I am skeptical that is the reason they would want to avoid it.
As a long-time Linux user, that's 99.9999% of the reason I avoid using it.
Perhaps you missed the preface immediately before the text that you quoted:
Unless one is using those platforms....
But more to the point:
PS - Thinking about it a little more, another negative on Edge is it's not open source.
Given the known benefits of open source, an argument could be made that's actually a good reason too.
Anyways, My objection to the so-called mindless hate that was springing forth was not because I thought it was not deserved, but because I had *EXPLICITLY* said that outside of any preconceptions about Microsoft as a company, regardless of how strongly one felt that a negative predisposition was justified, I was wondering if people had any remaining objectively valid reasons to not use Edge.
Some have now been given... that's fine. Bear in mind only that these reasons were not necessarily obvious, and that was why I was objecting to all of the hate-on against Microsoft in response to my question.
Yes, actually... that is actually a very good reason to avoid it on those platforms. Although unless one is using those platforms, I am skeptical that is the reason they would want to avoid it.
There very well could be other technical reasons that Edge is inferior to other browsers, but I find it interesting that many people are too focused on hating on Microsoft to even pay attention to even try and figure out what those reasons might be. My objection is against the lack of objectivity that such comments have, not that I think that people are necessarily wrong to want to avoid Edge if they don't trust Microsoft in the first place.
The bill can be paid off, eventually.... again, fixable with time and effort. Waiting around for someone who's passed on to come back to life isn't going to work out so well, and so it is considered less reversible.
Your comment addresses Microsoft, IE, and MS's past behavior.... but does not even *attempt* to address any inadequacies that one might find with Edge. It's fair to avoid someone or something if they've been untrustworthy in the past, but that was not the point of my question. I was asking what's wrong with Edge, specifically, that makes it objectively inferior to alternatives... and nobody who has responded to me, including yourself, has done that... everyone is too busy spending their comment ranting or railing on MS. However deserved those remarks might be perceived to be, they do not address the question I asked, and I honestly don't know why people keep ignoring it.
A person who is rich and successful and wanting to kill themselves is probably suffering from clinical depression rather than situational depression. Situational depression is actually much more common, and can manifest in having thoughts of suicide just as clinical depression might. The difference between them is that when the circumstances about which the person is depressed improve, or once they have had a chance to psychologically adapt to whatever life change caused them to become depressed in the first place, the desire to kill oneself also goes away. It needs to be taken no less seriously because it is just as possible for them to act on it as a clinically depressed person would.
So I explicitly ask for the issue of how untrustworthy Microsoft might be perceived to be to the issue of not wanting to use Edge and all you give are reasons that are based only on the company and its history, not Edge itself.
You even go so far as to suggest that my remarks about having such predisposition are probably good enough to have such a bias should be discounted as non-sequitur while showing that to be exactly the reason that you are so inclined.
If you use one web browser and it's good enough, that's fine... but the question posed was "why would we want it?" The point of my question was to ascertain if there was anything actually technically inferior about Edge itself (not Microsoft or its history) that would suggest it actually should be avoided, and your comments do not do that.
To be sure, It is a point of interest that there has never been any petition serving the public interest that I have ever signed which has resulted in any action being taken in favor of what I was signing the petition for. In general, if something requires a petition to stop, the decision has actually already been made, and you can't change it.
>
What are the problems with Edge, exactly other than issues that one might have with the maker of it?
Not that I'm suggesting that's not a good enough reason for someone who is negatively predisposed towards Microsoft to be opposed to its use, but I'm wondering if there are actual qualitatively measurable factors involved, or if this perspective only arises on account of a subjective bias against the company
How do they know where to send it if it's a plate from another jurisdiction? I'm pretty sure that cars from Canada, for instance, are getting a free pass because the provinces sure as heck aren't giving the US any info on their drivers so they know where to send the bill. Heck, the provinces don't even give info on their drivers to other provinces unless there is a criminal investigation that is being conducted under federal jurisdiction. Toll bridges in BC, for example, can be crossed by anyone outside of BC for no cost, and the residents of that province have to subsidize such usage.
I wasn't getting at the cost of mailing, I was talking about the administrative costs associated with identifying who owns the out-of-state plate in the first place.
Unless states have standing agreements with eachother to share access to eachother's databases, of course.
But then what about plates on cars from not just out of state, but out of country?
That's what I was getting at... it's not typically feasible to send the bills to every foreign jurisdiction, so visitors always get a free pass, and the local users effectively subsidize them. The post to which I responded did not leave any room for exemption for out-of-state plates, however, which is why I challenged the point.
I had a 110bps acoustic coupler in high school too. Man, those were the days.
I remember when I got a 300baud modem to replace, which had an autodialer built in so that I didn't need to use a regular phone handset anymore. That was awesome.
Hayes Micromodem.... for the Apple ][+. The autodialer didn't support tone dialing, but it was still a lot nicer than having to dial the BBS manually.
Leaving aside the speciousness of the issue that only criminals might want to use such a sophisticated encryption, this is entirely independent of whether or not law abiding citizens have any justified use for unbreakable encryption that the other parties may be able to detect (but not decrypt), because obviously they do. My point is only that preventing unbreakable encryption is inherently impossible to be actually enforceable in cases where such encryption may be truly desired by the end users.
And, as you say, passing laws which outlaw unbreakable encryption puts law-abiding citizens at risk from their private information being obtained by nefarious parties, but worse, it does absolutely *NOTHING* to actually stop or help catch the criminals who are intent on actually breaking the law. This results in a net increase in the amount of work that law enforcement needs to do in order to mitigate harm to law-abiding citizens in this way, and more than likely represents a net decrease in the overall efficacy of law enforcement as the criminals they might have otherwise been hoping to catch continue to remain uncaught before they commit serious crimes, causing often completely irreparable harm.
That's my point... the app would actively discourage people from constantly staring at the screen while walking. It would do nothing to stop people from playing while driving (because it cannot reasonably tell the difference between a passenger who should be allowed to play and driver who should not), but it's still better than nothing.
Suicidally depressed people are convinced there is no way things can possibly get better, so even if you suggest a plausible better alternative it is immediately dismissed because the person is feeling so miserable and emotion robs reason.
Absolutely true... but my point is only that they would generally still prefer to live a life in better circumstances than to actually die, and genuinely unusual for someone to simply wish themselves to be dead as a preference to simply having a better life circumstance, however impossible it might be for them to imagine.
And given that, it is possible, although not necessarily certain, that a person who is suicidal and therefore generally just wants an improvement to their circumstance, but in absence of any hope that such a thing can be achieved, seek to end their existence as they currently experience it can be helped... that possibly, with such help, they can get past whatever has brought them to that point, and find a life that is actually worth living for.
As it was mentioned before, the people who do really want to kill themselves don't bother to tell anybody about it.. But as I said, this is not typical for people with seriously suicidal thoughts, which can often take several weeks or months to escalate to that point, and there are often outward indications that could be visible to people that are in that person's social circle and life if they knew what to look for.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a war could well last until the end of time.
Yeah, I know what he meant.
The ones "that matter" is what is subjective.
Perhaps you missed the preface immediately before the text that you quoted:
But more to the point:
Given the known benefits of open source, an argument could be made that's actually a good reason too.
Anyways, My objection to the so-called mindless hate that was springing forth was not because I thought it was not deserved, but because I had *EXPLICITLY* said that outside of any preconceptions about Microsoft as a company, regardless of how strongly one felt that a negative predisposition was justified, I was wondering if people had any remaining objectively valid reasons to not use Edge.
Some have now been given... that's fine. Bear in mind only that these reasons were not necessarily obvious, and that was why I was objecting to all of the hate-on against Microsoft in response to my question.
Now really.... was that so hard?
Yes, actually... that is actually a very good reason to avoid it on those platforms. Although unless one is using those platforms, I am skeptical that is the reason they would want to avoid it.
There very well could be other technical reasons that Edge is inferior to other browsers, but I find it interesting that many people are too focused on hating on Microsoft to even pay attention to even try and figure out what those reasons might be. My objection is against the lack of objectivity that such comments have, not that I think that people are necessarily wrong to want to avoid Edge if they don't trust Microsoft in the first place.
The bill can be paid off, eventually.... again, fixable with time and effort. Waiting around for someone who's passed on to come back to life isn't going to work out so well, and so it is considered less reversible.
Your comment addresses Microsoft, IE, and MS's past behavior.... but does not even *attempt* to address any inadequacies that one might find with Edge. It's fair to avoid someone or something if they've been untrustworthy in the past, but that was not the point of my question. I was asking what's wrong with Edge, specifically, that makes it objectively inferior to alternatives... and nobody who has responded to me, including yourself, has done that... everyone is too busy spending their comment ranting or railing on MS. However deserved those remarks might be perceived to be, they do not address the question I asked, and I honestly don't know why people keep ignoring it.
He will die eventually anyways, regardless of their efforts.... so from that standpoint, their decision to resuscitate him is reversible.
You can do that now anyways, with Unicode: U+1F4A9
A person who is rich and successful and wanting to kill themselves is probably suffering from clinical depression rather than situational depression. Situational depression is actually much more common, and can manifest in having thoughts of suicide just as clinical depression might. The difference between them is that when the circumstances about which the person is depressed improve, or once they have had a chance to psychologically adapt to whatever life change caused them to become depressed in the first place, the desire to kill oneself also goes away. It needs to be taken no less seriously because it is just as possible for them to act on it as a clinically depressed person would.
So I explicitly ask for the issue of how untrustworthy Microsoft might be perceived to be to the issue of not wanting to use Edge and all you give are reasons that are based only on the company and its history, not Edge itself.
You even go so far as to suggest that my remarks about having such predisposition are probably good enough to have such a bias should be discounted as non-sequitur while showing that to be exactly the reason that you are so inclined.
If you use one web browser and it's good enough, that's fine... but the question posed was "why would we want it?" The point of my question was to ascertain if there was anything actually technically inferior about Edge itself (not Microsoft or its history) that would suggest it actually should be avoided, and your comments do not do that.
To be sure, It is a point of interest that there has never been any petition serving the public interest that I have ever signed which has resulted in any action being taken in favor of what I was signing the petition for. In general, if something requires a petition to stop, the decision has actually already been made, and you can't change it.
For subjective definitiions of "all devices", I suppose.
Where I work, all the developer workstations are Unix-based desktops (usually Linux, but some FreeBSD).
> What are the problems with Edge, exactly other than issues that one might have with the maker of it?
Not that I'm suggesting that's not a good enough reason for someone who is negatively predisposed towards Microsoft to be opposed to its use, but I'm wondering if there are actual qualitatively measurable factors involved, or if this perspective only arises on account of a subjective bias against the company
Yeah, but how do they know where to send the picture to?
How do they know where to send it if it's a plate from another jurisdiction? I'm pretty sure that cars from Canada, for instance, are getting a free pass because the provinces sure as heck aren't giving the US any info on their drivers so they know where to send the bill. Heck, the provinces don't even give info on their drivers to other provinces unless there is a criminal investigation that is being conducted under federal jurisdiction. Toll bridges in BC, for example, can be crossed by anyone outside of BC for no cost, and the residents of that province have to subsidize such usage.
I wasn't getting at the cost of mailing, I was talking about the administrative costs associated with identifying who owns the out-of-state plate in the first place.
Unless states have standing agreements with eachother to share access to eachother's databases, of course.
But then what about plates on cars from not just out of state, but out of country?
That's what I was getting at... it's not typically feasible to send the bills to every foreign jurisdiction, so visitors always get a free pass, and the local users effectively subsidize them. The post to which I responded did not leave any room for exemption for out-of-state plates, however, which is why I challenged the point.
Er... why? Do they have police waiting at all the borders for any car that didn't pay its toll, ready to pull it over?
I had a 110bps acoustic coupler in high school too. Man, those were the days.
I remember when I got a 300baud modem to replace, which had an autodialer built in so that I didn't need to use a regular phone handset anymore. That was awesome.
Hayes Micromodem.... for the Apple ][+. The autodialer didn't support tone dialing, but it was still a lot nicer than having to dial the BBS manually.
Can you explain how they fine people if they are just visiting, and their license plate is from an area outside of the jurisdiction of the state?
Except if they are replacing windows with tabs, shouldn't they start calling Microsoft Tabs?
Which would probably run afoul of Samsung's trademarks... but I'm just sayin'...
Leaving aside the speciousness of the issue that only criminals might want to use such a sophisticated encryption, this is entirely independent of whether or not law abiding citizens have any justified use for unbreakable encryption that the other parties may be able to detect (but not decrypt), because obviously they do. My point is only that preventing unbreakable encryption is inherently impossible to be actually enforceable in cases where such encryption may be truly desired by the end users.
And, as you say, passing laws which outlaw unbreakable encryption puts law-abiding citizens at risk from their private information being obtained by nefarious parties, but worse, it does absolutely *NOTHING* to actually stop or help catch the criminals who are intent on actually breaking the law. This results in a net increase in the amount of work that law enforcement needs to do in order to mitigate harm to law-abiding citizens in this way, and more than likely represents a net decrease in the overall efficacy of law enforcement as the criminals they might have otherwise been hoping to catch continue to remain uncaught before they commit serious crimes, causing often completely irreparable harm.
That's my point... the app would actively discourage people from constantly staring at the screen while walking. It would do nothing to stop people from playing while driving (because it cannot reasonably tell the difference between a passenger who should be allowed to play and driver who should not), but it's still better than nothing.
Absolutely true... but my point is only that they would generally still prefer to live a life in better circumstances than to actually die, and genuinely unusual for someone to simply wish themselves to be dead as a preference to simply having a better life circumstance, however impossible it might be for them to imagine.
And given that, it is possible, although not necessarily certain, that a person who is suicidal and therefore generally just wants an improvement to their circumstance, but in absence of any hope that such a thing can be achieved, seek to end their existence as they currently experience it can be helped... that possibly, with such help, they can get past whatever has brought them to that point, and find a life that is actually worth living for.
As it was mentioned before, the people who do really want to kill themselves don't bother to tell anybody about it.. But as I said, this is not typical for people with seriously suicidal thoughts, which can often take several weeks or months to escalate to that point, and there are often outward indications that could be visible to people that are in that person's social circle and life if they knew what to look for.