Why? Microsoft added the "telemetry" to Windows 7. Eventually, Windows 7 will not be supported and you will have to move to another OS and, unless you start now, you won't have an alternative other than moving to Windows 10.
Even though it has the telemetry, not getting updates is a major plus, because the computer will work the next time you boot. I can switch over whenever needed. Even now, for time critical work when I have to have it I use either My Mac or my Linux machines.
But is it not a hoot that the worst malware for Windows 10 is Windows 10?
This lawsuit sounds like a bad joke. No channel has right to force a provide to carry their channel. Don't even see how this even got past hearing stage. Why would a tv provider carry a channel if it isn't a channel people want? Its like forcing you to buy a car with features you don't want but they make you pay for them anyway.
Yeah, sorta. The problem is that Singer of Charter made it very clear that their refusal to carry ESN was based on skin pigmentation. Some folks gotta come to the realization that it isn't 1860 any more.
And the airwaves are the property of the American people. That is what rules the matter. Yes, they auction portions off as a sort of rental, but there are rules that have to be obeyed. A cell phone provider is not allowed to refuse to provide service based on skin pigmentation either.
Even so, the concept of blocking the Weather Channel because the owner of it's network, sounds like to sort of move that could piss off the stockholders - even the ones with lighter skin pigmentation.
In the context of an article about a ruling by a Yank court, "First Amendment" means what the Yanks think it means.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well, there it is. We are not allowed to declare an official religion, and we aren't allowed to make it illegal to practice a religion. note: it does not exempt religions from the law in other circumstances, as in Catholic priests are not allowed to claim that engaging in sex with little boys is a exercising their religion
Congress is not allowed to create laws making it illegal to express yourself. note: the famous exemption of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater simply means that an individual who expressly desires to cause harm from panicking others is not protected.
The press portion is obvious,
Peaceable assembly is an interesting one. There is some controversy regarding permits and protest areas being set up, and of course some have problems with curfews in times of emergency. The "peaceable" part of that segment is probably where the interpretation lies.
Finally, expressing grievances to the government is a really interesting issue that is going on now. At the helm is a man who attacks those who do not agree with him. While not yet crossing that line, there have been some intimations that he is considering taking on the first amendment.
The problem is that a cable provider can't run EVERY available producer due to bandwidth limitations. At some point, a decision has to be made.
You are correct, they can't carry everything.
And sometimes there might be "reasons". But Singer from Charter produced the evidence of exactly why Charter was shutting out ESN.
Skin pigmentation.
And trying to justify his obsession with blocking channels based on skin pigmentation is a bit silly at best.
But really - one does eventually wonder at the intelligence of these tools, and why it seems to tilt so far to one side. I'm reminded of John Schnatter's inane personal ongoing destruction of his company by injection of his personal politics.
If Singer wants to express his hatred of people with the darker forms of skin pigmentation, perhaps he can make a cable channel devoted to that. He has the right to do that. It would probably be a bad move for the bottom line though,
tl;dr - if you are in the business of selling people stuff, you shouldn't try to restrict your customers by their politics.
Seems so simple, and if fair, Google should be out of business very quickly.
It's a great idea. First we need to start by regulating Google to make competition possible.
Google ia a company based in the evil USA. We are constantly haraunged about how inferior we are compared to Europeans. Next up, it would seem that our betters would easily be able to put Google right out of business.
The first thing is to use the EU's willingness to have a lot of Government intervention, provide a superior search experience, and subsidize the bejabbers out of a search engine and shopping experience. When Google cannot compete with the Government subsidized prices, they will either adapt, or die.
The trick is to use your willingness for Government control for th ebenefit of Europeans, rather than just try to tax the "Murricans.
Seriously - there is a metric shit ton more money to be made by running the business instead of just parasitizing it. Use your power of government control.
Things seem to be getting worse all over, unless you're really good at what you do. Businesses are in a race to the bottom, the idea of companies respecting workers seems to have gone away, along with the idea of sharing some of the profits.
The future doesn't look too bright, my parents did better then me, even without any education and my son is likely to do worst then me, even with more education.
This is the upcoming employment crisis, which is closely related to the issue at hand.
Reduced to basics, the automation is coming, like it or not
But the disruption will be incredible, and not just the obvious one of people on the lower end of the food chain becoming unemployable.
Automation will work it's way up the food chain, creating more unemployables in it's wake.
And the profits will soar..... hold on. Who's going to buy the cheaply created stuff? Every job eliminated is one less consumer. Ya gotta sell stuff to make money. And as corporatism runs the show, there will be a big tax monies problem.
The short version is that there will be an odd shift, where most of humanity is now completely redundant. Worthless to the corporatists and their government because they cannot sell the things they might have once, and it would a take a real suspension of disbelief to think that a possible 75 percent unemployment/unemployable rate can be sustained via Government handouts.
And no, pointing out the industrial revolution and claiming that there will always be new jobs created doesn't fly. The present trend is different. The present trend's specific purpose is to eliminate human jobs. If more human work is created than eliminated, the trend has failed it's purpose.
So this is coming. But in true human form, we're going to just let it happen, then react. I fear that we're going to clear up the surplus population the old fashioned way, and that isn't going to be pretty.
Care to comment on what happens when people are on strike about bad working conditions with a company that is going the robotic route?
The same thing that happens if they don't strike, the company replaces its workers with robots as quick as possible.
Right. Somewhere in the bowels of this thread, I noted how the New York City Dockworkers successfully kept automation away from the Docks there. They won.
The result - New docks were built in places like New Jersey. Other than cruis ship pickup and discharge, there is pretty much nothing left. Time moves on.
One way or the other, those warehouse jobs are going to go away - probably faster if the employees whine too much about it.
Now I'm no European citizen, and maybe they think differently, but if Amazon working conditions were way out of line - I'd do my best to get a job elsewhere. Seems the logical approach when the job is going away, either way.
Look - I understand gambling, and I think those who do it regularly are idiots. But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.
If there was a way in game to spend money to literally kill other players would you be okay with that? I'm asking seriously
Okay, I will answer you seriously. There is something wrong with you. Equating my belief that a child shouldn't have access to spending money for a "loot box" with me believing that murder is ever excusable or equivalent is so abysmally stupid that I can easily judge that you cannot think rationally.
As such, the smartest thing you did today was to post as an anonymous coward, because otherwise I'd remember to give you the ridicule you deserve.
Company automates. Use of robots starts being taxed to hell and back, at an appropriate rate to alleviate the social costs of such. Or maybe, just maybe, regulations are passed to shut this company out of the EU market...
So once Amazon is shut out of the EU market, who exactly is punished? Tax it and the costs will be paid by the EU citizens. A cost benefit analysis that shows it is unprofitable, it hardly matters - I suppose in some world, that means you win.
Otherwise yeah, I agree you can't just ban everything that's potentially addicting. However you do forget to address the fact drugs are banned, and alcohol is regulated, and that's fine...
Is there anyone here familiar with the game? Do you have to use a credit card to register the game so that a 5 year old can buy stuff?
Entropy increases.. And yeah, it is inevitable that governments get worse.. When has a government ever gotten better on its own? (short of revolution or war)
Is there a Kinder Surprise Toy Ministry in the US?
I forget whether it's the Food and Drug Administration, but the USA bans Kinder Surprise because food and toy are enclosed together, posing a choking hazard. It allows Kinder Joy because the food and toy are separately sealed.
Do people in Europe understand the difference between choking and expiring on a plastic toy inside food, and children who apparently are allowed to use mommy and daddy's credit card to buy stuff?
If the child who we are so worried about developing a gambling addiction doesn't have the means to buy the loot boxes, then the problem does not exist, does it?
Or do European parents not supervise their chidren's use of computers? Just hand them the credit card, and expect that everything is someone elses fault?
You fail to acknowledge that to go into a casino you need to be 18 or 21 to gamble. This is targeting kids when their brains havenâ(TM)t even developed enough(or mature enough) to recognize the risks. Just like Cigarettes, you canâ(TM)t sell them to children. And giving games to children that have gambeling with real money should be treated as such with the same penalties.
How exactly does a child have the money to gamble with? Or do children in Europe have their own credit cards?
if you think people who do it regularly are idiots. Gambling takes advantage of several well known psychological quirks of the human mind to manipulate already vulnerable people.
Once upon a time, I was a smoker. 3 plus packs a day. I was as addicted as you get. I was an idiot. I realized the expense and the health hazard. So I quit.
This isn't nannying. It's recognizing a vulnerable minority and taking steps to protect them. You might just as well say consumer proatection laws are nannying.
Except consumer protection laws are not nannying.They are ensuring quality ans safety. Enough with the slippery sloping me into being an anarchist.
One thing that the USA can speak with authority on is exactly what happens when you ban things. What that thing is, the creation of a very lucrative source of money for organized crime. Prohibition of alcohol empowered Organized crime to heights that never would have happened otherwise. Gambling as well. And lest we forget, there is a quote, attributed to William F Buckley, the famed conservative intellectual IIRC that went:
Marijuana laws have destroyed many more lives than marijuana ever did.
So despite your claims in your subject line, You might be surprised to learn that a person who is prone to gambling addiction, because of genetics, is going to develop that addiction no matter if you ban lootboxes, make all gambling illegal, start a US style armed war on Gambling, and send people to prison.
Look at European vs US incarceration rates. Who's the free world again?
Most of Amazon's products are also made in China, one of the least "free" countries. Tax and ban away!
Triggered ya, did I. I knew that would upsetsome people.
Care to comment on what happens when people are on strike about bad working conditions with a company that is going the robotic route?
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. If an operating system breaks any userland program, it's always the operating system which should be blamed.
Tell that to Apple.
Only on Slashdot could the trainwreck that is Windows 10 have a response blaming Apple.
Tell that to Microsoft, they'll feel much better now that they realize it isn't their fault.
Why? Microsoft added the "telemetry" to Windows 7. Eventually, Windows 7 will not be supported and you will have to move to another OS and, unless you start now, you won't have an alternative other than moving to Windows 10.
Even though it has the telemetry, not getting updates is a major plus, because the computer will work the next time you boot. I can switch over whenever needed. Even now, for time critical work when I have to have it I use either My Mac or my Linux machines.
But is it not a hoot that the worst malware for Windows 10 is Windows 10?
And inferior at understanding economics and business.
So edumacate me. Seems a little odd we are so inferior about business and economics
And you don't seem to understand the difference between Socialism and the EU.
Explain why the extent of your business acumen appears limited to taxing and fines.
What exactly have you created lately? because it appears that you function much much better as a parasite. A superior parasite that is.
Or use Yandex. Tell the Russians how they have to run things. They will no doubt do your bidding.
This lawsuit sounds like a bad joke. No channel has right to force a provide to carry their channel. Don't even see how this even got past hearing stage. Why would a tv provider carry a channel if it isn't a channel people want? Its like forcing you to buy a car with features you don't want but they make you pay for them anyway.
Yeah, sorta. The problem is that Singer of Charter made it very clear that their refusal to carry ESN was based on skin pigmentation. Some folks gotta come to the realization that it isn't 1860 any more.
And the airwaves are the property of the American people. That is what rules the matter. Yes, they auction portions off as a sort of rental, but there are rules that have to be obeyed. A cell phone provider is not allowed to refuse to provide service based on skin pigmentation either.
Even so, the concept of blocking the Weather Channel because the owner of it's network, sounds like to sort of move that could piss off the stockholders - even the ones with lighter skin pigmentation.
In the context of an article about a ruling by a Yank court, "First Amendment" means what the Yanks think it means.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well, there it is. We are not allowed to declare an official religion, and we aren't allowed to make it illegal to practice a religion. note: it does not exempt religions from the law in other circumstances, as in Catholic priests are not allowed to claim that engaging in sex with little boys is a exercising their religion
Congress is not allowed to create laws making it illegal to express yourself. note: the famous exemption of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater simply means that an individual who expressly desires to cause harm from panicking others is not protected.
The press portion is obvious,
Peaceable assembly is an interesting one. There is some controversy regarding permits and protest areas being set up, and of course some have problems with curfews in times of emergency. The "peaceable" part of that segment is probably where the interpretation lies.
Finally, expressing grievances to the government is a really interesting issue that is going on now. At the helm is a man who attacks those who do not agree with him. While not yet crossing that line, there have been some intimations that he is considering taking on the first amendment.
The problem is that a cable provider can't run EVERY available producer due to bandwidth limitations. At some point, a decision has to be made.
You are correct, they can't carry everything.
And sometimes there might be "reasons". But Singer from Charter produced the evidence of exactly why Charter was shutting out ESN.
Skin pigmentation.
And trying to justify his obsession with blocking channels based on skin pigmentation is a bit silly at best.
But really - one does eventually wonder at the intelligence of these tools, and why it seems to tilt so far to one side. I'm reminded of John Schnatter's inane personal ongoing destruction of his company by injection of his personal politics.
If Singer wants to express his hatred of people with the darker forms of skin pigmentation, perhaps he can make a cable channel devoted to that. He has the right to do that. It would probably be a bad move for the bottom line though, tl;dr - if you are in the business of selling people stuff, you shouldn't try to restrict your customers by their politics.
I wish the court would rule that journalists and pundits must stop weaponizing the word "weaponize."
Weaponization has been weaponized.
Joking aside, this case has nothing to do with weaponized anything.
Yeah, good try at attempting to spin this as you not being a hypocrite. F++ for failure.
You still have my sympathy, poor fella. Now get out there and be a human spell checker.
Seems so simple, and if fair, Google should be out of business very quickly.
It's a great idea. First we need to start by regulating Google to make competition possible.
Google ia a company based in the evil USA. We are constantly haraunged about how inferior we are compared to Europeans. Next up, it would seem that our betters would easily be able to put Google right out of business.
The first thing is to use the EU's willingness to have a lot of Government intervention, provide a superior search experience, and subsidize the bejabbers out of a search engine and shopping experience. When Google cannot compete with the Government subsidized prices, they will either adapt, or die.
The trick is to use your willingness for Government control for th ebenefit of Europeans, rather than just try to tax the "Murricans.
Seriously - there is a metric shit ton more money to be made by running the business instead of just parasitizing it. Use your power of government control.
Other than cruis ship pickup and discharge,
Me flunk English? That's unpossible!
#YouFuckingHypocrite
BeeHowled, teh Rayer sspewellin; nazzsti!
My sympathies on the state of your life, that you find a purpose in scanning posts for someone who makes a typo. Carry on, soljuh.
Things seem to be getting worse all over, unless you're really good at what you do. Businesses are in a race to the bottom, the idea of companies respecting workers seems to have gone away, along with the idea of sharing some of the profits. The future doesn't look too bright, my parents did better then me, even without any education and my son is likely to do worst then me, even with more education.
This is the upcoming employment crisis, which is closely related to the issue at hand.
Reduced to basics, the automation is coming, like it or not
But the disruption will be incredible, and not just the obvious one of people on the lower end of the food chain becoming unemployable.
Automation will work it's way up the food chain, creating more unemployables in it's wake.
And the profits will soar..... hold on. Who's going to buy the cheaply created stuff? Every job eliminated is one less consumer. Ya gotta sell stuff to make money. And as corporatism runs the show, there will be a big tax monies problem.
The short version is that there will be an odd shift, where most of humanity is now completely redundant. Worthless to the corporatists and their government because they cannot sell the things they might have once, and it would a take a real suspension of disbelief to think that a possible 75 percent unemployment/unemployable rate can be sustained via Government handouts.
And no, pointing out the industrial revolution and claiming that there will always be new jobs created doesn't fly. The present trend is different. The present trend's specific purpose is to eliminate human jobs. If more human work is created than eliminated, the trend has failed it's purpose.
So this is coming. But in true human form, we're going to just let it happen, then react. I fear that we're going to clear up the surplus population the old fashioned way, and that isn't going to be pretty.
Care to comment on what happens when people are on strike about bad working conditions with a company that is going the robotic route?
The same thing that happens if they don't strike, the company replaces its workers with robots as quick as possible.
Right. Somewhere in the bowels of this thread, I noted how the New York City Dockworkers successfully kept automation away from the Docks there. They won.
The result - New docks were built in places like New Jersey. Other than cruis ship pickup and discharge, there is pretty much nothing left. Time moves on.
One way or the other, those warehouse jobs are going to go away - probably faster if the employees whine too much about it.
Now I'm no European citizen, and maybe they think differently, but if Amazon working conditions were way out of line - I'd do my best to get a job elsewhere. Seems the logical approach when the job is going away, either way.
Amazon is punished. Access to businesses and goods made and distributed at the expense of working human beings is NOT a human right.
Nope sure isn't. You would think that the Good people of Europe would simply not buy from them, since Europe appears to not want them.
If there was a way in game to spend money to literally kill other players would you be okay with that? I'm asking seriously
Okay, I will answer you seriously. There is something wrong with you. Equating my belief that a child shouldn't have access to spending money for a "loot box" with me believing that murder is ever excusable or equivalent is so abysmally stupid that I can easily judge that you cannot think rationally.
As such, the smartest thing you did today was to post as an anonymous coward, because otherwise I'd remember to give you the ridicule you deserve.
Company automates. Use of robots starts being taxed to hell and back, at an appropriate rate to alleviate the social costs of such. Or maybe, just maybe, regulations are passed to shut this company out of the EU market...
So once Amazon is shut out of the EU market, who exactly is punished? Tax it and the costs will be paid by the EU citizens. A cost benefit analysis that shows it is unprofitable, it hardly matters - I suppose in some world, that means you win.
Otherwise yeah, I agree you can't just ban everything that's potentially addicting. However you do forget to address the fact drugs are banned, and alcohol is regulated, and that's fine...
Is there anyone here familiar with the game? Do you have to use a credit card to register the game so that a 5 year old can buy stuff?
Their voters won't notice.
That is pretty much spot on.
Entropy increases.. And yeah, it is inevitable that governments get worse.. When has a government ever gotten better on its own? (short of revolution or war)
You are not wrong
Is there a Kinder Surprise Toy Ministry in the US?
I forget whether it's the Food and Drug Administration, but the USA bans Kinder Surprise because food and toy are enclosed together, posing a choking hazard. It allows Kinder Joy because the food and toy are separately sealed.
Do people in Europe understand the difference between choking and expiring on a plastic toy inside food, and children who apparently are allowed to use mommy and daddy's credit card to buy stuff?
If the child who we are so worried about developing a gambling addiction doesn't have the means to buy the loot boxes, then the problem does not exist, does it?
Or do European parents not supervise their chidren's use of computers? Just hand them the credit card, and expect that everything is someone elses fault?
Did you have it with France cheese or Germany sausage?
Me flunk English? That's unpossible!
You fail to acknowledge that to go into a casino you need to be 18 or 21 to gamble. This is targeting kids when their brains havenâ(TM)t even developed enough(or mature enough) to recognize the risks. Just like Cigarettes, you canâ(TM)t sell them to children. And giving games to children that have gambeling with real money should be treated as such with the same penalties.
How exactly does a child have the money to gamble with? Or do children in Europe have their own credit cards?
if you think people who do it regularly are idiots. Gambling takes advantage of several well known psychological quirks of the human mind to manipulate already vulnerable people.
Once upon a time, I was a smoker. 3 plus packs a day. I was as addicted as you get. I was an idiot. I realized the expense and the health hazard. So I quit.
This isn't nannying. It's recognizing a vulnerable minority and taking steps to protect them. You might just as well say consumer proatection laws are nannying.
Except consumer protection laws are not nannying.They are ensuring quality ans safety. Enough with the slippery sloping me into being an anarchist.
One thing that the USA can speak with authority on is exactly what happens when you ban things. What that thing is, the creation of a very lucrative source of money for organized crime. Prohibition of alcohol empowered Organized crime to heights that never would have happened otherwise. Gambling as well. And lest we forget, there is a quote, attributed to William F Buckley, the famed conservative intellectual IIRC that went:
Marijuana laws have destroyed many more lives than marijuana ever did.
So despite your claims in your subject line, You might be surprised to learn that a person who is prone to gambling addiction, because of genetics, is going to develop that addiction no matter if you ban lootboxes, make all gambling illegal, start a US style armed war on Gambling, and send people to prison.
Like this?
By golly, it is!
Look at European vs US incarceration rates. Who's the free world again? Most of Amazon's products are also made in China, one of the least "free" countries. Tax and ban away!
Triggered ya, did I. I knew that would upsetsome people.
Care to comment on what happens when people are on strike about bad working conditions with a company that is going the robotic route?
But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.
hey, where did you get your psychology degree, asshole?
I Don't recall saying I was, intensely angry person.