines. They do not belong to Microsoft. It may be true that Microsoft can not survive financially without serving up ads, but it's not our job to provide charity to companies with bad business models.
Of course, they'll declare that Clinton or Sanders will be a one term president only. Then within a few months start shouting for impeachment hearings on the basis that the president is a poopie head. When that dies down it will be midterm elections and so they can't possibly allow any consideration of nominees that close to an election.
I would feel better if they had hearings followed by a vote, even if the vote was no. That's what we pay them for, they should do their jobs. If they want to boycott the process of government then they can do it on their own time.
They won't do that though because they know they'll look slightly better to the voters if they just obstruct things than if they held a hearing where the public could see that the applicant was qualified and then they voted no anyway. It's too close to an election so they can't rely on the public's short term memory loss.
If congress does not approve because the person is unqualified, then that is fair. If congress does not approve because of politics, then that is legal but it is not necessarily fair and the people are most certainly allowed to criticize congress harshly over that. Congress does not have to approve, but on the other hand we do not have to shut up about it.
When the shoe has been on the other foot, congress has eventually approved someone prior to the Bork nomination. Even with Scalia the Democrat majority congress approved him after a token amount of discussion. Bork was sort of an anomaly in some ways (after a hard nosed Scalia they didn't want someone even more extreme). After that there were fights but we got nominees approved.
The only reason for the pushback now has nothing to do with the nominee or the constitution. We have pushback now because the election is so close. Republicans feel that they'll be able to get a Republican president if they can only hold out. If they're this reluctant with Obama imagine what they'll be like with Hillary or Bernie... Or Trump... And then there's all the tweets and such going around that we're just one justice away from reppealing everyone's rights and other tea party lunacy.
Slashdot Mirror
There's more than that too. Often the software is a part of the purchase price. New features are added and customers are willing to pay for those features. Businesses are not going to readily change their business model into one where the machine is purchased and all software upgrades and features after that are free. I recall a case where a Russian distributor refused to sell our machines unless we added security features to block pirating the licenses.
And don't forget that there are often rational and reasonable laws and regulations on what can be changed in a product. If operation can be changed by modifying software then those software changes require approval. If that ECG is modified by some consultant for a hospital and it gives the wrong results resulting in patient harm, who gets held accountable for this legally? There are very practical reasons for keeping the source closed, as opposed to generic consumer devices.
Part of the issue is that the current form factor is wasteful of space just by itself, regardless of speed or storage. Stack more disks, add a second interface, and you can get more platters into the same amount of space and probably with less power.
But the white listing has done nothing. I still have seen no ads with ABP even with the white listing. Maybe I'm just careful about where I visit, but I wouldn't drop it until I start finding it to be ineffective.
Right on, daddy-o. Tell 'em to stop bumping their gums.
So you're saying that if someone from North Korea bought a sweet and delicious cupcake from me, I would be guilty of treason?
Is there evidence that lives could be saved?
Even if true, the FBI could always say that they want to put RFID tags into every person and newborns at birth in order to solve crimes and save lives. It would seem like a huge invasion of privacy and government intrusion, but that's only because care about our own personal rights. But when it comes to a third party we're a lot more blasé about what the government does to companies or people that aren't us.
The reason is that there are more Windows PCs than any other PC. So that's where the games are if you don't use consoles.
Overall Windows games tend to not be Windows-only whereas it is not uncommon for console games to be "exclusive".
Right there on the BSOD the ad would say "Tired of this crap? While we're spooling to disk consider these alternatives to Windows..."
Microsoft doesn't refer to this as molesting. They prefer "customer experience."
We wrote it ourselves, and we also shared the software for free with no conditions attached. We also purchased software with license agreements granting us full use of the software in any and all conditions, licenses we could understand without consulting a lawyer. We also got personal service from the companies we purchased the software from and if there were bugs we'd often get an apology along with the patch.
Television is showing us content for free, so we put up with some unobstrusive ads that don't transmit diseases. Windows 10 is not free, we paid for it or for the OS that we upgraded from, and yet we still get the ads and a vector for malware. At the very least Microsoft could act like web sites and whine at us to please turn off adblock or else they'll go out of business.
"We heard from you, the customer, and decided to improve over the mistakes we made in Windows 8. Then we heard from our marketing department and decided we hadn't gone far enough."
It's called a personal computer because it keeps trying to be intimate with you.
He's a nice dog, you should buy him. Sure he'll bite all your children and neighbors, but castrate him and he'll mellow out. Just a simple reconfiguration that's not beyond the ability of your Average Joe.
Personally I block the ads by using electricians tape over the screen.
Outrage is that these are OUR machines. They do not belong to Microsoft. It may be true that Microsoft can not survive financially without serving up ads, but it's not our job to provide charity to companies with bad business models.
Ook?
Trump makes America grate again!
Of course, they'll declare that Clinton or Sanders will be a one term president only. Then within a few months start shouting for impeachment hearings on the basis that the president is a poopie head. When that dies down it will be midterm elections and so they can't possibly allow any consideration of nominees that close to an election.
Although McConnell seems to be succeeding at his goal of making Obama a two term president only.
And Scalia was nominated by Reagan and got a pass. So did Rehnquist but then again he was just changing his seating position.
You mean congress will try to create a political show of it. Oh wait, they already have started...
I would feel better if they had hearings followed by a vote, even if the vote was no. That's what we pay them for, they should do their jobs. If they want to boycott the process of government then they can do it on their own time.
They won't do that though because they know they'll look slightly better to the voters if they just obstruct things than if they held a hearing where the public could see that the applicant was qualified and then they voted no anyway. It's too close to an election so they can't rely on the public's short term memory loss.
If congress does not approve because the person is unqualified, then that is fair. If congress does not approve because of politics, then that is legal but it is not necessarily fair and the people are most certainly allowed to criticize congress harshly over that. Congress does not have to approve, but on the other hand we do not have to shut up about it.
When the shoe has been on the other foot, congress has eventually approved someone prior to the Bork nomination. Even with Scalia the Democrat majority congress approved him after a token amount of discussion. Bork was sort of an anomaly in some ways (after a hard nosed Scalia they didn't want someone even more extreme). After that there were fights but we got nominees approved.
The only reason for the pushback now has nothing to do with the nominee or the constitution. We have pushback now because the election is so close. Republicans feel that they'll be able to get a Republican president if they can only hold out. If they're this reluctant with Obama imagine what they'll be like with Hillary or Bernie... Or Trump... And then there's all the tweets and such going around that we're just one justice away from reppealing everyone's rights and other tea party lunacy.