There's more wrong than that. The creators of the protocol are of the shared mentality that any inflation is bad, thus bitcoins have a fixed supply. Once the last bitcoin is mined the currency will become deflationary. Proponents will counter this by exclaiming that coins are near infinitely divisible so prices can just modify themselves to fix to the currency supply. This, of course, completely ignores the human psychological element which makes deflation a problem in the first place (ie. If wages and prices would just auto adjust no amount of deflation/inflation would be a problem in the first place). Furthermore, prices auto adjusting doesn't correct the issue of deflation disproportionately rewarding the current "haves" over the "have nots".
The lack of centralization also presents the 51% problem. Proponents are naive to assume this will never happen when the mining process requires heavy investment in specialized hardware. Mining creates an oligarchy by design.
It's not. Neither you, nor Microsoft, knows what's best for people.. so stop presuming you do. That is a very disturbing trend in the tech industry these days.
Having automatic Windows updates on by default and requiring a device administrator to disable it is prudent. Removing the ability to disable it is presumptuous and short sighted. I'll give you some scenarios why.
1) I'm giving a presentation on my laptop. Windows updates and restarts and the entire audience has to wait 10 minutes. Why don't I have pro? I don't know. I bought this stupid thing at Best Buy!
2) I'm trying to download a large file at home to get some work done and it's going at 20K/sec because Windows has decided it's time to update and destroy my bandwidth.
3) I'm in the middle of a game or some work and my computer just reboots because it has decided to update.
4) And of course: my computer updated and now my webcam doesn't work (this actually happened to me recently).
The crux of the problem may just be that Windows doesn't do updates very well. Regardless, the lack of choice and configuration is not, and should not, be a welcome "feature".
Nothing except Domain support (which a home user would never need) that I'm aware of. It could just be that giving users of their "free" OS one more reason to purchase the paid upgrade to pro is motivation enough for this "feature".
Again, it's the lack of choice that's a problem. Windows already has automatic updates on by default. It also requires administrator access to turn this off. If someone has turned it off it's because it broke something, or they didn't want it. Example: trying to watch a video while Windows destroys my bandwidth.
It hasn't been done properly in the past, so why would it be done properly now? Literally all they've done is removed the choice for us. And reducing user control and choice is never a good thing.
What about someone that is trying to get some work done while their bandwidth gets assaulted by mandatory updates? It's that kind of non-thinking that Microsoft is suffering from. Turn automatic updates on by default, fine. But not allowing them to be turned off at all? A lack of choice and control is never "for the better good".
Direct emulation is just needless overhead since you're using Windows anyways, and compatibility layer translation (WINE) support is far too unstable to be practical for business.
Except all home grade hardware ships with home versions, and home versions cost about half as much. You might be onto something though. Sure Windows 10 is "free", but you have to pony up some dough to upgrade to pro if you want out of this bullshit.
Sorry but not true. Your users could be as up to date as they want to but give an uninformed user local admin rights and they'll mess something up. I manage about 100 business users, no one has local admin. And I get maybe 1 virus a year. Usually through something like a browser plugin or exploit.
Since Windows update isn't a repository for all software on the computer it becomes pretty useless at patching security holes in browser plugins. Windows programs by design also don't typically used shared libraries. Third party applications, shared libraries, and user ignorance are the vast majority of your problem. None of which Windows update can hope to fix.
What this will do is give Microsoft the ability to force whatever new genius idea they have this week down everyone's throat. That's what they're after.
Also I would add business. I know business versions are unaffected by this, but it could still be a sign of things to come. The average office cemented themselves into the Microsoft ecosystem decades ago. Off the top of my head I could count at least a dozen critical applications my company absolutely can't live without that are Windows only.
The problem is that "apps" run segregated from the system so they can be easily removed/disabled. This is the problem all MDM's have. Authenticating to AD isn't just for credentials, it's primarily to organize users into security groups, push out policies based on that, and act as a central source for tracking of assets and user activity. MDMs can do a lot of this, but not nearly as well as they should be able to. And, as mentioned above, they are incapable of relinquishing administrative access from the end user. They also require manual provisioning. In short, they inefficient and create more work.. and this probably will too. We shall see though.
It just figures they'd take this approach. When I envisioned it I imagined a persistent VPN connection to your office (because youre obv not opening LDAP ports). I'm sure they'll want to charge a monthly fee as well.. and somehow integrate it with Office 365.
Some companies still purchase phones for the employees as a value-add. Mine does for example. Regardless, provisioning them is a manual chore. Each phone has to be provisioned manually with email, security settings, and the MDM. The MDM has limited functionality when it comes to tracking text messages and other digital communications and backups. It can then be removed by the user at their leisure, resolving to make MDM enforcement an "HR issue". Meaning that instead of spending my time administering secure system's, I look like I know less than a 16 year old kid with Google, and all I do is tattle on people to HR.
Mobile is a mess. Passing the buck via BYOD is the best approach? That's sad. It's a backwards step in device security and management regardless of the life span of the product.
I didn't know about that product... but it seems like they are trying to force their cloud bullshit on top of it. Another big issue they have these days. When it comes out I'll be sure to evaluate it though. Thanks for the info.
Blackberry's demise wasn't because "ooh Shiny" it was because they fell behind. Them, and Nokia and the other smartphone vendors got greedy or maybe just complacent. They weren't keeping their products up to date with the current technology and Apple came in at the right time, with the right product that people wanted. It took until 2007 to get a full browser on mobile? Ridiculous.
Now, every company is assuming they have to copy what Apple is doing, because they were successful. It's a narrow, uninformed, and lazy business strategy. There's still a market for secure business-focused devices. I could easily rip out all the Android and iPhone toys in my company if I had a business-focused modern replacement. The problem is I don't. I have 6 different consumer targeted brands.
I was speaking more from an IT infrastructure point of view. A windows phone with active directory integration and group policy extensions for example. Why this hasn't been attempted yet is a complete mystery. Everyone from small to large business would be all over it.
He's still missing a big opportunity: the enterprise. Why everyone is clamoring for the crumbs of the consumer pie, I don't understand. Enterprise functionality is being ignored forcing us to adopt strange concepts like BYOD which is a logistical nightmare and security concern.
Dominate the enterprise and the consumer market will follow. Gates knew this. Balmer seemed more interested in chasing the heels of the current trend as most sales guys do. And now I'm not sure what to think about this new guy... But he seems to be still missing the point.
I'll bite. I woke up one morning with a very severe kink in my neck. It lasted several days until I finally went to a chiropractor. Two visits and the pain was gone. I don't have the authority or knowledge to determine if what they do should actually be considered medicine. But in my case, they provided a treatment that resulted in a relief from severe pain.
Just to play devil's advocate here, declaring a problem solved because you've attributed it to the placebo effect isn't really good enough. The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand. We are often guilty of naming things we don't understand and then declaring them understood. Could the answers to the phenomenon of "mind over matter" be found in quantum mechanics? I don't know enough to comment.
Slashdot Mirror
There's more wrong than that. The creators of the protocol are of the shared mentality that any inflation is bad, thus bitcoins have a fixed supply. Once the last bitcoin is mined the currency will become deflationary. Proponents will counter this by exclaiming that coins are near infinitely divisible so prices can just modify themselves to fix to the currency supply. This, of course, completely ignores the human psychological element which makes deflation a problem in the first place (ie. If wages and prices would just auto adjust no amount of deflation/inflation would be a problem in the first place). Furthermore, prices auto adjusting doesn't correct the issue of deflation disproportionately rewarding the current "haves" over the "have nots".
The lack of centralization also presents the 51% problem. Proponents are naive to assume this will never happen when the mining process requires heavy investment in specialized hardware. Mining creates an oligarchy by design.
The bitcoin fundamentals are economically and technologically flawed. Other than that though... Yay!
It's not. Neither you, nor Microsoft, knows what's best for people.. so stop presuming you do. That is a very disturbing trend in the tech industry these days.
Having automatic Windows updates on by default and requiring a device administrator to disable it is prudent. Removing the ability to disable it is presumptuous and short sighted. I'll give you some scenarios why.
1) I'm giving a presentation on my laptop. Windows updates and restarts and the entire audience has to wait 10 minutes. Why don't I have pro? I don't know. I bought this stupid thing at Best Buy!
2) I'm trying to download a large file at home to get some work done and it's going at 20K/sec because Windows has decided it's time to update and destroy my bandwidth.
3) I'm in the middle of a game or some work and my computer just reboots because it has decided to update.
4) And of course: my computer updated and now my webcam doesn't work (this actually happened to me recently).
The crux of the problem may just be that Windows doesn't do updates very well. Regardless, the lack of choice and configuration is not, and should not, be a welcome "feature".
Nothing except Domain support (which a home user would never need) that I'm aware of. It could just be that giving users of their "free" OS one more reason to purchase the paid upgrade to pro is motivation enough for this "feature".
Computer Configuration\Administrative Template\System\Driver Installation\Allow non-administrator to install drivers for these device setup classes
That's the policy I use to get around that problem.
Again, it's the lack of choice that's a problem. Windows already has automatic updates on by default. It also requires administrator access to turn this off. If someone has turned it off it's because it broke something, or they didn't want it. Example: trying to watch a video while Windows destroys my bandwidth.
It hasn't been done properly in the past, so why would it be done properly now? Literally all they've done is removed the choice for us. And reducing user control and choice is never a good thing.
What about someone that is trying to get some work done while their bandwidth gets assaulted by mandatory updates? It's that kind of non-thinking that Microsoft is suffering from. Turn automatic updates on by default, fine. But not allowing them to be turned off at all? A lack of choice and control is never "for the better good".
Direct emulation is just needless overhead since you're using Windows anyways, and compatibility layer translation (WINE) support is far too unstable to be practical for business.
Well said.
Except all home grade hardware ships with home versions, and home versions cost about half as much. You might be onto something though. Sure Windows 10 is "free", but you have to pony up some dough to upgrade to pro if you want out of this bullshit.
Sorry but not true. Your users could be as up to date as they want to but give an uninformed user local admin rights and they'll mess something up. I manage about 100 business users, no one has local admin. And I get maybe 1 virus a year. Usually through something like a browser plugin or exploit.
Since Windows update isn't a repository for all software on the computer it becomes pretty useless at patching security holes in browser plugins. Windows programs by design also don't typically used shared libraries. Third party applications, shared libraries, and user ignorance are the vast majority of your problem. None of which Windows update can hope to fix.
What this will do is give Microsoft the ability to force whatever new genius idea they have this week down everyone's throat. That's what they're after.
Also I would add business. I know business versions are unaffected by this, but it could still be a sign of things to come. The average office cemented themselves into the Microsoft ecosystem decades ago. Off the top of my head I could count at least a dozen critical applications my company absolutely can't live without that are Windows only.
Seriously. It's mind boggling how out of touch the tech industry has become.
The problem is that "apps" run segregated from the system so they can be easily removed/disabled. This is the problem all MDM's have. Authenticating to AD isn't just for credentials, it's primarily to organize users into security groups, push out policies based on that, and act as a central source for tracking of assets and user activity. MDMs can do a lot of this, but not nearly as well as they should be able to. And, as mentioned above, they are incapable of relinquishing administrative access from the end user. They also require manual provisioning. In short, they inefficient and create more work.. and this probably will too. We shall see though.
It just figures they'd take this approach. When I envisioned it I imagined a persistent VPN connection to your office (because youre obv not opening LDAP ports). I'm sure they'll want to charge a monthly fee as well.. and somehow integrate it with Office 365.
OWA itself is probably better than Thunderbird; IMO.
Some companies still purchase phones for the employees as a value-add. Mine does for example. Regardless, provisioning them is a manual chore. Each phone has to be provisioned manually with email, security settings, and the MDM. The MDM has limited functionality when it comes to tracking text messages and other digital communications and backups. It can then be removed by the user at their leisure, resolving to make MDM enforcement an "HR issue". Meaning that instead of spending my time administering secure system's, I look like I know less than a 16 year old kid with Google, and all I do is tattle on people to HR.
Mobile is a mess. Passing the buck via BYOD is the best approach? That's sad. It's a backwards step in device security and management regardless of the life span of the product.
I didn't know about that product... but it seems like they are trying to force their cloud bullshit on top of it. Another big issue they have these days. When it comes out I'll be sure to evaluate it though. Thanks for the info.
Blackberry's demise wasn't because "ooh Shiny" it was because they fell behind. Them, and Nokia and the other smartphone vendors got greedy or maybe just complacent. They weren't keeping their products up to date with the current technology and Apple came in at the right time, with the right product that people wanted. It took until 2007 to get a full browser on mobile? Ridiculous.
Now, every company is assuming they have to copy what Apple is doing, because they were successful. It's a narrow, uninformed, and lazy business strategy. There's still a market for secure business-focused devices. I could easily rip out all the Android and iPhone toys in my company if I had a business-focused modern replacement. The problem is I don't. I have 6 different consumer targeted brands.
I was speaking more from an IT infrastructure point of view. A windows phone with active directory integration and group policy extensions for example. Why this hasn't been attempted yet is a complete mystery. Everyone from small to large business would be all over it.
He's still missing a big opportunity: the enterprise. Why everyone is clamoring for the crumbs of the consumer pie, I don't understand. Enterprise functionality is being ignored forcing us to adopt strange concepts like BYOD which is a logistical nightmare and security concern.
Dominate the enterprise and the consumer market will follow. Gates knew this. Balmer seemed more interested in chasing the heels of the current trend as most sales guys do. And now I'm not sure what to think about this new guy... But he seems to be still missing the point.
I'll bite. I woke up one morning with a very severe kink in my neck. It lasted several days until I finally went to a chiropractor. Two visits and the pain was gone. I don't have the authority or knowledge to determine if what they do should actually be considered medicine. But in my case, they provided a treatment that resulted in a relief from severe pain.
Just to play devil's advocate here, declaring a problem solved because you've attributed it to the placebo effect isn't really good enough. The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand. We are often guilty of naming things we don't understand and then declaring them understood. Could the answers to the phenomenon of "mind over matter" be found in quantum mechanics? I don't know enough to comment.
Our society has really become so thin skinned and weak? It's a sad time.
In a way I welcome attacks like this. They help prove the inviability of the cloud.