If this was anyone but Microsoft, that may well be right.
But this IS Microsoft, and they have been doing their absolute damnedest to shove Win10 down everyone's throat in every conceivable way possible.
Further, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from releasing any necessary updates to support the newest processors, assuming updates are even necessary. They've done this plenty of times in the past. Windows XP was supported for, what? 15 years? No CPU problems there. Windows 7 has been around for 8 years, and up till now there hasn't been any issues with processor updates. There have been a whole lot of new CPUs released over the past 20 years, and yet suddenly NOW it's a problem? I don't think so.
I don't understand how this is isn't class-action suit worthy. Microsoft has explicitly declared that they refuse to honour the contract that they would support Windows 7 until 2020.
For our latest model, we've done a great deal of market research and have learned that people don't actually use iPhones for anything. They just like walking around with the device in the hands, with the Apple logo clearly visible for strangers to see and thus validate the owners status as a hip and modern individual.
As such, our newest model has no electronics or accessible ports of any kind. It is an ultra-thin slab of brushed aluminium with an attractive glass inlay. In the process, we've managed to increase battery life to infinite levels, so you never have to worry about your device failing on you just as your sitting down at your local starbucks to show off your superiority while you enjoy your vente soy triple-whip Kopi Luwak latte with cinnamon.
--Apple
(Before any apple fanatics have an aneurism, I have an iPhone myself. The above is just a joke. Relax. Breathe.)
The sick days part may be a red herring depending on how they're handled in the company. If you have a company where fucks arn't given either way, and an employee has no incentive to *not* call in sick, then that's not going to mean much. What an employee does at home isn't the company's concern (unless you do something so profoundly embarrassing that their reputation is threatened just by association).
The real question is... What about overall productivity? It's clearly more expensive because, at least as far as shiftwork goes, you need to hire additional people to cover the gap. If the cost of hiring those additional people is greater the money saved by the less sick days, you may have happier employees but you've incurred additional cost burden that will be hard for the purse-string holders to swallow.
If you have a typical office job that doesn't do shifts, then you still need to demonstrate that people are overall more productive with a 6 hour day than an 8. Whether that's through reduced vacation time, or increased output, it still ultimately becomes a purse-string issue, which is basically what happened with this particular study.
At least in the short term, the costs of the reduced hours outweighed the benefits, and as long as overall health is externalized (ie: the company doesn't incur a direct cost if the employee is less healthy than they otherwise could be), it's hard to justify the change.
This is the kind of thing that either needs to be legislated (if there is political will to do so), or some other factor needs to come into play, such as insurance companies dropping premiums because of reduced claims. Or maybe make up the productivity fall by less vacation time because people don't find it so necessary to get away from it all and unwind.
Here is yet another example of why engaging the public on things, simply isn't worth the effort.
With the exception of places like Slashdot, where moderation is *also* handled by people at large, I can't think of a single example where public engagement has been a good thing.
The average person simply cannot be trusted with the dual power of anonymity and a public audience. This has been demonstrated time and again on countless comment boards, blogs, etc. It's to the point where this sort of thing isn't even news anymore unless it happens on a massive scale like what happened with IMDB.
And heaven forbid you try to moderate, cause then it turns into a giant game of whackamole where the moderators eventually throw their hands up in the air from the sheer volume. The only way that I've personally seen so far to combat this, is to also hand comment moderation to the public as well, because there are typically more decent folk than there are assholes.
It's not perfect, as it's still prone to things like groupthink or tyranny of the majority. But slashdot, for example, has outlived most other public forums so to me that says public moderation is generally beneficial.
Yes, and iphones cost a hell of a lot more than a phone from Dollar-Zone's House of Cheap Stuff.
The parent's point is that China *can* make good stuff. The problem is that the avg importer doesn't *want* the good stuff. They want the cheap stuff so that they can pad their margins as much as possible, and because the average consumer typically cares more about price than quality.
Yet. Exactly. And that powerful position is exactly why things like Net Neutrality are necessary. It's not a matter of "if" they abuse their position, but "when". You know they will fuck over literally every single person they possibly can. It's just a matter of time, and how quickly they build up their hubris.
Early mobile phone providers are a great example. They literally nickle and dimed you for every conceivable thing. For every service you wanted to access. Now, they still try to, but it just doesn't seem as bad because almost everything people use is over the internet that the provider is unable to control. Removing Net Neutrality will return you to exactly the state we were in before.
You want to use twitter? Sure, just go through our portal that conveniently charges you 5 cents per post written or read. It *will* happen, because it's been done before, and the ISPs will have no incentive to *not* do that. (Oh? You want to change ISPs? Too bad! We sued all the other players in your area to the point where we are the only option!)
Do you use facebook? It would sure be a shame if suddenly you had to pay a $10/month premium to access it.
Want to watch Netflix without waiting 60 minutes for the show to buffer? That'll be another $20/month please.
Want to use Google? That's an extra 50 cents per search, paid to your ISP.
If you are unable to see how incredibly anti-consumer this move is, and how badly it will directly hurt *everyone* except ISP shareholders, then you are not qualified to have an opinion. If you really think that this is nothing more than some political game of playing favorites, then you are an idiot. Now go sit down and let the adults talk.
I say they should go ahead and get rid of net neutrality. This will, by definition mean that the various ISPs are actively curating their services, and therefor are responsible if anything bad happens (DOS attacks, viruses, etc) because they are now responsible for the traffic going through their networks.
You don't get to take control of something and then wave away any responsibility. You want control? They you have to take the responsibility too. Don't want the responsibility? Then don't take control.
This is precisely what also pisses me off about Windows 10. Microsoft has taken control away from the operating system, but they refuse to also take responsibility. The end result is that Windows 10 is quickly becoming the most despised Windows in history.
Unfortunately most people don't have a choice in ISPs, so what options do people have, besides lawsuits?
Now that you mention it, yes, I am quitting facebook. It's easier to not have an account than risk getting pulled over and throw into a US jail just cause the border guard doesn't like the cat videos I posted.
But to your main point... I don't advertise it unless it's actually relevant to the discussion. Such as when someone asks me "Have you seen this so and so new TV show?"
I don't, however, SJW Vegan about it. I can't speak for the original poster, but I see nothing wrong with them declaring that they don't watch TV. I'm more curious as to why it bothers you so much. I would have forgotten within seconds that I had even read the original comment because it provides nothing of value to me. It was actually your comment that caught my interest and induced me to reply.
You mean, apart from saving $1000+ a year, and not willingly subjecting ourselves to IQ squandering nonsense (ie: the typical news), and lowest-common-denominator sitcoms, leaving time free to do more useful things?
You know very well that getting direct evidence that MS is "selling data off to the highest bidder" is virtually impossible unless you are very deep within Microsoft, so *of course* no one will be able to respond to that demand.
It's like having a creationist demand evidence that "If evolution was real, explain how a monkey turns into a man". It just doesn't work that way.
However, Microsoft has a VERY long, and VERY extensive history of fucking people over in order to get what it wants. (And no, I won't bother listing any, because this is a broken record that has revolved so many times that the grooves have practically worn through the vinyl.) . Just by looking at Microsoft's history, you would have to be shockingly naive to believe Microsoft *didn't* have an ulterior motive for all this data collection, because Microsoft doesn't do *anything* without an ulterior motive.
For a while, it seemed as if Microsoft was turning a new leaf, but now we see they were simply pivoting.
Let's be realistic here. People with degrees cost more. It's as simple as that. Not only that, they're going to be older and so be more likely to be advancing to the next stages of their lives (ie: family, etc).
The younger you can get em, the less you can pay them and the more you can abuse them. It's not as good as H1Bs, but it's a great Plan B, and to the ignorant who can't extrapolate their end game, the companies even get some publicity points.
I can't wait to see the looks on the 25 year olds when 18-20 year olds start declaring that the 25-ers are "too old" to be in the business. I'd laugh if it didn't have my palm covering my face.
Not even that. We're getting it because Microsoft believes that they can get away with it. If it was just for troubleshooting, they wouldn't need half the information they're collecting.
I honestly don't know what people do with their power adapters to make them fray. I have 3 of them for spares, but I have yet to have a problem with a single one. I'm still using the original power supply I got with my MBP in 2011.
I personally *hate* the switch to USB-C, because having the magsafe jack pop out has saved me on more than one occasion. And yes, I know I can buy replacements like that doohicky griffin puts out, but it really bothers me that I even have to resort to such a measure when they had a fantastic power port design already.
Is it just me or does this whole diatribe just ooze "pathetic marketing maneuver"?
It's one thing to admit that things are getting more challenging cause the low-hanging fruit is gone and Intel's having to put more time and effort into their manufacturing, but for the love of Pete, redefining Moore's Law is just lame.
I really wish Apple had a tightly held patent on their reality distortion field cause now everyone else is trying to use it and it's just... cringeworthy.
Why would someone run a Microsoft web server vs. Nginx on OpenBSD?
Off the top of my head: -Dependency on a microsoft technology from that era, eg ActiveX -The application it runs was made by a consulting company and cannot be upgraded/replaced with something else without undo cost -Because the administrator was/is a Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert who doesn't know anything about this linux stuff -There is no administrator at all and the server is basically some dust-collecting artifact somewhere, running forever until the hardware fails.
Slashdot Mirror
If this was anyone but Microsoft, that may well be right.
But this IS Microsoft, and they have been doing their absolute damnedest to shove Win10 down everyone's throat in every conceivable way possible.
Further, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from releasing any necessary updates to support the newest processors, assuming updates are even necessary. They've done this plenty of times in the past. Windows XP was supported for, what? 15 years? No CPU problems there. Windows 7 has been around for 8 years, and up till now there hasn't been any issues with processor updates. There have been a whole lot of new CPUs released over the past 20 years, and yet suddenly NOW it's a problem? I don't think so.
I don't understand how this is isn't class-action suit worthy. Microsoft has explicitly declared that they refuse to honour the contract that they would support Windows 7 until 2020.
For our latest model, we've done a great deal of market research and have learned that people don't actually use iPhones for anything. They just like walking around with the device in the hands, with the Apple logo clearly visible for strangers to see and thus validate the owners status as a hip and modern individual.
As such, our newest model has no electronics or accessible ports of any kind. It is an ultra-thin slab of brushed aluminium with an attractive glass inlay. In the process, we've managed to increase battery life to infinite levels, so you never have to worry about your device failing on you just as your sitting down at your local starbucks to show off your superiority while you enjoy your vente soy triple-whip Kopi Luwak latte with cinnamon.
--Apple
(Before any apple fanatics have an aneurism, I have an iPhone myself. The above is just a joke. Relax. Breathe.)
The sick days part may be a red herring depending on how they're handled in the company. If you have a company where fucks arn't given either way, and an employee has no incentive to *not* call in sick, then that's not going to mean much. What an employee does at home isn't the company's concern (unless you do something so profoundly embarrassing that their reputation is threatened just by association).
The real question is... What about overall productivity? It's clearly more expensive because, at least as far as shiftwork goes, you need to hire additional people to cover the gap. If the cost of hiring those additional people is greater the money saved by the less sick days, you may have happier employees but you've incurred additional cost burden that will be hard for the purse-string holders to swallow.
If you have a typical office job that doesn't do shifts, then you still need to demonstrate that people are overall more productive with a 6 hour day than an 8. Whether that's through reduced vacation time, or increased output, it still ultimately becomes a purse-string issue, which is basically what happened with this particular study.
At least in the short term, the costs of the reduced hours outweighed the benefits, and as long as overall health is externalized (ie: the company doesn't incur a direct cost if the employee is less healthy than they otherwise could be), it's hard to justify the change.
This is the kind of thing that either needs to be legislated (if there is political will to do so), or some other factor needs to come into play, such as insurance companies dropping premiums because of reduced claims. Or maybe make up the productivity fall by less vacation time because people don't find it so necessary to get away from it all and unwind.
Here is yet another example of why engaging the public on things, simply isn't worth the effort.
With the exception of places like Slashdot, where moderation is *also* handled by people at large, I can't think of a single example where public engagement has been a good thing.
The average person simply cannot be trusted with the dual power of anonymity and a public audience. This has been demonstrated time and again on countless comment boards, blogs, etc. It's to the point where this sort of thing isn't even news anymore unless it happens on a massive scale like what happened with IMDB.
And heaven forbid you try to moderate, cause then it turns into a giant game of whackamole where the moderators eventually throw their hands up in the air from the sheer volume. The only way that I've personally seen so far to combat this, is to also hand comment moderation to the public as well, because there are typically more decent folk than there are assholes.
It's not perfect, as it's still prone to things like groupthink or tyranny of the majority. But slashdot, for example, has outlived most other public forums so to me that says public moderation is generally beneficial.
Ah! Apologies. I didn't read it that way.
Yes, and iphones cost a hell of a lot more than a phone from Dollar-Zone's House of Cheap Stuff.
The parent's point is that China *can* make good stuff. The problem is that the avg importer doesn't *want* the good stuff. They want the cheap stuff so that they can pad their margins as much as possible, and because the average consumer typically cares more about price than quality.
Very excellent points. I'd mod you up if I could.
I was trying to be optimistic. :P . (LOL yeah yeah I know...)
Yet. Exactly. And that powerful position is exactly why things like Net Neutrality are necessary. It's not a matter of "if" they abuse their position, but "when". You know they will fuck over literally every single person they possibly can. It's just a matter of time, and how quickly they build up their hubris.
Early mobile phone providers are a great example. They literally nickle and dimed you for every conceivable thing. For every service you wanted to access. Now, they still try to, but it just doesn't seem as bad because almost everything people use is over the internet that the provider is unable to control. Removing Net Neutrality will return you to exactly the state we were in before.
You want to use twitter? Sure, just go through our portal that conveniently charges you 5 cents per post written or read. It *will* happen, because it's been done before, and the ISPs will have no incentive to *not* do that. (Oh? You want to change ISPs? Too bad! We sued all the other players in your area to the point where we are the only option!)
Do you use facebook? It would sure be a shame if suddenly you had to pay a $10/month premium to access it.
Want to watch Netflix without waiting 60 minutes for the show to buffer? That'll be another $20/month please.
Want to use Google? That's an extra 50 cents per search, paid to your ISP.
If you are unable to see how incredibly anti-consumer this move is, and how badly it will directly hurt *everyone* except ISP shareholders, then you are not qualified to have an opinion. If you really think that this is nothing more than some political game of playing favorites, then you are an idiot. Now go sit down and let the adults talk.
I say they should go ahead and get rid of net neutrality. This will, by definition mean that the various ISPs are actively curating their services, and therefor are responsible if anything bad happens (DOS attacks, viruses, etc) because they are now responsible for the traffic going through their networks.
You don't get to take control of something and then wave away any responsibility. You want control? They you have to take the responsibility too. Don't want the responsibility? Then don't take control.
This is precisely what also pisses me off about Windows 10. Microsoft has taken control away from the operating system, but they refuse to also take responsibility. The end result is that Windows 10 is quickly becoming the most despised Windows in history.
Unfortunately most people don't have a choice in ISPs, so what options do people have, besides lawsuits?
Now that you mention it, yes, I am quitting facebook. It's easier to not have an account than risk getting pulled over and throw into a US jail just cause the border guard doesn't like the cat videos I posted.
But to your main point... I don't advertise it unless it's actually relevant to the discussion. Such as when someone asks me "Have you seen this so and so new TV show?"
I don't, however, SJW Vegan about it. I can't speak for the original poster, but I see nothing wrong with them declaring that they don't watch TV. I'm more curious as to why it bothers you so much. I would have forgotten within seconds that I had even read the original comment because it provides nothing of value to me. It was actually your comment that caught my interest and induced me to reply.
I'm guessing they meant "hyperbole" and their computer/device tried to be "helpful".
You mean, apart from saving $1000+ a year, and not willingly subjecting ourselves to IQ squandering nonsense (ie: the typical news), and lowest-common-denominator sitcoms, leaving time free to do more useful things?
Even Its Creators Can't Explain How It Works
So they run AIs on Windows, now?
*cough* Windows *cough*
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets...
You know very well that getting direct evidence that MS is "selling data off to the highest bidder" is virtually impossible unless you are very deep within Microsoft, so *of course* no one will be able to respond to that demand.
It's like having a creationist demand evidence that "If evolution was real, explain how a monkey turns into a man". It just doesn't work that way.
However, Microsoft has a VERY long, and VERY extensive history of fucking people over in order to get what it wants. (And no, I won't bother listing any, because this is a broken record that has revolved so many times that the grooves have practically worn through the vinyl.) . Just by looking at Microsoft's history, you would have to be shockingly naive to believe Microsoft *didn't* have an ulterior motive for all this data collection, because Microsoft doesn't do *anything* without an ulterior motive.
For a while, it seemed as if Microsoft was turning a new leaf, but now we see they were simply pivoting.
Blah blah homogenity issues blah blah
Let's be realistic here. People with degrees cost more. It's as simple as that. Not only that, they're going to be older and so be more likely to be advancing to the next stages of their lives (ie: family, etc).
The younger you can get em, the less you can pay them and the more you can abuse them. It's not as good as H1Bs, but it's a great Plan B, and to the ignorant who can't extrapolate their end game, the companies even get some publicity points.
I can't wait to see the looks on the 25 year olds when 18-20 year olds start declaring that the 25-ers are "too old" to be in the business. I'd laugh if it didn't have my palm covering my face.
Not even that. We're getting it because Microsoft believes that they can get away with it. If it was just for troubleshooting, they wouldn't need half the information they're collecting.
I honestly don't know what people do with their power adapters to make them fray. I have 3 of them for spares, but I have yet to have a problem with a single one. I'm still using the original power supply I got with my MBP in 2011.
I personally *hate* the switch to USB-C, because having the magsafe jack pop out has saved me on more than one occasion. And yes, I know I can buy replacements like that doohicky griffin puts out, but it really bothers me that I even have to resort to such a measure when they had a fantastic power port design already.
Is it just me or does this whole diatribe just ooze "pathetic marketing maneuver"?
It's one thing to admit that things are getting more challenging cause the low-hanging fruit is gone and Intel's having to put more time and effort into their manufacturing, but for the love of Pete, redefining Moore's Law is just lame.
I really wish Apple had a tightly held patent on their reality distortion field cause now everyone else is trying to use it and it's just... cringeworthy.
Why would someone run a Microsoft web server vs. Nginx on OpenBSD?
Off the top of my head:
-Dependency on a microsoft technology from that era, eg ActiveX
-The application it runs was made by a consulting company and cannot be upgraded/replaced with something else without undo cost
-Because the administrator was/is a Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert who doesn't know anything about this linux stuff
-There is no administrator at all and the server is basically some dust-collecting artifact somewhere, running forever until the hardware fails.
So basically if you want to prevent anyone from being able to view a public document, all you have to do is doodle a penis in the margin?
Why? Because there arn't already enough low quality garbage apps on the store?