This is true, but that doesn't take away from the truth that this is also Uber "attempting to screw individual passengers when they believe they have some upper hand" at the same time.
The reason we have the laws we do is to stop individual drivers from attempting to screw individual passengers when they believe they have some upper hand.
My point is that appealing to what's moral is not as clear as we would like it to be.
This is, as it has always been, true. However, I think that most people can agree that "legal" and "moral" are two independent concepts and it's possible for something to be legal and immoral as well as illegal and moral -- regardless of your personal sense of what is "moral".
So the idea that legal == right is clearly incorrect.
And very often, people appealing to morality are bad actors.
I would take this further and say that this is true the vast majority of the time.
You gave that consent to Microsoft by installing a non-Enterprise version of Windows 10 and accepting the license agreement, or by installing an Enterprise version of Windows 10 and not disabling automatic error reporting.
Legally, yes. In the real world, though, no. Consent through EULAs cannot be considered "active consent" by any reasonable definition.
If Microsoft wasn't, then, forced to deal with idiots who insist they fix their crashing programs, yet refuse to provide crash reports when asked, there'd be no issue.
Fine. If Microsoft doesn't want to deal with people who think that clicking the "send crash report" button means that Microsoft will fix the crash, then do it in the background -- but let people disable the automatic reporting if they wish.
Except that it's not. Either you work in an industry where Windows is mandatory, in which case you can afford the 5-license minimum for Enterprise and disable the telemetry, or you don't and you can use something else.
Well, yes, in the big picture, nothing about Windows is mandatory. Even using a computer at all is optional. But that argument is a bit disingenuous. I was talking about telemetry being mandatory if you're using consumer level Windows.
It's honestly like Ford asking someone who was involved in a car accident due to a bug in their car's anti-lock braking system to help them fix it, rather than asking the car itself what went wrong; cars store post-crash and post-fault telemetry for a reason, and Windows does for the very same reason.
Except that, with the exception of more modern cars (which are just as unacceptable as Microsoft's mandatory telemetry), your car is not constantly phoning home with that telemetry. Someone has to physically retrieve it, which involves your active consent.
If, in the event of a crash, Windows asked if it could send the crash report to Microsoft (like it used to!), there'd be no issue.
Telemetry lets them see the actual problem, and not just the result of the problem, so they can fix it right the first time.
You're arguing in favor of telemetry, but I don't see anyone arguing against it. What people are arguing against is that it is mandatory.
If we accept that Microsoft is being forthright and truthful about this, then the telemetry you can't turn off includes "basic device information, quality-related information, app compatibility, and Microsoft Store. When the level is set to Basic, it also includes the Security level information."
This is quite a bit more than only crash reports. Also, crash reports are not exactly innocuous. They can contain very sensitive information themselves.
No, end users made this mess and are hoping to blame Microsoft.
No, Microsoft made this mess and you are blaming end users. If security updates were implemented and deployed with care, and if Microsoft behaved in a trustworthy way, then very few people would object to their being automatically installed.
If you can go all LO, you're set, but if you have to interact with other companies that want M$ documents, you're hosed.
I hear this quite a lot, and I could see it being true for very complex documents. But I use LO exclusively, and have for a very long time. I exchange documents with Office users daily. I don't remember ever having a serious problem. I have, on occasion, experienced an easily-corrected glitch.
My experience is hardly statistically sound, but it does not support the extreme incompatibility claims I see frequently.
Translation: "I've never had a problem myself, so other people claiming to have problems are clearly either being hyperbolic or lying."
some are just control freaks and don't want anything done without their say
Your use of the disparaging term "control freaks" betrays your disdain for people who actually dare to think that their computer belongs to them and want to treat it as if it were.
My computer should never do anything that I didn't approve of or ask it to do. If it does, then I call that "malfunctioning".
Microsoft is an extremely weaselly company. The instant they stopped using the descriptor "security" and replaced it with "critical" was the moment it became clear that the update mechanism was going to be used for deceptive purposes.
Basically you kiss all mechanical engineering and PCB/schematic capture goodbye.
That's a BS argument. There is Linux software that is reasonable to use for such activities. It's not as good as the Windows stuff, true, but it is fully functional and usable.
And if Windows went away completely, all of the really great tools would be implemented on Linux very, very quickly.
If Microsoft would just go back to the days when security patches were done separately from other sorts of updates, that would be a huge help. I know a lot of people who disable updates to avoid feature changes, but would accept automatic security updates.
Microsoft's position of not making a distinction between the two is a large disincentive to allowing automatic updates for a lot of people.
(I'm not saying I have the answers, just that I think answers exist, for solving the same problem in two places.)
But they are not solving the same problem in two places, except at a uselessly high level of abstraction. The different environments have very different constraints that involve very different engineering tradeoffs.
To say that you can build one UI to rule them all is like saying that it's possible to built a single sort of vehicle that can work well in all environments. It's simply not plausible. It's not even possible to build a single vehicle that works great on all types of roads, let alone also fly, travel on or under water, and travel through space.
Slashdot Mirror
In many ways, relationships are the most important things in our lives
I agree. Which is why it's important, for the sake of our relationships, to avoid Facebook.
If I know that the rate is $1 per mile, and I know that the trip I am taking is 10 miles, then I know that the transaction cost is $10.
This is true, but that doesn't take away from the truth that this is also Uber "attempting to screw individual passengers when they believe they have some upper hand" at the same time.
Even take it or leave it offers are still a negotiation.
Only if your definition of "negotiation" is so loose as to be essentially meaningless.
You are incorrect. It is entirely legal to charge individualized prices.
The idea of a set price and or posted price tags is relatively new to civilization.
Absolutely true! And that shift is a really good thing for tons of reasons.
The reason we have the laws we do is to stop individual drivers from attempting to screw individual passengers when they believe they have some upper hand.
Isn't this precisely what Uber is doing?
Uber's profit margin is none of the driver's business.
By the same logic, then, how wealthy Uber's customers are or are not is none of Uber's business.
My point is that appealing to what's moral is not as clear as we would like it to be.
This is, as it has always been, true. However, I think that most people can agree that "legal" and "moral" are two independent concepts and it's possible for something to be legal and immoral as well as illegal and moral -- regardless of your personal sense of what is "moral".
So the idea that legal == right is clearly incorrect.
And very often, people appealing to morality are bad actors.
I would take this further and say that this is true the vast majority of the time.
If you know the rate, then you know the transaction cost.
You gave that consent to Microsoft by installing a non-Enterprise version of Windows 10 and accepting the license agreement, or by installing an Enterprise version of Windows 10 and not disabling automatic error reporting.
Legally, yes. In the real world, though, no. Consent through EULAs cannot be considered "active consent" by any reasonable definition.
If Microsoft wasn't, then, forced to deal with idiots who insist they fix their crashing programs, yet refuse to provide crash reports when asked, there'd be no issue.
Fine. If Microsoft doesn't want to deal with people who think that clicking the "send crash report" button means that Microsoft will fix the crash, then do it in the background -- but let people disable the automatic reporting if they wish.
Except that it's not. Either you work in an industry where Windows is mandatory, in which case you can afford the 5-license minimum for Enterprise and disable the telemetry, or you don't and you can use something else.
Well, yes, in the big picture, nothing about Windows is mandatory. Even using a computer at all is optional. But that argument is a bit disingenuous. I was talking about telemetry being mandatory if you're using consumer level Windows.
It's honestly like Ford asking someone who was involved in a car accident due to a bug in their car's anti-lock braking system to help them fix it, rather than asking the car itself what went wrong; cars store post-crash and post-fault telemetry for a reason, and Windows does for the very same reason.
Except that, with the exception of more modern cars (which are just as unacceptable as Microsoft's mandatory telemetry), your car is not constantly phoning home with that telemetry. Someone has to physically retrieve it, which involves your active consent.
If, in the event of a crash, Windows asked if it could send the crash report to Microsoft (like it used to!), there'd be no issue.
Telemetry lets them see the actual problem, and not just the result of the problem, so they can fix it right the first time.
You're arguing in favor of telemetry, but I don't see anyone arguing against it. What people are arguing against is that it is mandatory.
This is almost, but not quite, true.
If we accept that Microsoft is being forthright and truthful about this, then the telemetry you can't turn off includes "basic device information, quality-related information, app compatibility, and Microsoft Store. When the level is set to Basic, it also includes the Security level information."
This is quite a bit more than only crash reports. Also, crash reports are not exactly innocuous. They can contain very sensitive information themselves.
No, end users made this mess and are hoping to blame Microsoft.
No, Microsoft made this mess and you are blaming end users. If security updates were implemented and deployed with care, and if Microsoft behaved in a trustworthy way, then very few people would object to their being automatically installed.
I don't think that's the complete explanation. If that's all it was, then we'd have the ability to turn the telemetry off.
That telemetry is mandatory tells me that Microsoft has much more nefarious reasons afoot. Probably centered around monetization.
If you can go all LO, you're set, but if you have to interact with other companies that want M$ documents, you're hosed.
I hear this quite a lot, and I could see it being true for very complex documents. But I use LO exclusively, and have for a very long time. I exchange documents with Office users daily. I don't remember ever having a serious problem. I have, on occasion, experienced an easily-corrected glitch.
My experience is hardly statistically sound, but it does not support the extreme incompatibility claims I see frequently.
Translation: "I've never had a problem myself, so other people claiming to have problems are clearly either being hyperbolic or lying."
some are just control freaks and don't want anything done without their say
Your use of the disparaging term "control freaks" betrays your disdain for people who actually dare to think that their computer belongs to them and want to treat it as if it were.
My computer should never do anything that I didn't approve of or ask it to do. If it does, then I call that "malfunctioning".
Microsoft is an extremely weaselly company. The instant they stopped using the descriptor "security" and replaced it with "critical" was the moment it became clear that the update mechanism was going to be used for deceptive purposes.
Basically you kiss all mechanical engineering and PCB/schematic capture goodbye.
That's a BS argument. There is Linux software that is reasonable to use for such activities. It's not as good as the Windows stuff, true, but it is fully functional and usable.
And if Windows went away completely, all of the really great tools would be implemented on Linux very, very quickly.
And how would that stop the rebooting?
Why would anyone *disable* automatic updates on Windows?
To avoid all the nastiness that comes with Windows updates, perhaps?
It sounds like my decision to ditch Netflix last year was a great one!
If Microsoft would just go back to the days when security patches were done separately from other sorts of updates, that would be a huge help. I know a lot of people who disable updates to avoid feature changes, but would accept automatic security updates.
Microsoft's position of not making a distinction between the two is a large disincentive to allowing automatic updates for a lot of people.
Or maybe he just has a low tolerance for terrible UI elements.
(I'm not saying I have the answers, just that I think answers exist, for solving the same problem in two places.)
But they are not solving the same problem in two places, except at a uselessly high level of abstraction. The different environments have very different constraints that involve very different engineering tradeoffs.
To say that you can build one UI to rule them all is like saying that it's possible to built a single sort of vehicle that can work well in all environments. It's simply not plausible. It's not even possible to build a single vehicle that works great on all types of roads, let alone also fly, travel on or under water, and travel through space.