Those standards are largely a joke. They are actually worse than a joke because we tell people, "oh, you're all equal, no discrimination", then everyone knows it goes on anyway.
It is like trying to legislate morality, it doesn't work.
If a group of 20-30 year old white males are running a business, guess what? They'll largely hire 20-30 year old white males to work with them. They might hire some 20-30 year old white women to work there too, they smell nice and look nice.
Sounds horrible, doesn't it? Guess what? That is life and reality, and passing a law doesn't change that.
25 year olds look at a 55 year old and see their parents. They generally will not hire someone who reminds them of Mom and Dad. Note: They SHOULD because most 25 year olds have a lot to learn (I'm 40, I have kids, I know this now, but I didn't at 25 either).
White kids largely won't hire blacks either, at least not to work with.
Is that illegal? Yes. Does it still happen? Yes. Complaining about it won't change it.
Welcome to Earth and the human race.:) People like being around people who are like them, this is largely true everywhere on the planet.
You think they have driven 2 million miles on a "few square miles" of streets?
They could have stopped that a long time ago, they have gotten permits to drive them in several public places, and all the scanning and mapping in the world does nothing for dealing with human drivers around them.
What is so sad is that this is supposed to be a tech web site, and what we have is a bunch of people afraid of technology.
Perhaps but these vehicles are not being used on all terrain all road types yet are they ? How about a narrow European road with cars parked half on the pavement half on the road on both sides of the street>
Do they have to be 100% perfect in every single situation ever devised before we use them?
Consider for a minute that humans have the same issues, and aren't that good at it either.:)
I appreciate it's not a zero sum one-or-the-other game, but there are limited resources we've got,and while $10b may be a drop in the bucket and there is plenty of condemnable waste-- as a parent post notes, it does represent many thousands of lifetimes of american labor and value. So... we've got billions of people on this planet and immeasurable mysteries to be answered and places to be explored and problems to be solved here. I ask not as a bad-faith challenge but as an opportunity to explain to me... why send people to the moon so we can send people to mars so we can send people to (undiscovered?) less hostile places?
The short answer is this...
We have all our eggs in one basket, Earth. Should anything happen to Earth, either from stupid humans or a very large rock hitting us, our whole race could be doomed and thus all that we have done and all that we could be is pointless...
As far as software updates go, the vast majority of security vulnerabilities that get patched this way were avoidable with a realistic amount of effort.
True, but consider that we really just got the first really new leadership at Microsoft since... well, since forever...
With Balmer gone, we can finally have new thinking there.
Every time a big established provider tries to lock users in with this sort of hostile action, they create an opportunity for someone to disrupt their market.
While that is true, it will take something of unbelievable magnitude to shift the world off Windows. Linux has had 20 years to do it, it simply isn't going to happen. Macs cost too much, and there are no other reasonable choices.
Windows is going to be very hard to upstage, regardless of how good or bad it is.
We now know that a lot of people will tolerate a lot of messing around from technology anyway if there's something in it for them in return, particularly on-line, but usually only as long as they don't think they have a better alternative, and sometimes only as long as they don't fully understand what is really happening or can find a way to rationalise behaviour they aren't really happy with.
Consider that a very large percentage of users still think the monitor is "the computer"... the "cloud" is magic, and the Internet is a web browser.
The average person just wants things that work. Windows is very open and this has benefits, but many drawbacks. For all the limits of iPads and iPhones, Apple has sold tons of them because they "just work", and being locked down is one reason why.
Windows could use a bit more locking down, with perhaps options to open things up. The mistake was making everyone an "admin" from day one, instead of closing everything off and requiring permission to change. Vista was an attempt to change that, but given the legacy issues with Windows, it takes time.
In fairness, if you have users who will double-click an e-mail attachment called "Naked Mila Kunis.jpg.exe" without a second thought, there's not much Microsoft or anyone else can really do to help them short of installing a dramatically more robust security foundation in the OS
Name something fun that doesn't pollute the planet in one way or another? Unless you are sitting in a cold dark cave beating a rock against the wall for fun, you are polluting the planet.
Going for a walk on a beautiful day with my family... enjoying the fresh air and getting some exercise...
Huh? The worst polluters are the ones who drive oversized SUVs in the name of 'safety' - they're having no fun at all in their cars, I promise you.
And I promise you that you're wrong...:D
My truck is quite fun to drive and handles rather well. 2015 Yukon XL Denali 4x4, it is quite fun to drive.
OTOH a not-especially-polluting car can be an awful lot of fun to drive, eg. my MR2 gets about 30mpg and I don't drive it gently.
Yep, and while my truck doesn't get the MPG yours does, and it won't corner as well as you can, it actually does 0-60 MPH about as well as your MR2 does.
And it handles better than you'd think... Much better than the last model did, now that it has GM's magnetic ride control and a wider, lower body that is stiffer than last year's...
If you want to be taken seriously as an OS provider, you have to provide security updates for a reasonable period after someone installs your system, but everything else can and should be separate. They clearly can do it, because the Enterprise edition will.
Of course they can do it, but it might not be in their best interest to do so...
You say "to be taken seriously"... I would submit that > 90% desktop OS market is "serious", and that they are working to keep that, thus the free upgrade to 10.
In return for that free upgrade, they want a few things, like always on updates.
I do see the downsides, such as breaking things or removing functionality... but I get the upside... WAY too many people didn't update XP often enough and security on the web suffered for it...
MS is trying to solve that by keeping the majority of computers up-to-date. In return, they also want to push their software. That doesn't bother me, they are a commercial enterprise, that is what they do.
However, given that Microsoft aren't making any money directly on providing the updates, not even to Windows 10 itself, and their stated aim is to monetize the surrounding ecosystem in the future instead, they have every incentive to lock as many people as they can into this compulsory update cycle and then start using the mechanism to promote or outright install new software or services that do make them money at your expense. And you consented, remember?
Yep, that is the way of things going forward... it isn't likely to change either, I don't think...
Consider for a minute how many other devices update and you really have to do it... My PS3 and PS4 both require updating. Ok, ok, you don't HAVE to do it, but they stop working to some extent if you don't and new games won't run without updating. My iPhone and iPad need updating... Again, you don't HAVE to do it, but stuff stops working if you don't after awhile.
The list is long, keeping stuff updated is just the way things will be in our always online connected world.
Perhaps, but my point was that Pro doesn't require you install anything, you can remain completely plain launch vanilla if you want.
Now WHY you would want to, I don't know... that is as foolish as remaining on launch XP, and even those people still using XP are likely not doing that either...
To continue getting security updates to XP, you long ago had to be on at least SP2, so this isn't a "new thing" to Windows.
According to their tracking data on the cars near them, there was more than enough stopping distance for this particular case. Humans can get distracted.
Yep, that is why auto-emergency braking should be required equipment on all cars, just like seat belts and airbags.
Another cool commercial, titled "The Empty Car Convoy":
So many times I'm driving correctly and then some idiot pulls into the "safe" space that I had AND THEN HITS HIS BRAKES BECAUSE HE ALMOST HITS THE GUY IN FRONT!!!
That is true, I see it all the time...
It is further evidence that humans generally suck at driving.
And then there's this thing, reality. You might have heard of it. In reality, you just simply can't make allowances for everything that could possibly go wrong, or traffic density would fall to a point where it's hopelessly ineffective.
If the snow and ice and road conditions make the above true, then perhaps people should STAY HOME AND STOP DRIVING IN IT.
^ This is all true, which is why I now have a truck that has auto-emergency braking, a feature that should become required just like seat belts and airbags.
I'll once again link my favorite commercial on the subject:
My insurance premium is ã350/year. Cut it to zero and you're still going to struggle to cover the cost of the sensors, the software and the maintenance of the autonomous system.
Will that remain true when your premium rises to £3,500/year without those things?
A more attainable way to improve safety would be to allow people to continue to drive if they want to, but to add intelligent accident-avoidance software to the automobile so that when the person is driving, if the car notices he is about to cause a crash, it can step in and take the necessary actions to avoid or minimize the crash.
Let me fix this for you...
Your auto insurance deductible is $100 when the car is self-driving, but $1,000 when you're manually driving. If the car is self-driving and it causes a wreck, the auto manufacture is liable, if you're driving, then you are.
You don't have to ban people from driving, you just use carrots and sticks to make people want to stop driving.
It boils down to this: People are not good at driving.
^ This right here is the truth...
To those reading this: Oh, I know, I get it. You're great at driving, and insulted by any suggestion to the contrary. Your reflexes are great, and you're in control when you're on the road.
^ This is also the truth... people think they are much better than they really are...
When the self-driving cars can navigate the snow and obstacles of a Northeast winter, then I'll be impressed. Until then, the self-driving cars are little more than an expensive toy.
I keep seeing people say that, as if it isn't worth considering until it can do anything, all the time, everywhere, 100% perfectly.
Consider this... It already appears to be better than drivers in California... and there are enough drivers in California to be worth deploying this there to start replacing them... The technology will only improve...
I would love to hear a realistic response, which I believe is "military force". Please just be honest that this is what you really want.
Since you've made up your mind, why should I bother with a reply?
Invasion isn't required, if they want nukes, so be it... but they will be cut off from the rest of civilization for it. At some point, they'll decide they want contact with the rest of the world more than they want the nukes.
This is NOT a choice between a deal and invasion, there are other options. The world isn't so black and white.
Slashdot Mirror
Those standards are largely a joke. They are actually worse than a joke because we tell people, "oh, you're all equal, no discrimination", then everyone knows it goes on anyway.
It is like trying to legislate morality, it doesn't work.
If a group of 20-30 year old white males are running a business, guess what? They'll largely hire 20-30 year old white males to work with them. They might hire some 20-30 year old white women to work there too, they smell nice and look nice.
Sounds horrible, doesn't it? Guess what? That is life and reality, and passing a law doesn't change that.
25 year olds look at a 55 year old and see their parents. They generally will not hire someone who reminds them of Mom and Dad. Note: They SHOULD because most 25 year olds have a lot to learn (I'm 40, I have kids, I know this now, but I didn't at 25 either).
White kids largely won't hire blacks either, at least not to work with.
Is that illegal? Yes. Does it still happen? Yes. Complaining about it won't change it.
Welcome to Earth and the human race. :) People like being around people who are like them, this is largely true everywhere on the planet.
You think they have driven 2 million miles on a "few square miles" of streets?
They could have stopped that a long time ago, they have gotten permits to drive them in several public places, and all the scanning and mapping in the world does nothing for dealing with human drivers around them.
What is so sad is that this is supposed to be a tech web site, and what we have is a bunch of people afraid of technology.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but their cars have been driving on public streets for years now.
How else have they been hit 14 times? 11 of which they were rear ended by human drivers who weren't paying attention.
Perhaps but these vehicles are not being used on all terrain all road types yet are they ? How about a narrow European road with cars parked half on the pavement half on the road on both sides of the street>
Do they have to be 100% perfect in every single situation ever devised before we use them?
Consider for a minute that humans have the same issues, and aren't that good at it either. :)
Nope, they are driving on the public streets, not a controlled environment...
I appreciate it's not a zero sum one-or-the-other game, but there are limited resources we've got,and while $10b may be a drop in the bucket and there is plenty of condemnable waste-- as a parent post notes, it does represent many thousands of lifetimes of american labor and value. So... we've got billions of people on this planet and immeasurable mysteries to be answered and places to be explored and problems to be solved here. I ask not as a bad-faith challenge but as an opportunity to explain to me... why send people to the moon so we can send people to mars so we can send people to (undiscovered?) less hostile places?
The short answer is this...
We have all our eggs in one basket, Earth. Should anything happen to Earth, either from stupid humans or a very large rock hitting us, our whole race could be doomed and thus all that we have done and all that we could be is pointless...
It is spreading out the risk.
As far as software updates go, the vast majority of security vulnerabilities that get patched this way were avoidable with a realistic amount of effort.
True, but consider that we really just got the first really new leadership at Microsoft since... well, since forever...
With Balmer gone, we can finally have new thinking there.
Every time a big established provider tries to lock users in with this sort of hostile action, they create an opportunity for someone to disrupt their market.
While that is true, it will take something of unbelievable magnitude to shift the world off Windows. Linux has had 20 years to do it, it simply isn't going to happen. Macs cost too much, and there are no other reasonable choices.
Windows is going to be very hard to upstage, regardless of how good or bad it is.
We now know that a lot of people will tolerate a lot of messing around from technology anyway if there's something in it for them in return, particularly on-line, but usually only as long as they don't think they have a better alternative, and sometimes only as long as they don't fully understand what is really happening or can find a way to rationalise behaviour they aren't really happy with.
Consider that a very large percentage of users still think the monitor is "the computer"... the "cloud" is magic, and the Internet is a web browser.
The average person just wants things that work. Windows is very open and this has benefits, but many drawbacks. For all the limits of iPads and iPhones, Apple has sold tons of them because they "just work", and being locked down is one reason why.
Windows could use a bit more locking down, with perhaps options to open things up. The mistake was making everyone an "admin" from day one, instead of closing everything off and requiring permission to change. Vista was an attempt to change that, but given the legacy issues with Windows, it takes time.
In fairness, if you have users who will double-click an e-mail attachment called "Naked Mila Kunis.jpg.exe" without a second thought, there's not much Microsoft or anyone else can really do to help them short of installing a dramatically more robust security foundation in the OS
QFT!
The irony is that in 2 million miles of driving, Google's self-driving cars have yet to have this problem.
Perhaps it isn't really a problem?
Name something fun that doesn't pollute the planet in one way or another? Unless you are sitting in a cold dark cave beating a rock against the wall for fun, you are polluting the planet.
Going for a walk on a beautiful day with my family... enjoying the fresh air and getting some exercise...
Huh? The worst polluters are the ones who drive oversized SUVs in the name of 'safety' - they're having no fun at all in their cars, I promise you.
And I promise you that you're wrong... :D
My truck is quite fun to drive and handles rather well. 2015 Yukon XL Denali 4x4, it is quite fun to drive.
OTOH a not-especially-polluting car can be an awful lot of fun to drive, eg. my MR2 gets about 30mpg and I don't drive it gently.
Yep, and while my truck doesn't get the MPG yours does, and it won't corner as well as you can, it actually does 0-60 MPH about as well as your MR2 does.
And it handles better than you'd think... Much better than the last model did, now that it has GM's magnetic ride control and a wider, lower body that is stiffer than last year's...
If you want to be taken seriously as an OS provider, you have to provide security updates for a reasonable period after someone installs your system, but everything else can and should be separate. They clearly can do it, because the Enterprise edition will.
Of course they can do it, but it might not be in their best interest to do so...
You say "to be taken seriously"... I would submit that > 90% desktop OS market is "serious", and that they are working to keep that, thus the free upgrade to 10.
In return for that free upgrade, they want a few things, like always on updates.
I do see the downsides, such as breaking things or removing functionality... but I get the upside... WAY too many people didn't update XP often enough and security on the web suffered for it...
MS is trying to solve that by keeping the majority of computers up-to-date. In return, they also want to push their software. That doesn't bother me, they are a commercial enterprise, that is what they do.
However, given that Microsoft aren't making any money directly on providing the updates, not even to Windows 10 itself, and their stated aim is to monetize the surrounding ecosystem in the future instead, they have every incentive to lock as many people as they can into this compulsory update cycle and then start using the mechanism to promote or outright install new software or services that do make them money at your expense. And you consented, remember?
Yep, that is the way of things going forward... it isn't likely to change either, I don't think...
Consider for a minute how many other devices update and you really have to do it... My PS3 and PS4 both require updating. Ok, ok, you don't HAVE to do it, but they stop working to some extent if you don't and new games won't run without updating. My iPhone and iPad need updating... Again, you don't HAVE to do it, but stuff stops working if you don't after awhile.
The list is long, keeping stuff updated is just the way things will be in our always online connected world.
Perhaps, but my point was that Pro doesn't require you install anything, you can remain completely plain launch vanilla if you want.
Now WHY you would want to, I don't know... that is as foolish as remaining on launch XP, and even those people still using XP are likely not doing that either...
To continue getting security updates to XP, you long ago had to be on at least SP2, so this isn't a "new thing" to Windows.
The compulsory updates alone make Windows 10 a non-starter for me, even if I saw anything else that might make me want to upgrade. :-(
So get Windows 10 Pro, and then they aren't compulsory...
Fair enough... but the world will keep moving regardless... The future isn't in being disconnected, it is in being secure...
And why would your premium increase tenfold, simply because self driving cars become available?
If you don't understand the answer to that question, then you are living in your own little dream world.
Carry on then, have fun...
According to their tracking data on the cars near them, there was more than enough stopping distance for this particular case. Humans can get distracted.
Yep, that is why auto-emergency braking should be required equipment on all cars, just like seat belts and airbags.
Another cool commercial, titled "The Empty Car Convoy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So many times I'm driving correctly and then some idiot pulls into the "safe" space that I had AND THEN HITS HIS BRAKES BECAUSE HE ALMOST HITS THE GUY IN FRONT!!!
That is true, I see it all the time...
It is further evidence that humans generally suck at driving.
And then there's this thing, reality. You might have heard of it. In reality, you just simply can't make allowances for everything that could possibly go wrong, or traffic density would fall to a point where it's hopelessly ineffective.
If the snow and ice and road conditions make the above true, then perhaps people should STAY HOME AND STOP DRIVING IN IT.
Just saying...
^ This is all true, which is why I now have a truck that has auto-emergency braking, a feature that should become required just like seat belts and airbags.
I'll once again link my favorite commercial on the subject:
https://youtu.be/TKL_cn8vhjo
My insurance premium is ã350/year. Cut it to zero and you're still going to struggle to cover the cost of the sensors, the software and the maintenance of the autonomous system.
Will that remain true when your premium rises to £3,500/year without those things?
A more attainable way to improve safety would be to allow people to continue to drive if they want to, but to add intelligent accident-avoidance software to the automobile so that when the person is driving, if the car notices he is about to cause a crash, it can step in and take the necessary actions to avoid or minimize the crash.
Let me fix this for you...
Your auto insurance deductible is $100 when the car is self-driving, but $1,000 when you're manually driving. If the car is self-driving and it causes a wreck, the auto manufacture is liable, if you're driving, then you are.
You don't have to ban people from driving, you just use carrots and sticks to make people want to stop driving.
It boils down to this: People are not good at driving.
^ This right here is the truth...
To those reading this: Oh, I know, I get it. You're great at driving, and insulted by any suggestion to the contrary. Your reflexes are great, and you're in control when you're on the road.
^ This is also the truth... people think they are much better than they really are...
When the self-driving cars can navigate the snow and obstacles of a Northeast winter, then I'll be impressed. Until then, the self-driving cars are little more than an expensive toy.
I keep seeing people say that, as if it isn't worth considering until it can do anything, all the time, everywhere, 100% perfectly.
Consider this... It already appears to be better than drivers in California... and there are enough drivers in California to be worth deploying this there to start replacing them... The technology will only improve...
I would love to hear a realistic response, which I believe is "military force". Please just be honest that this is what you really want.
Since you've made up your mind, why should I bother with a reply?
Invasion isn't required, if they want nukes, so be it... but they will be cut off from the rest of civilization for it. At some point, they'll decide they want contact with the rest of the world more than they want the nukes.
This is NOT a choice between a deal and invasion, there are other options. The world isn't so black and white.