What good is such an editor? The "online" part makes it seem unusable, unless it's a scam to get people to use cloud services. If I edit a document then I will always want it local.
Ashley Madison had already made the mainstream news a bit before the hacking, because of its inherently scandalous nature. I think I first read about them on BBC (part of their periodic look into what are crazy Americans doing this week). They never intended to be a secretive dating company and were advertising widely. You don't get 30 million users by keeping a low profile.
Hope springs eternal. Guys stay on the sight hoping someone eventually bites. AM in return has fake accounts that respond occasionally keeping the hope alive. Eventually the men move on, but their accounts stick around to get included in the stats.
I can use my Mac and all of the applications that come with it without using an Apple ID at any time. I would need an Apple ID to get any of their thousands of pointless fluff from the store. However on Windows 8, you can not use the built in Mail app (the metro version) without having a Microsoft account. When installing/upgrading to a new OSX version it does not ask you to use or create an Apple ID, yet that is what Windows 8 and 10 will do.
Apple and Google do this on their smart phones; Windows 8 is for a desktop computer.
They're going to market you to advertisers and sell their customer lists, if you ever get an app (don't do this!) they'll let the app makers know what similar apps you have purchased. Their goal is to out-google Google, and out-apple Apple. They know they're behind in the customer monetization game and are trying to leapfrog past the others. Windows is in a decline as the casual users are moving to phones and tablets so Microsoft is desperate here.
Just look at Windows 8, the whole thing from top to bottom that they marketed was purely about getting eyeballs to their useless store and getting users to sign up with Microsoft ID accounts. When beta users figured out how to bypass the Metro stuff and go straight to the usable desktop, the very next patch disabled this ability because their goal was to get everyone to that start screen where the monetization starts. Sure they fired the VP in charge of Windows after this, but are you really sure all the decision makers who pushed for that idea are really reformed?
Avoid the app store. I think it's utterly ridiculous that you need a third party account merely to use the free applications. It only does this because it wants people to have that account so that they can push their stupid store on users; once you have the account it thinks people will be hooked and start spending money on stuff, one-touch click to install useless junk, etc.
And of course once you have a linked Microsoft account, it can really go full bore on tracking what you run, what you buy, what you search for. All in the fictitious name of improved customer experience.
An update could add a new setting at any time, and fail to notify the user about the new option and the new undesirable default setting. Not hypothetical, there are applications that do this.
Good idea. Added unnecessary features should always be an opt-in choice. Also installing a third party anti-malware program, or third party search bar, or a third party browser, or any third party demo, should be opt-in only.
Another good improvement. If the user has ever unchecked "automatically install new updates" and instead checked "notify me about new updates", then the installer should remember that choice in the future.
Can you trust that they are being turned off? Microsoft does not have a good track record when it comes to telling the truth. Even after turning off those options it seems that Windows 10 is still transmitting a lot of data that appears to be telemetry. Even if this is purely benign data, it is not their network and it is not free so they should not transmit anything without the user's explicit permission.
Couple days of reading articles about Windows 10 that is, not to read the checkboxes. Only someone who trusts Microsoft would trust those checkboxes to do what they say.
It is a big deal. However some people have been brainwashed into not caring about privacy. "Oh, it's just for providing a better customer experience, I'm all for that!", or "I love advertising, especially when it's targeted!", or "I like things in the clouds, especially the bunny shaped ones", or "when has Microsoft ever been evil?"
This is believable. There's nothing in this that requires new fundamental operating system infrastructure. Except maybe Cortana but that's more of an application than an operating system component, and the first thing any thinking person would shut off or uninstall).
Is that 70Mbps being shared with every person on the plane? If so then it's like the old cable modems where the first customer thinks it is awesome but then 2 years later when others catch on complains about how slow it is.
Wi-fi on planes is fundamentally a stupid idea anyway. If you're over the ocean how in the hell are you supposed to get the same speeds you get from your home? And if you're over the ocean you should just frigging relax. Shut off the laptop and finally get some time to yourself instead of dancing for the boss. The world won't end if you don't read the email for a few hours. But then, these are probably the type A personalities who read business email at home.
I was in a packed theater, no empty seats, for some major movie (The Hobbit I think). One guy is still talking on his phone after the picture has started (really started, not ads, not previews, not opening titles). Everyone is shushing the guy and he's not really getting the hint. Then he finally when people start throwing popcorn at him he says "sorry, I gotta go, I'm watching a movie".
I can't imagine what goes wrong in that sort of person's head.
Similarly recent story at a Broadway theater when someone got upon stage before the play started and plugged his phone charger in. Hard to believe that someone with so much brain damage is still able to use a phone.
I have a friend who uses his phone during dinner at nice restaurants. He's fifty but hangs out with the young 'uns a lot and has picked up their habits. His excuse, I kid you not, is that he claims it is rude to not answer a text immediately. I explain that it's rude to use the phone at the dinner table, especially at a nice restaurant. But he will not budge. I personally think he just made up this rule as an excuse, or something that he picked up, and that no one ever told him it was rude to wait an hour before responding. Or he's just addicted, which is more likely.
(after all, what happens if you get a text while asleep, or you don't hear the chime, or the battery is dead, or...)
It's like Twitch, so yes. Sometimes those gaming videos are fun to watch for some unknown reason, and I find myself watching them. Some of it is a sneak peak, as in seeing if the game is worth $60 becuase you can never trust marketing or even word of mouth (because even your best friends will never have the same tastes you do). Some of it is watching someone screw up. Sometimes someone has a different strategy than you do and it's interesting. Or it's just funny (witness Felicia and Ryan Day playing games against each other). Generally the person playing the game needs to TALK, it can't just be game playing as that's boring. A game tournament (aka esports but without the idiocy of using the word "sports") would be terribly boring I think, but some of the speed runs I've seen are fun just from seeing the tricks and strictly-legal cheats being employed.
As far as the new youtube thing, it's overblown. Just another way to search for videos.
He doesn't need to know that technology. And by the time he learns it that knowledge will be outdated. He needs to do his job and the devs do theirs. If there's communication that's needed then the devs need to communicate with someone who doesn't understand silly details, in the same way that the accountant needs to communicate without reciting paragraph numbers of Sorbanes-Oxley.
They're not free. As in AT&T hotspots are not accessible to everyone who wanders by, but are only for paying AT&T customers. You log in using your existing account. So yes, as a customer I expect decent service for a product I pay for, not additional monetization. If it's unacceptable to sell my customer lists to advertisers then it's also unacceptable to inject side advertisements into a paid product.
And despite being a paid customer, I suspect some one being paid by advertisers is going to pop on here and accuse us of being cheap ass freeloaders by using adblock. Yet this is yet another perfect argument about why ad block is a necessary tool to fight against the tactics being used by immoral advertisers.
DirecTV used to be great. Even when I left them a year ago, they were much cheaper than ComCast and with much better service. The fee on the Tivo was a pain, and they did change it so that all new DVRs were leased instead of purchased outright. I did argue with them when cutting the cord that the Tivo box was mine and was purchased by me and that I would not send it back to them, and they backed down pretty quickly (I think there was some confusion from the original third-party installer).
Sleazy, yes, but not worse than what you get with cable companies or uverse, and over the lifetime it was a much better experience.
Slashdot Mirror
What good is such an editor? The "online" part makes it seem unusable, unless it's a scam to get people to use cloud services. If I edit a document then I will always want it local.
Ashley Madison had already made the mainstream news a bit before the hacking, because of its inherently scandalous nature. I think I first read about them on BBC (part of their periodic look into what are crazy Americans doing this week). They never intended to be a secretive dating company and were advertising widely. You don't get 30 million users by keeping a low profile.
Hope springs eternal. Guys stay on the sight hoping someone eventually bites. AM in return has fake accounts that respond occasionally keeping the hope alive. Eventually the men move on, but their accounts stick around to get included in the stats.
So you're saying there's a chance...
I can use my Mac and all of the applications that come with it without using an Apple ID at any time. I would need an Apple ID to get any of their thousands of pointless fluff from the store. However on Windows 8, you can not use the built in Mail app (the metro version) without having a Microsoft account. When installing/upgrading to a new OSX version it does not ask you to use or create an Apple ID, yet that is what Windows 8 and 10 will do.
Apple and Google do this on their smart phones; Windows 8 is for a desktop computer.
They're going to market you to advertisers and sell their customer lists, if you ever get an app (don't do this!) they'll let the app makers know what similar apps you have purchased. Their goal is to out-google Google, and out-apple Apple. They know they're behind in the customer monetization game and are trying to leapfrog past the others. Windows is in a decline as the casual users are moving to phones and tablets so Microsoft is desperate here.
Just look at Windows 8, the whole thing from top to bottom that they marketed was purely about getting eyeballs to their useless store and getting users to sign up with Microsoft ID accounts. When beta users figured out how to bypass the Metro stuff and go straight to the usable desktop, the very next patch disabled this ability because their goal was to get everyone to that start screen where the monetization starts. Sure they fired the VP in charge of Windows after this, but are you really sure all the decision makers who pushed for that idea are really reformed?
Because it used to be an operating system and had not yet turned into a smartphone wannabe.
Avoid the app store. I think it's utterly ridiculous that you need a third party account merely to use the free applications. It only does this because it wants people to have that account so that they can push their stupid store on users; once you have the account it thinks people will be hooked and start spending money on stuff, one-touch click to install useless junk, etc.
And of course once you have a linked Microsoft account, it can really go full bore on tracking what you run, what you buy, what you search for. All in the fictitious name of improved customer experience.
An update could add a new setting at any time, and fail to notify the user about the new option and the new undesirable default setting. Not hypothetical, there are applications that do this.
Good idea. Added unnecessary features should always be an opt-in choice. Also installing a third party anti-malware program, or third party search bar, or a third party browser, or any third party demo, should be opt-in only.
Another good improvement. If the user has ever unchecked "automatically install new updates" and instead checked "notify me about new updates", then the installer should remember that choice in the future.
Can you trust that they are being turned off? Microsoft does not have a good track record when it comes to telling the truth. Even after turning off those options it seems that Windows 10 is still transmitting a lot of data that appears to be telemetry. Even if this is purely benign data, it is not their network and it is not free so they should not transmit anything without the user's explicit permission.
Couple days of reading articles about Windows 10 that is, not to read the checkboxes. Only someone who trusts Microsoft would trust those checkboxes to do what they say.
It is a big deal. However some people have been brainwashed into not caring about privacy. "Oh, it's just for providing a better customer experience, I'm all for that!", or "I love advertising, especially when it's targeted!", or "I like things in the clouds, especially the bunny shaped ones", or "when has Microsoft ever been evil?"
I thought they were Geniuses(tm)?
This is believable. There's nothing in this that requires new fundamental operating system infrastructure. Except maybe Cortana but that's more of an application than an operating system component, and the first thing any thinking person would shut off or uninstall).
Is that 70Mbps being shared with every person on the plane? If so then it's like the old cable modems where the first customer thinks it is awesome but then 2 years later when others catch on complains about how slow it is.
Wi-fi on planes is fundamentally a stupid idea anyway. If you're over the ocean how in the hell are you supposed to get the same speeds you get from your home? And if you're over the ocean you should just frigging relax. Shut off the laptop and finally get some time to yourself instead of dancing for the boss. The world won't end if you don't read the email for a few hours. But then, these are probably the type A personalities who read business email at home.
Why the sudden compliment?
I was in a packed theater, no empty seats, for some major movie (The Hobbit I think). One guy is still talking on his phone after the picture has started (really started, not ads, not previews, not opening titles). Everyone is shushing the guy and he's not really getting the hint. Then he finally when people start throwing popcorn at him he says "sorry, I gotta go, I'm watching a movie".
I can't imagine what goes wrong in that sort of person's head.
Similarly recent story at a Broadway theater when someone got upon stage before the play started and plugged his phone charger in. Hard to believe that someone with so much brain damage is still able to use a phone.
I have a friend who uses his phone during dinner at nice restaurants. He's fifty but hangs out with the young 'uns a lot and has picked up their habits. His excuse, I kid you not, is that he claims it is rude to not answer a text immediately. I explain that it's rude to use the phone at the dinner table, especially at a nice restaurant. But he will not budge. I personally think he just made up this rule as an excuse, or something that he picked up, and that no one ever told him it was rude to wait an hour before responding. Or he's just addicted, which is more likely.
(after all, what happens if you get a text while asleep, or you don't hear the chime, or the battery is dead, or ...)
It's like Twitch, so yes. Sometimes those gaming videos are fun to watch for some unknown reason, and I find myself watching them. Some of it is a sneak peak, as in seeing if the game is worth $60 becuase you can never trust marketing or even word of mouth (because even your best friends will never have the same tastes you do). Some of it is watching someone screw up. Sometimes someone has a different strategy than you do and it's interesting. Or it's just funny (witness Felicia and Ryan Day playing games against each other). Generally the person playing the game needs to TALK, it can't just be game playing as that's boring. A game tournament (aka esports but without the idiocy of using the word "sports") would be terribly boring I think, but some of the speed runs I've seen are fun just from seeing the tricks and strictly-legal cheats being employed.
As far as the new youtube thing, it's overblown. Just another way to search for videos.
He doesn't need to know that technology. And by the time he learns it that knowledge will be outdated. He needs to do his job and the devs do theirs. If there's communication that's needed then the devs need to communicate with someone who doesn't understand silly details, in the same way that the accountant needs to communicate without reciting paragraph numbers of Sorbanes-Oxley.
The rule is, it's an abuse of the system if the other side does it, but it's a constitutional right if your side does it.
Except that it's not free. This service is for paying customers. Which makes this behavior even worse, actually.
They're not free. As in AT&T hotspots are not accessible to everyone who wanders by, but are only for paying AT&T customers. You log in using your existing account. So yes, as a customer I expect decent service for a product I pay for, not additional monetization. If it's unacceptable to sell my customer lists to advertisers then it's also unacceptable to inject side advertisements into a paid product.
And despite being a paid customer, I suspect some one being paid by advertisers is going to pop on here and accuse us of being cheap ass freeloaders by using adblock. Yet this is yet another perfect argument about why ad block is a necessary tool to fight against the tactics being used by immoral advertisers.
DirecTV used to be great. Even when I left them a year ago, they were much cheaper than ComCast and with much better service. The fee on the Tivo was a pain, and they did change it so that all new DVRs were leased instead of purchased outright. I did argue with them when cutting the cord that the Tivo box was mine and was purchased by me and that I would not send it back to them, and they backed down pretty quickly (I think there was some confusion from the original third-party installer).
Sleazy, yes, but not worse than what you get with cable companies or uverse, and over the lifetime it was a much better experience.