Personally, I think this is very cool, and although Microsoft may have some hidden agenda to take over the world by releasing a version of Windows 10 for the Pi, I still think this is a positive thing in general.
OK, but why do you think this is cool and a generally positive thing? I don't see it as a negative thing, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of this, either.
That's still more expensive than equally capable alternatives. Also, you'd still have to deal with Microsoft's rather byzantine and insane licensing programs.
You can already join the program and be amongst the first to receive product information and beta software releases.
But why would I want to? Seriously, what value proposition is Microsoft bringing to the table? We have excellent development tools for Raspberry PI, and excellent operating systems for it already.
But I will never understand the histrionic obsession with a team based on living or being born within close proximity.
Particularly since teams have no real connection to the cities they are purportedly "from" anyway. The players aren't from those cities. In many cases, even the team as a business unit isn't from their city -- they've simply been purchased from somewhere else and moved.
I think it was Seinfeld who pointed out, quite correctly, that being a fan of a particular team is really nothing more than being a fan of their laundry (the uniform).
To successfully sue somebody, you still have to actually show how that party had actually done some sort of wrong by you...
Depends on your definition of "successfully". Even if you wouldn't win a suit in court, you can successfully sue somebody by dragging the whole thing out so long that they go bankrupt trying to defend themselves. Then you've won.
Since several of my past girlfriends, not to mention my wife, are huge football fans, I've tried really hard to get into it myself over a period of many years. I have failed. Football just bores me out of my mind. This is not a cultivated disinterest, it's a genuine disinterest.
I work with AMT systems. AMT systems can be powered up from being completely off (not in standby, etc.). This is accomplished because AMT processors contain an entirely separate little computer that itself never turns off, even when the rest of the system (including the CPU) is.
And how would the public hold politicians accountable for the bribes? I think the frequent expressions of disdain and anger over these practices indicates that they are not socially acceptable. The problem is systemic, though, and the only way to fix it is to make a systemic change.
It is culturally acceptable in the US, especially when dealing with Congress and other Politicians, if done according to political campaign contribution laws.
No, it's not. It's legally permissible. That says nothing about whether it is culturally acceptable.
There is nothing simple about ethics with international business. Things that ethically right in one culture can be a huge issue in an other.
I don't see how that makes the ethics complex. It's very simple: ethics are personal. If a company has a certain set of ethics, they'll adhere to them regardless of what nation they're operating in. If the law prevents that, then they'll avoid doing business there.
Simple.
If a company is willing to do something in any nation, that is an expression of the company's ethics. In this case, Facebook has declared loud and clear that they have no problem with political censorship.
So if Zuckerberg just said no. They will not operate in Turkey, and the users will be loss of a medium to spread the areas of free speech that they do enjoy.
This is the exact line of reasoning by which so many companies justify supporting child labor, sweatshops, political repression, and so on. It's a bullshit argument.
I was under the impression that offering money in exchange for political favours was illegal.
You have a mistaken impression. Offering money in exchange for political favors is standard operating procedure in the US. The laws about bribery only make very specific forms of it illegal, but leave lots of other ways to do the same thing. As long as you rigorously avoid those specific forms, then you can bribe all you want.
You were using your personal experience, "I do this X, I do Y". That's not valid because you aren't the target market.
Indeed I was. And it's a completely valid opinion. Microsoft may not care because, as you say, I am probably not their target market, but that has nothing to do with it.
The people who use Office constantly most likely are able to use more features more effectively more often as a result of the ribbon.
This is the sort of thing that Microsoft tends to say, and completely avoids a number of important points. What are you basing this determination on? I could believe the "uses more features" claim -- that can be measured -- but what about the "more effectively" claim? Whenever Microsoft says things like that, they're basing it on stuff like how many keystrokes/mouse clicks it takes to do something. That's a very poor measure of how effective users are, though.
I'm not sure if you are pulling a valid sample or not, your typical Office user doesn't have strong opinions on computer issues
But they tend to have rather strong opinions about the tools that they use, including Office. Just like all other sorts of professionals.
I'll ignore the sneaky little implication that I might be biasing them myself (I'm not, since Office and the ribbon are not things I bring up), but will throw you a bone: it's certainly not a valid sample, because it's only the people I work near. That's a sample that is both too small and too homogenous to be anything near statistically valid.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Because I'm not the target market, that means that I am not allowed to point out the ribbon seriously sucks for me? BTW, I am surrounded by people who are the target market and use Office constantly. The majority of them agree with me that the ribbon blows. They're just resigned to its presence and have gotten used to it.
Office isn't worth that amount of effort. What I do now is just to avoid using Office whenever possible. Its UI is abominable, with the ribbon being the worst, but not only, offender.
From 7. I use Windows 8 extensively at work, which is why I never upgraded my personal machines. Yes, there are security improvements, but that's not enough to convince me to take that upgrade.
But what the ribbon does in practice, at least for me, is to guarantee that I'll spend far too long trying to figure out where in the hell an option actually is.
I hated (and still hate) Aero as well. I set all my Win 7 machines to the old XP skin. That said, I hate the new flat look even more. It's not only ugly, but it reduces usability.
I absolutely loathe the use of code names. Their just cutesy nonsense that makes it a bigger pain in the ass to figure out exactly what is being discussed.
It's good enough that I won't howl if my employer requires me to start using it. However, there is not a single thing in Windows 10 that I find compelling enough to make me upgrade unless I'm required to. There are some minor performance improvements, but nothing that makes the upgrade a "must-have". All of the new features are things that I will never use and don't care about. And I am very, very nervous about the tighter integration with the cloud.
I am continually amazed that every time Schmidt talks about the internet, he says something that is simultaneously very creepy and very scary.
Sorry, Schmidt, there is literally no way in hell that I'm going to allow all these devices in my home to talk to the internet. The risks are simply far too high, from corporate and governmental surveillance all the way through the risk of being hacked, and there is almost no benefit in exchange.
The one-two punch of Disney and Abrams being involved with Star Wars basically kills any desire I have to see new Star Wars movies. Especially Abrams. After what Abrams did to Star Trek, I don't trust him.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think this is very cool, and although Microsoft may have some hidden agenda to take over the world by releasing a version of Windows 10 for the Pi, I still think this is a positive thing in general.
OK, but why do you think this is cool and a generally positive thing? I don't see it as a negative thing, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of this, either.
That's still more expensive than equally capable alternatives. Also, you'd still have to deal with Microsoft's rather byzantine and insane licensing programs.
You can already join the program and be amongst the first to receive product information and beta software releases.
But why would I want to? Seriously, what value proposition is Microsoft bringing to the table? We have excellent development tools for Raspberry PI, and excellent operating systems for it already.
But I will never understand the histrionic obsession with a team based on living or being born within close proximity.
Particularly since teams have no real connection to the cities they are purportedly "from" anyway. The players aren't from those cities. In many cases, even the team as a business unit isn't from their city -- they've simply been purchased from somewhere else and moved.
I think it was Seinfeld who pointed out, quite correctly, that being a fan of a particular team is really nothing more than being a fan of their laundry (the uniform).
To successfully sue somebody, you still have to actually show how that party had actually done some sort of wrong by you...
Depends on your definition of "successfully". Even if you wouldn't win a suit in court, you can successfully sue somebody by dragging the whole thing out so long that they go bankrupt trying to defend themselves. Then you've won.
Since several of my past girlfriends, not to mention my wife, are huge football fans, I've tried really hard to get into it myself over a period of many years. I have failed. Football just bores me out of my mind. This is not a cultivated disinterest, it's a genuine disinterest.
I work with AMT systems. AMT systems can be powered up from being completely off (not in standby, etc.). This is accomplished because AMT processors contain an entirely separate little computer that itself never turns off, even when the rest of the system (including the CPU) is.
And how would the public hold politicians accountable for the bribes? I think the frequent expressions of disdain and anger over these practices indicates that they are not socially acceptable. The problem is systemic, though, and the only way to fix it is to make a systemic change.
Don't confuse acceptance with resignation.
It is culturally acceptable in the US, especially when dealing with Congress and other Politicians, if done according to political campaign contribution laws.
No, it's not. It's legally permissible. That says nothing about whether it is culturally acceptable.
There is nothing simple about ethics with international business.
Things that ethically right in one culture can be a huge issue in an other.
I don't see how that makes the ethics complex. It's very simple: ethics are personal. If a company has a certain set of ethics, they'll adhere to them regardless of what nation they're operating in. If the law prevents that, then they'll avoid doing business there.
Simple.
If a company is willing to do something in any nation, that is an expression of the company's ethics. In this case, Facebook has declared loud and clear that they have no problem with political censorship.
So if Zuckerberg just said no. They will not operate in Turkey, and the users will be loss of a medium to spread the areas of free speech that they do enjoy.
This is the exact line of reasoning by which so many companies justify supporting child labor, sweatshops, political repression, and so on. It's a bullshit argument.
I was under the impression that offering money in exchange for political favours was illegal.
You have a mistaken impression. Offering money in exchange for political favors is standard operating procedure in the US. The laws about bribery only make very specific forms of it illegal, but leave lots of other ways to do the same thing. As long as you rigorously avoid those specific forms, then you can bribe all you want.
Yes.
I don't think that anyone wonders how Comcast will behave: they'll behave just as they always behave. Horribly and with apparent malice.
You were using your personal experience, "I do this X, I do Y". That's not valid because you aren't the target market.
Indeed I was. And it's a completely valid opinion. Microsoft may not care because, as you say, I am probably not their target market, but that has nothing to do with it.
The people who use Office constantly most likely are able to use more features more effectively more often as a result of the ribbon.
This is the sort of thing that Microsoft tends to say, and completely avoids a number of important points. What are you basing this determination on? I could believe the "uses more features" claim -- that can be measured -- but what about the "more effectively" claim? Whenever Microsoft says things like that, they're basing it on stuff like how many keystrokes/mouse clicks it takes to do something. That's a very poor measure of how effective users are, though.
I'm not sure if you are pulling a valid sample or not, your typical Office user doesn't have strong opinions on computer issues
But they tend to have rather strong opinions about the tools that they use, including Office. Just like all other sorts of professionals.
I'll ignore the sneaky little implication that I might be biasing them myself (I'm not, since Office and the ribbon are not things I bring up), but will throw you a bone: it's certainly not a valid sample, because it's only the people I work near. That's a sample that is both too small and too homogenous to be anything near statistically valid.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Because I'm not the target market, that means that I am not allowed to point out the ribbon seriously sucks for me? BTW, I am surrounded by people who are the target market and use Office constantly. The majority of them agree with me that the ribbon blows. They're just resigned to its presence and have gotten used to it.
Office isn't worth that amount of effort. What I do now is just to avoid using Office whenever possible. Its UI is abominable, with the ribbon being the worst, but not only, offender.
From 7. I use Windows 8 extensively at work, which is why I never upgraded my personal machines. Yes, there are security improvements, but that's not enough to convince me to take that upgrade.
You need _an_ email account - nothing more.
Which is terrible. I shouldn't have to provide an email account (or any personal or contact information at all) in order to use an operating system.
But what the ribbon does in practice, at least for me, is to guarantee that I'll spend far too long trying to figure out where in the hell an option actually is.
God, I hate the ribbon.
I hated (and still hate) Aero as well. I set all my Win 7 machines to the old XP skin. That said, I hate the new flat look even more. It's not only ugly, but it reduces usability.
I absolutely loathe the use of code names. Their just cutesy nonsense that makes it a bigger pain in the ass to figure out exactly what is being discussed.
10 is looking decent enough to give a shot.
It's good enough that I won't howl if my employer requires me to start using it. However, there is not a single thing in Windows 10 that I find compelling enough to make me upgrade unless I'm required to. There are some minor performance improvements, but nothing that makes the upgrade a "must-have". All of the new features are things that I will never use and don't care about. And I am very, very nervous about the tighter integration with the cloud.
Not so much saved as converted it into something that isn't Star Trek at all.
I am continually amazed that every time Schmidt talks about the internet, he says something that is simultaneously very creepy and very scary.
Sorry, Schmidt, there is literally no way in hell that I'm going to allow all these devices in my home to talk to the internet. The risks are simply far too high, from corporate and governmental surveillance all the way through the risk of being hacked, and there is almost no benefit in exchange.
The one-two punch of Disney and Abrams being involved with Star Wars basically kills any desire I have to see new Star Wars movies. Especially Abrams. After what Abrams did to Star Trek, I don't trust him.