That is the speaker's fault. He had updates scheduled and when he shut his machine down, he left it in a state of "partly updated" so that it finished updating when it was turned on.
It also sounds like he has a REALLY crappy laptop with a slow HDD, which he shouldn't if he is a "really important speaker".
Frankly, the speaker was unprepared. This is not Windows' fault, this is his.
Considering how much Microsoft is hell-bent on alienating their users with Win10, and considering what you've just described, where will the desktop computer market go from here?
Windows... you may think the issues are huge, but outside a handful of uber pissed of people, I find that most people either don't care, or aren't even aware of it.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm simply saying that it is number 417 on their give a crap list and it just doesn't register on their radar.
Ofc we can not avoid AGW... it is happening since 30 years already, but we can limit it.
Good luck with that... How is that "hope and change" working out for you?
Seriously, that is what you sound like. When it comes to the rubber hitting the road (and the money having to be spent), you're kidding yourself. Those of us who have worked hard for our money have no interest in giving half of it to those who have not.
Clearly we shouldn't be burning so much CO2, but we are and that won't change within our lifetime. There are lots of things I'd like to see happen in our world, but wanting them doesn't make them happen.
1. You can return it at no charge within 30 days to Amazon if the specific unit you buy has any of those issues.
2. People with problems complain, people without problems use the product.
Like I said, I own 5 of those monitors, they all work perfectly as far as I can tell. My wife has one on her desk and I have two machines at the office that have 2 each on them and they are lovely to use.
I can tell the uniformity and color accuracy is not as good as the Dell 30" professional monitors, but I wasn't expecting it to be. The color gamut isn't as good and the back light isn't as good.
But it is "good enough", considering they cost less and have more space/higher resolution.
At the time I bought those panels (in November/December) they were $750 on Amazon. At that price, you'd be nuts to not buy them. Today they are $900, less of a "good deal", but still a decent one.
If you see the price drop back to $800 or so, try one, you might be surprised.
Or don't, and wait another year or so for another generation of panels to come out, they'll likely just keep getting better.
That is a 55" unit for $900, far less than the cost of the unit you bought. It appears to be a slightly lower quality and 120 refresh rate instead of 240, but that would be fine for me.
At $900, it costs the same as a 32" Acer 4k computer monitor, making it an interesting option.
My 30" panels have 4 million pixels on them. My 32" panels have 8 million pixels on them. The 32" panels have sharper text because they have double the number of pixels to work with.
The pixel density and sharpness is a nice improvement over the 30" panels, it is a clear and obvious improvement. It is worth noting the 30" panels and 32" panels are actually about the same size, since the 32" panels are 16:9 and the 30" panels are 16:10.
The 30" panels are also better screens, in terms of color balance and such, since they are professional monitors. Even today they cost more than the 32" 4k screens do, but I've had them for awhile, since before the 4k was an option. Both screens are IPS.
Since you bought up 5k at 27", you must be an Apple user. I'm not convinced at 32" I'll ever need more than 4k, I can no longer see the pixels like I can on the 30" screens at 2560x1600. At 27" it strikes me as overkill to even have 4k, but maybe that is my 40+ year old eyes. My son has 27" screens at 16:9 2560x1440 and frankly I find it hard to see the pixels on those. They are noticeably smaller than the 32" screens and I can't imagine even wanting 4k at that size.
They are beautiful monitors. Not perfect color and I wouldn't suggest them if 100% color accuracy is your goal, but for general business use, they are just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. My home machine runs a trio of Dell 30" 1600p monitors, and while they are nice for gaming, I can tell the difference between a 30" 1600p monitor and a 32" 4k monitor when it comes to text in Windows. Almost all "jaggies" are gone at 4k, the text is the closest I've ever seen a monitor to get to "paper" look. The 30" 1600p monitors still show "jaggies" in Windows text.
Now for gaming, they aren't quite there yet. Between the slower response time of IPS and the inability to get decent GPU performance, 4k is a rough experience. I tried several games and I found that while they are beautiful, the limit is the GPU power.
I did try only a single GPU (GTX 980 TI), I imagine a dual SLI GPU configuration would be better, but I didn't have a second 980 TI to try that out with. 8k will be awhile in terms of gaming, if due to lack of GPU power if anything else.
---
TL;DR - 120hz should be the new standard, it will reduce eyestrain and open up options for gaming and movies that don't exist at 60hz, while the HDR improvements will also be wonderful. I'm not convinced that 8k will show up any time soon or even be needed, but time will tell on that one.
Now some people are guilty of circumstance. I heard about one where a drunk couldn't get his keycard to work at a hotel, walked down stairs. Told the hire staff the wrong room number. They gave him a new card for the wrong room and he climbed into bed with whom he thought was his SO and instead was a little girl.
I wouldn't blame the drunk, I'd blame the hotel...
Your logical error is thinking that killing some brown people helps. It won't. The industrial nations would still put to much CO2 into the air.
Sure it will, you just don't want it to be true... Their increasing output is a serious problem and it has to be stopped. Nothing the EU and USA do will make any difference if the bottom 3.5 billion people in the world join the 20th Century and start emitting serious levels of CO2.
You simply seem not to grasp that the majourity of CO2 is produced by what is USA, EU and a few other industrialized nations.
You are mistaken, you might try looking up the numbers... The EU is about 10%, the USA is about 15% of the world's CO2 output. So between both you have 25% of the world's CO2 output. China is another 25%, and the rest of the world is the other 50%.
You could cut the USA and EU to zero, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, the rest of the world will increase their output over the next 25 years by more than our current total output. What we do means nothing, the real threat is the developing nations.
---
You are a perfect example of the problem with AGW, you think that somehow if the USA and EU just installs enough solar panels, all will be well with the world. What you fail to understand is that you could snap your fingers and the EU and USA could vanish tomorrow, and it would have only a minor impact on CO2 levels over the next 50 years.
We are not the problem, the developing world is. The USA and EU could probably cut their CO2 output by 50% by 2100 if they really pushed hard for it, but why bother when the developing nations will just replace it and more?
AGW is here to stay, we simply will have to accept the new world and the changes that come with it, because avoiding it will be impossible short of some type of event that kills 75% of the world's population.
I happy pay my tax money for stuff that is useful for mankind.
That is true as well. The challenge is that we often have a single set of tax laws that don't take our own specific desires into account. So I lobby our elected representatives to not do this and you lobby them to do this.
The result of which shows up in a dysfunctional Washington where nothing seems to be happening.
After all "Who is responsible to to do the difficult stuff?" ?? Those who can!!
Perhaps, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Be careful what you wish for.
I have posted before that one of our problems is that we have too many people in the world. A lot of AGW could be solved if we got the world's population back down to 2 billion or so. Of course, since I don't want that to be MY people, it needs to be, as you put it, a whole lot of brown people.
You would call it racist, but it really isn't (you used the term brown people first after all). It is just natural selection at work. The West ended up on the top of the food chain and invented almost everything of the past few hundred years, so we won that battle. The Chinese are fine, they can stay (at a greatly reduced number), but most of the people living near the equator or south of it need to go.
You would call the above horrible, and maybe it is. But it is another way to skin the cat. In all your chest thumping to "solve AGW", you likely aren't stopping to consider that there are ways to solve it that you would not be happy with. The above is one example.
That may end up being true... Remind me what a Tesla costs again?
How many Ford Fusions can you buy for that money?
If the Tesla was a $30K car and had that range, wonderful.
---
Side note: My understanding is that most people aren't actually getting 300 miles from a Model S. Even if it is 200 miles, the numbers are still fine of course, just a note.
I've taken a few multi thousand mile trips in my Tesla at a total cost of $4 for electricity. Are you telling me that this was all a dream and the thousands of worldwide Supercharger stations don't exist?
It will be wonderful if it all comes true some day, but for now it is an expensive dream...
A car that doesn't make money, being sold for crazy high luxury prices, being recharged on "free" superchargers that future cars won't get for "free", yea, it is a dream for now...
Where I worked it was a bit over the top in some respects such as how the front door was secured.
If it was secured properly, then it was not possible for anything short of a small army to walk in.
I continue to be amazed at the fancy electronic security that is used in many businesses, yet you could just walk right in the front door if you physically wanted to and all they could really do is call the police (assuming you didn't prevent that from the start).
If you honestly have anything worth so much that electronic security of the level you described is required, then you also need physical security. And I don't mean the rent-a-cop that is moonlighting from the mall, I mean you need trained armed guards in body armor with radios and a secure control center that they can communicate with.
All the air-gap in the world won't help if 5 armed men can walk in the door and simply shoot everyone and take what they like.
---
Note: The above is expensive to do correctly, which is why it is so rarely done. But if you need real security, it has to be both electronic and physical.
Given my age, sex, skin color, country of birth, etc., I really have little to personally fear from the US government, since they're not that terribly more dangerous than terrorists to me.
And this is where it falls apart. This is where you're wrong.
You actually DO have more to fear from your government than from terrorists. You just don't know it.
THAT is why this is such a big deal. You don't know what you don't know, you don't see the threat in front of you, instead you fear "terrorists" as today's boogieman rather than what you should be fearing which is a strong overbearing federal government.
Stop taking resources from those nations, stop destabilizing their governments, stop using them, stop polluting their air and water, and you can stop caring about them.
You don't get to decide when I can stop caring about them. They need to take care of themselves at some point.
Just like people upriver can stop worrying about those downriver when they stop pissing in the river.
The people upriver may well not worry about the people downriver in the first place.
You may not like it, but you won't get the people upriver to care just by telling them they should, because YOU said so.
So, which point is it that I don't get because I don't want to?
That a system with a backdoor isn't secure, was never secure, and can never be secure.
If I want to, for whatever reason, encrypt my information from everyone because... "reasons", then I need a secure system with no back door.
If the government can override my encryption with a court order, then why bother with encryption?
---
Let me put this another way. If this is allowed to stand, then there is no difference between this and the government requiring Apple to change the software so they can remotely turn on my microphone and video camera.
And if the government can do it legally with a court order, then someone else will figure out how to do it without one.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the speaker's fault. He had updates scheduled and when he shut his machine down, he left it in a state of "partly updated" so that it finished updating when it was turned on.
It also sounds like he has a REALLY crappy laptop with a slow HDD, which he shouldn't if he is a "really important speaker".
Frankly, the speaker was unprepared. This is not Windows' fault, this is his.
I'm in the business, I see it every day. I wouldn't say "most people don't like it", I'd say most people don't care.
The single biggest question I get is, "should I upgrade or stay on 7 or 8?" If I say yes, they upgrade, if I say no, they don't.
They neither know nor care about the level of detail that you're discussing, it just is way below their care level.
Considering how much Microsoft is hell-bent on alienating their users with Win10, and considering what you've just described, where will the desktop computer market go from here?
Windows... you may think the issues are huge, but outside a handful of uber pissed of people, I find that most people either don't care, or aren't even aware of it.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm simply saying that it is number 417 on their give a crap list and it just doesn't register on their radar.
Ofc we can not avoid AGW ... it is happening since 30 years already, but we can limit it.
Good luck with that... How is that "hope and change" working out for you?
Seriously, that is what you sound like. When it comes to the rubber hitting the road (and the money having to be spent), you're kidding yourself. Those of us who have worked hard for our money have no interest in giving half of it to those who have not.
Clearly we shouldn't be burning so much CO2, but we are and that won't change within our lifetime. There are lots of things I'd like to see happen in our world, but wanting them doesn't make them happen.
Welcome to reality...
Now you know why you have to care about what the rest of the world does.
I can care all I like, my caring isn't going to change it.
What I *DO* hear from the rest of the world is "give us lots of money", which isn't going to happen.
The rest of us may have more long term agendas.
You may have any plans you like, you're not in charge. The people with the money have no interest in giving half of it to the third world.
Hency why treaties like Montreal, Kyoto, handle the problems of the rest of the world with genuine interest and concern, not assholery.
Those treaties don't fix the problem however. COP21 won't fix anything either...
Oh sure, you can say, "but, but, it's a start!" Yea, yea, it is, but it won't be even remotely enough.
What WOULD be enough, isn't going to be done. Why do you find that so hard to accept?
Two thoughts:
1. You can return it at no charge within 30 days to Amazon if the specific unit you buy has any of those issues.
2. People with problems complain, people without problems use the product.
Like I said, I own 5 of those monitors, they all work perfectly as far as I can tell. My wife has one on her desk and I have two machines at the office that have 2 each on them and they are lovely to use.
I can tell the uniformity and color accuracy is not as good as the Dell 30" professional monitors, but I wasn't expecting it to be. The color gamut isn't as good and the back light isn't as good.
But it is "good enough", considering they cost less and have more space/higher resolution.
At the time I bought those panels (in November/December) they were $750 on Amazon. At that price, you'd be nuts to not buy them. Today they are $900, less of a "good deal", but still a decent one.
If you see the price drop back to $800 or so, try one, you might be surprised.
Or don't, and wait another year or so for another generation of panels to come out, they'll likely just keep getting better.
Thanks for the info, I was not aware that any 4k TVs were 60hz. Shame they don't put Display Port on them, that would make it easier.
You bought a 7500 mode, what do you think of the 6500 models? Do they have 60hz HDMI 2.0 inputs?
http://amzn.to/1QtpZaV
That is a 55" unit for $900, far less than the cost of the unit you bought. It appears to be a slightly lower quality and 120 refresh rate instead of 240, but that would be fine for me.
At $900, it costs the same as a 32" Acer 4k computer monitor, making it an interesting option.
Are you guessing or do you know?
I have multiple 32" 4k monitors, the Acer version, and they all work perfectly...
32" Acer 4k B326HK
http://amzn.to/1pouMDM
What monitor are you using that you're having trouble with?
My 30" panels have 4 million pixels on them. My 32" panels have 8 million pixels on them. The 32" panels have sharper text because they have double the number of pixels to work with.
The pixel density and sharpness is a nice improvement over the 30" panels, it is a clear and obvious improvement. It is worth noting the 30" panels and 32" panels are actually about the same size, since the 32" panels are 16:9 and the 30" panels are 16:10.
The 30" panels are also better screens, in terms of color balance and such, since they are professional monitors. Even today they cost more than the 32" 4k screens do, but I've had them for awhile, since before the 4k was an option. Both screens are IPS.
Since you bought up 5k at 27", you must be an Apple user. I'm not convinced at 32" I'll ever need more than 4k, I can no longer see the pixels like I can on the 30" screens at 2560x1600. At 27" it strikes me as overkill to even have 4k, but maybe that is my 40+ year old eyes. My son has 27" screens at 16:9 2560x1440 and frankly I find it hard to see the pixels on those. They are noticeably smaller than the 32" screens and I can't imagine even wanting 4k at that size.
I have to say that I'm more excited about 4k at 120hz than 8k at 60hz, but it is all an improvement.
As it stands now, 4k displays are wonderful for work, I am typing this on my office computer which has a pair of Acer 32" 4k displays on it.
Acer 32" 4K IPS display
http://amzn.to/1poiivZ
They are beautiful monitors. Not perfect color and I wouldn't suggest them if 100% color accuracy is your goal, but for general business use, they are just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. My home machine runs a trio of Dell 30" 1600p monitors, and while they are nice for gaming, I can tell the difference between a 30" 1600p monitor and a 32" 4k monitor when it comes to text in Windows. Almost all "jaggies" are gone at 4k, the text is the closest I've ever seen a monitor to get to "paper" look. The 30" 1600p monitors still show "jaggies" in Windows text.
Now for gaming, they aren't quite there yet. Between the slower response time of IPS and the inability to get decent GPU performance, 4k is a rough experience. I tried several games and I found that while they are beautiful, the limit is the GPU power.
I did try only a single GPU (GTX 980 TI), I imagine a dual SLI GPU configuration would be better, but I didn't have a second 980 TI to try that out with. 8k will be awhile in terms of gaming, if due to lack of GPU power if anything else.
---
TL;DR - 120hz should be the new standard, it will reduce eyestrain and open up options for gaming and movies that don't exist at 60hz, while the HDR improvements will also be wonderful. I'm not convinced that 8k will show up any time soon or even be needed, but time will tell on that one.
Now some people are guilty of circumstance. I heard about one where a drunk couldn't get his keycard to work at a hotel, walked down stairs. Told the hire staff the wrong room number. They gave him a new card for the wrong room and he climbed into bed with whom he thought was his SO and instead was a little girl.
I wouldn't blame the drunk, I'd blame the hotel...
Your logical error is thinking that killing some brown people helps. It won't. The industrial nations would still put to much CO2 into the air.
Sure it will, you just don't want it to be true... Their increasing output is a serious problem and it has to be stopped. Nothing the EU and USA do will make any difference if the bottom 3.5 billion people in the world join the 20th Century and start emitting serious levels of CO2.
You simply seem not to grasp that the majourity of CO2 is produced by what is USA, EU and a few other industrialized nations.
You are mistaken, you might try looking up the numbers... The EU is about 10%, the USA is about 15% of the world's CO2 output. So between both you have 25% of the world's CO2 output. China is another 25%, and the rest of the world is the other 50%.
You could cut the USA and EU to zero, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, the rest of the world will increase their output over the next 25 years by more than our current total output. What we do means nothing, the real threat is the developing nations.
---
You are a perfect example of the problem with AGW, you think that somehow if the USA and EU just installs enough solar panels, all will be well with the world. What you fail to understand is that you could snap your fingers and the EU and USA could vanish tomorrow, and it would have only a minor impact on CO2 levels over the next 50 years.
We are not the problem, the developing world is. The USA and EU could probably cut their CO2 output by 50% by 2100 if they really pushed hard for it, but why bother when the developing nations will just replace it and more?
AGW is here to stay, we simply will have to accept the new world and the changes that come with it, because avoiding it will be impossible short of some type of event that kills 75% of the world's population.
They do, and I wish them all the luck in the world.
1. Will it launch on time.
2. Will it have 200+ miles of range.
3. Will they make any money on it?
It will be wonderful, if all that turns out to be true.
Remember that ridiculous Ice Bucket Challenge.
What? I loved it, watching famous people dump ice water on their heads was fun!
Of course watching idiots do it and fail was also fun.
I'm neither famous nor an idiot, so I didn't do it because it is just entertainment for me.
But it was still fun!
Your choice.
Yes, it is...
I happy pay my tax money for stuff that is useful for mankind.
That is true as well. The challenge is that we often have a single set of tax laws that don't take our own specific desires into account. So I lobby our elected representatives to not do this and you lobby them to do this.
The result of which shows up in a dysfunctional Washington where nothing seems to be happening.
After all "Who is responsible to to do the difficult stuff?" ?? Those who can!!
Perhaps, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Be careful what you wish for.
I have posted before that one of our problems is that we have too many people in the world. A lot of AGW could be solved if we got the world's population back down to 2 billion or so. Of course, since I don't want that to be MY people, it needs to be, as you put it, a whole lot of brown people.
You would call it racist, but it really isn't (you used the term brown people first after all). It is just natural selection at work. The West ended up on the top of the food chain and invented almost everything of the past few hundred years, so we won that battle. The Chinese are fine, they can stay (at a greatly reduced number), but most of the people living near the equator or south of it need to go.
You would call the above horrible, and maybe it is. But it is another way to skin the cat. In all your chest thumping to "solve AGW", you likely aren't stopping to consider that there are ways to solve it that you would not be happy with. The above is one example.
That may end up being true... Remind me what a Tesla costs again?
How many Ford Fusions can you buy for that money?
If the Tesla was a $30K car and had that range, wonderful.
---
Side note: My understanding is that most people aren't actually getting 300 miles from a Model S. Even if it is 200 miles, the numbers are still fine of course, just a note.
I've taken a few multi thousand mile trips in my Tesla at a total cost of $4 for electricity. Are you telling me that this was all a dream and the thousands of worldwide Supercharger stations don't exist?
It will be wonderful if it all comes true some day, but for now it is an expensive dream...
A car that doesn't make money, being sold for crazy high luxury prices, being recharged on "free" superchargers that future cars won't get for "free", yea, it is a dream for now...
Where I worked it was a bit over the top in some respects such as how the front door was secured.
If it was secured properly, then it was not possible for anything short of a small army to walk in.
I continue to be amazed at the fancy electronic security that is used in many businesses, yet you could just walk right in the front door if you physically wanted to and all they could really do is call the police (assuming you didn't prevent that from the start).
If you honestly have anything worth so much that electronic security of the level you described is required, then you also need physical security. And I don't mean the rent-a-cop that is moonlighting from the mall, I mean you need trained armed guards in body armor with radios and a secure control center that they can communicate with.
All the air-gap in the world won't help if 5 armed men can walk in the door and simply shoot everyone and take what they like.
---
Note: The above is expensive to do correctly, which is why it is so rarely done. But if you need real security, it has to be both electronic and physical.
I've never heard of firefighters intentionally not trying to put out a fire like that.
Well, they do...
http://www.firerescue1.com/fir...
http://www.cleburnetimesreview...
Given my age, sex, skin color, country of birth, etc., I really have little to personally fear from the US government, since they're not that terribly more dangerous than terrorists to me.
And this is where it falls apart. This is where you're wrong.
You actually DO have more to fear from your government than from terrorists. You just don't know it.
THAT is why this is such a big deal. You don't know what you don't know, you don't see the threat in front of you, instead you fear "terrorists" as today's boogieman rather than what you should be fearing which is a strong overbearing federal government.
Stop taking resources from those nations, stop destabilizing their governments, stop using them, stop polluting their air and water, and you can stop caring about them.
You don't get to decide when I can stop caring about them. They need to take care of themselves at some point.
Just like people upriver can stop worrying about those downriver when they stop pissing in the river.
The people upriver may well not worry about the people downriver in the first place.
You may not like it, but you won't get the people upriver to care just by telling them they should, because YOU said so.
You're not the arbiter of such things.
Many things are improbable, but in a vast universe, improbable becomes fairly likely.
^ This...
I am VERY unlikely to win the PowerBall lotto... unless I buy a billion tickets, then I'm VERY likely to win it...
Earth is likely rare, when you look at only 50 to 100 light years around us.
Earth is likely NOT rare, when you look at the whole galaxy.
Yes, and they haven't been transmitting very long. Space is big, remember?
The amount of space that we have "impacted" with our radio transmissions is a drop in the ocean compared to just our own Galaxy.
Imagine if you were given the task of finding a single drop in the ocean, one specific one? How hard would that be?
So, which point is it that I don't get because I don't want to?
That a system with a backdoor isn't secure, was never secure, and can never be secure.
If I want to, for whatever reason, encrypt my information from everyone because... "reasons", then I need a secure system with no back door.
If the government can override my encryption with a court order, then why bother with encryption?
---
Let me put this another way. If this is allowed to stand, then there is no difference between this and the government requiring Apple to change the software so they can remotely turn on my microphone and video camera.
And if the government can do it legally with a court order, then someone else will figure out how to do it without one.
Funny... :) You'd run out of bullets long before the fleeing crowd runs out of people. :)