I believe that this violates my implicit right to repair objects I own. But the real problem is that this photo was taken with a Motorola battery installed – in fact, this is the original battery that shipped with my phone. There is a trend in devices to protect the interests of the manufacturer rather then the interests of the owner/end user. Unfortunately, as we saw with the market failure of Windows Vista and see here, these attempts often make the device inconvenient or unusable by the owner/end user.
Except.. Vista isn't a hardware system, and it doesn't prevent users doing anything they want to with their hardware. In fact, it doesn't prevent users doing anything they want with their software either. Also, UAC doesn't restrict the user, it's simply an interface annoyance (which was excessive in Vista, but far better in Win7). This is so completely out of place in the story.
A sad attempt to insert an irrelevant Microsoft bash simply for the sake of it, lets the entire journal down.
Also, apologies, I did mean to highlight the second part of that, where their skin consistency changed consistently in either scenario. The part I highlighted agrees with what you said - that there is a cultural attitude that fingernails on a chalkboard is an unpleasant sound. However, this seems to not have any effect on the physiological reaction - that being, the physical reaction is the same in either case.
Some listeners were told the true source of the sounds, whereas others were told that the sounds were part of contemporary musical compositions.
The ratings also changed depending on what the listeners thought the sounds were. If they thought a sound came from a musical composition, they rated it as less unpleasant than if they knew it actually was fingernails on a chalkboard. But their skin conductivity changed consistently even when they thought the chalkboard sound was from music and rated it as less unpleasant.
So naw.. that theory doesn't really hold much water. Personally, I found the chalkboard sound unbearable well before I "knew" I was meant to. More likely it's simply that some folk don't react the same way to that sound (and likely, have their own quirks, completely unrelated). There's a physiological explanation for this which doesn't involve influence, like how some people absolutely can't stand the flavour of gherkin (or pickle, if you prefer), and some love it so much they'll eat my discarded gherkin slices from my burger.:P There's a lot of subtle differences to how individuals perceive sensory input.
Not at all, I'm just saying your perspective is incorrect, as shown by your first statement. Not only am I not the most downtrodden person on earth, but for every individual such as myself living comfortably in western society, there are 99 people who are more downtrodden than me. Actually, closer to 999 - my income puts me in the top 0.1% worldwide - although only the top 30% nationally.
The difference here, I suppose, is that you look at a more national picture, whereas I see myself as a citizen of the world (sure, many of the governments in the world would disagree, but that's a matter of time). On a global scale, we're doing very nicely, and while I think the corporations and government are entirely corrupt and evil at this point, I don't see much that would make my life more comfortable, while still putting in a requisite amount of effort to ensure such.
Under industrial law in Australia (the Fair Work act, to be precise), the government can have an ombudsman step in and force a resolution on opposing side of an industrial action. These usually find in favour of the employer rather than the unions, as an ombudsman forcing a company into a money-losing position doesn't "solve" anything. This section of the law is very rarely used, as most industrial action is resolved between corps and unions, but it is designed simply so that a particular sector can't hold the entire economy to ransom - pretty much this is a perfect case study.
The only 99%ers in the Occupy Wall Street protest are the long-term homeless, and even many of them scrape into the 1% on welfare. Everyone you see wearing a "we are the 99%" t-shirt, is actually in the top 1% of wealthy in the world. They're just jealous of those even richer than them.
Whom do you suggest should decide on the definition of a word? Where do you think Oxford, et al, draw their current definitions from?
Aside from that, I agree with every aspect of your stance against the criminalisation of copyright infringement. I concur that copyright has been warped and distorted completely from its original purpose, and that copyright now almost serves the opposite purpose that it was intended to. It was intended to provide an author with a modest fee, to encourage the author to continue and produce more works, knowing that it can provide an income - and the need for that income would cease once the author died. In fact, the terms used to be short enough as to encourage the author/artist to continue producing for the rest of their life.
Thesedays, consideration for the author/artist is the smallest piece of the copyright pie. It's almost entirely about protecting corporate profit, and extending these profits from a single work for as long as possible after the death of the original author. It in fact stifles further originality, as a single IP (eg, LOTR) can be milked indefinitely without the need for new works.
I'm just not hung up on the word. Perhaps it's because I don't fall victim to propaganda wars by big media. Probably it's because I speak multiple languages and I'm just not concerned about the colloquial definition of a single word - if it changes, so be it. I don't care if downloading movies adopts the name "murder". As long as people doing so aren't being charged with the crime which shares the same name, the adaptation of the word doesn't have a lot of meaning to me. In fact, it would actually weaken the seriousness attached to the word "murder".
Likewise, if every civil dispute is to be known as "stealing", it weakens people's reactions to "stealing" - if it were an agenda by Big Media to attach the label, it would have the reverse effect to what they desire. It wouldn't make "copying movies" more serious, it'd make "stealing" less serious. Don't get me wrong, I do recognise that they want to fool people into believing this (the ads on DVDs/in cinemas comparing downloading a movie to robbery). I just don't think the term being used is the thing to get upset about.
Dictionary definition: Steal "to appropriate (ideas, etc) without acknowledgment, as in plagiarism"
My point was only ever that geeks are trying to ignore any definition of the word steal which doesn't suit them - I'm not arguing the merits of or against any act.
I never brought up copyright infringement? I wasn't arguing for or against copyright infringement at any point in time. I was purely talking about the word "steal".
You seem to be confusing the verb as a word, as I'm talking about it, and the criminal act. You're setting out with the notion that to "steal" only involves the physical world. May I ask where you got this notion? Not from the dictionary (although I'm certain you can find a dictionary with physical removal as the only definition of the word "steal", there are plenty also available which don't), The entire point I was trying to make is that this act IS covered under the modern definition of steal.
I was only *ever* talking about the word, and how some geeks prefer to keep a singular definition for the word and excise all others that don't happen to suit their point of view or their argument.
Here are some definitions for Steal from various dictionaries:
- "to commit or practice theft."
- "to obtain surreptitiously"
- "to appropriate (ideas, etc) without acknowledgment, as in plagiarism"
- "to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of"
What I was commenting on, in reply to GP, was that many folks around here choose to ignore the latter three and make the argument that "stealing" is only ever the first definition there, and that all other definitions are false, and therefore, plagiarism (to use the example in the definition) isn't stealing. The truth of the matter, is if plagiarism is a definition of stealing, then plagiarism is stealing. Words have multiple definitions, and/.ers and pirates like to pretend this particular word only has one.
It was just a comment on GPs attempt to dismiss the matter of "stealing" having occurred, when, if you accept the latter three definitions above, it did. If you choose to dismiss any dictionary which defines "steal" as also involving non-physical objects, that's your choice - but that doesn't resolve a dispute on the topic. Geeks need to man up about this and accept that words change. It's like folks are treating "steal" as a dirty word, and something they like to pretend they're not involved with; Denying any modern meaning of the word is how they go about setting themselves apart, and feel better about what they do.
I'm not arguing about whether or not copyright infringement is good or bad. Sorry if my message came across that way. What I was criticising was the fact that geeks are at the forefront of every advancement in society, and embrace new ideas and modern movements, but they make a special case for the word "steal" (which has evolved with the language, and includes obtaining without permission), and pretend it doesn't have that meaning simply so they can keep saying that copyright infringement isn't "stealing". I wasn't commenting on the stealing itself whatsoever, or whether it's good or bad. Apologies for not being more clear. I do disagree with you that copyright infringement isn't stealing, but I agree it's not theft.:)
I concur, good sir. But we were talking about the word "steal" not "theft". Contrary to my comments about "steal", "theft" almost universally does involve the removing of products, and deprivation. To recap, GP made a common/, rail against the word "stole", to describe the actions of people who made a copy of the database. I pointed out that "steal" doesn't necessarily involve deprivation, and the legal definition includes taking without permission - even if no deprivation occurs. Talking about a verb here, not the crime itself.
Completely agreed - the crime of theft almost always involves deprivation of property in legal definition.
Right, and I often hear them say that, except the problem is that no part of the definition of steal ever involves deprivation. Usually stealing leads to deprivation, but it's not required. Since the early 1900s, the definition of steal has included obtaining without permission, no deprivation involved whatsoever, especially in legal dictionaries which are what matters in this context.
Similarly, if you take control of a bus, but continue to drive all passengers to their destination and allow them to alight, you're still guilty of kidnapping (actually, the definition of this varies between States, however in my country there is one legal definition, and it includes conveyance without legal permission.)
I know the pirates want to hold onto a single, antiquidated definition of the word to try and force their views, but language changes - geeks are usually at the forefront of this adoption, and it's sad to see people so eager to give up societal advancement for personal gain. For all our pretence of social and moral superiority over our forebears, folks are as self-indulgent as ever - this hyporitical stance against the modern definition of "steal" is a great example.
Once I was in World of Warcraft (to judge me!) and I was inviting folks to a dungeon group in The Deadmines. I'm a nice guy and nothing rude was said, however one kid messaged and asked if he could come - I said "no, you're too low level" (we had no high-level toons running us through, and the highest member of the group so far was level 17 - kid was level 13 - backstory for anyone familiar with the game:)).
Anywho, he replied "You have to take me!!!!" when I said no, he replied "I'm reporting you to a GM!!!" "For what?" "For exclusion!!!!"
With young kids in school now, I can tell ya - they're being taught that exclusion is a form of bullying at a public level. In the school yard apparently it's so that nobody feels excluded because blah blah cry me a river. But the point is they're bring raised with this point of view. I was a skinny dweeby kid - I was exluded from everything. But I learnt a lot about life from my experiences as a kid. It seems kids are being raised today to think 1) life should be an easy ride 2) you deserve to be famous 3) the world owes you for gracing us with your presence 4) nobody has a right to tell you what to do or not to do - even if they're a parent trying to protect you.
The MetroUI for a desktop PC is god-awful. Microsoft is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy here. They make the taskbar more useful with the addition of Quick Launch and then (in Windows 7) with integrated application pinning with ease, so of course folks need to use the Start Menu less. That doesn't mean we dislike the Start Menu. I still use it fairly frequently although quite likely, more than 11% less than I did in Windows XP.
Their answer to this (rather than realising that this means their UI and taskbar are working out well and perhaps build on those strengths) is to change the OS to use some crappy UI (yes, I've used the developer preview extensively.. still can't get over my utter disgust for it) and force it to the front of our screen every time we want to use a function that previously we would have gone to the Start Menu for.. Yuck.. yuck.. yuck.
I can see most geeks giving Win8 a miss - unfortunately the legions of new computer "users" who can't manage with anything more than a pretty coloured box to touch will probably drive sales and make the app-store a massive "win", meaning it might be forced on us in Windows 9 as well. Can only hope that business's skip of Windows 8 will give Microsoft pause for thought.
Only if there was actually something wrong with your car.
I see you fail at reading comprehension and missed the first half of the sentence. I really don't know why I bother.
Congratulations on knowing little about cars or computers.
Incorrect, but nice try. What you quoted was about people, not either of those. Another reading comprehension fail, but that's okay. You're new at this.
Advanced computer scammers use popups and tracking combined with the leakiness of your browser
Except we're not talking about advanced computer scammers. We're talking about cold-calling Indians who ALSO use publically available information to garner phone numbers. And yes - I've had this company call a new phone number that even I didn't know.
Taking this a bit further, car thieves who gain access to registration lists can target vehicles with known security vulnerabilities
Right.. except this elaborate analogy you're concocting is getting further from any parallel to techniques used by the company in question, so doesn't serve as a rebuttal to my rebuttal.. *eye roll*
And etc more comments you make about specialised directed attacks. Except that's not what's going on here. So the rant sorely misses the point, which is simply that not everyone who falls victim to any scam is an idiot, nor deserves to be judged as much. But since you can't even maintain a coherent train of thought from the original post through to this point and instead keep trying to escalate and divert the debate to the point where you eventually have a scenario which actually does fit your billing, there's not much reason to continue. Your next post will be even further off track.
A console window is a command prompt. You need to use it to install a great deal of Linux software. Alternatively, I've never needed to use the command prompt in the past 2 years on any of my WIndows boxes. I'm not sure quite what you're trying to say. In normal usage, one never has to see a command prompt in Windows.
The key words here are normal usage.
Installing software is normal usage for a home user. This frequently requires a bash prompt in Linux. It doesn't under Windows.
Checking netstat is not normal usage for a home user. Performing a timed shutdown via console is not normal usage. Please give an example of a command prompt action which a normal user is required to undertake in Windows. Because what you've claimed is.. backwards. Most Windows users I know have _never_ been to a command prompt, and their PC works fine...
Bad analogy, as much as I like car analogies.:) First of all, if someone doesn't know how to drive, we tell them to get off the road because they pose a serious risk to the lives of others and themselves. If the same applied (in the same respect.. I'm sure someone can accidently strangle themselves with a mouse cable if they try really hard) to computers, we wouldn't let folks use those either, but there's no comparison.
For the first part of the analogy, the individual "spotting cars on the highway", while they may have specialist knowledge, they don't have inside knowledge. They haven't been poking around in your car and being able to gain insight that you can't verify. The computer equivalent to this would be "I saw your computer through your Window the other night and reckon you've got malware". Neither will happen. With the internet example, it's quite possible for someone else to view the packets you're sending, and quite often when someone actually is DDoSing through malware, their ISP will cut off their net connection and contact them to get it fixed.
A better equivalency would rather be that your car breaks down on the side of the road, and a few minutes later a breakdown/tow truck comes along and says he was just on the way back from a job and asks if you'd like any help. He looks inside your bonnet and says then mechanowhatsit is broken and it'll need to be towed as he can't do a road-side fix on it. He takes you back to the garage and lets you know the car will be ready for collection tomorrow, and you can just pay the bill for repairs then - he was already "on his way back" so the trip is free. Delighted with this helpful bloke with inside knowledge of the internals of your car, you catch a cab home. When you return in the morning, the truck's gone, your car's gone, and the attendant's never heard of him. Many folks have fallen for this, and it's not because they're "idiots".
Maybe their skills are better suited.. to a more intimate environment?;)
J/K.:) Don't get me wrong - I understand there are many.. many idiots around. I just don't find that everyone bamboozled by computers is necessarily an idiot, some being brilliant in their own fields, but still, after all these years, unable to format text.
Slashdot Mirror
Page 24:
I believe that this violates my implicit right to repair objects I own. But the real problem is that this photo was taken with a Motorola battery installed – in fact, this is the original battery that shipped with my phone. There is a trend in devices to protect the interests of the manufacturer rather then the interests of the owner/end user. Unfortunately, as we saw with the market failure of Windows Vista and see here, these attempts often make the device inconvenient or unusable by the owner/end user.
Except.. Vista isn't a hardware system, and it doesn't prevent users doing anything they want to with their hardware. In fact, it doesn't prevent users doing anything they want with their software either. Also, UAC doesn't restrict the user, it's simply an interface annoyance (which was excessive in Vista, but far better in Win7). This is so completely out of place in the story.
A sad attempt to insert an irrelevant Microsoft bash simply for the sake of it, lets the entire journal down.
Also, apologies, I did mean to highlight the second part of that, where their skin consistency changed consistently in either scenario. The part I highlighted agrees with what you said - that there is a cultural attitude that fingernails on a chalkboard is an unpleasant sound. However, this seems to not have any effect on the physiological reaction - that being, the physical reaction is the same in either case.
Some listeners were told the true source of the sounds, whereas others were told that the sounds were part of contemporary musical compositions.
The ratings also changed depending on what the listeners thought the sounds were. If they thought a sound came from a musical composition, they rated it as less unpleasant than if they knew it actually was fingernails on a chalkboard. But their skin conductivity changed consistently even when they thought the chalkboard sound was from music and rated it as less unpleasant.
So naw.. that theory doesn't really hold much water. Personally, I found the chalkboard sound unbearable well before I "knew" I was meant to. More likely it's simply that some folk don't react the same way to that sound (and likely, have their own quirks, completely unrelated). There's a physiological explanation for this which doesn't involve influence, like how some people absolutely can't stand the flavour of gherkin (or pickle, if you prefer), and some love it so much they'll eat my discarded gherkin slices from my burger. :P There's a lot of subtle differences to how individuals perceive sensory input.
5% increase per year, over 3 years. A total 15% increase up to an average wage of $170k.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-engineers-cancel-strike-action/story-e6frfq80-1226162996039
Yes, they are - they're actually on more than an average wage of $120k at present. They're seeking an increase to $170k.
Not at all, I'm just saying your perspective is incorrect, as shown by your first statement. Not only am I not the most downtrodden person on earth, but for every individual such as myself living comfortably in western society, there are 99 people who are more downtrodden than me. Actually, closer to 999 - my income puts me in the top 0.1% worldwide - although only the top 30% nationally.
The difference here, I suppose, is that you look at a more national picture, whereas I see myself as a citizen of the world (sure, many of the governments in the world would disagree, but that's a matter of time). On a global scale, we're doing very nicely, and while I think the corporations and government are entirely corrupt and evil at this point, I don't see much that would make my life more comfortable, while still putting in a requisite amount of effort to ensure such.
Under industrial law in Australia (the Fair Work act, to be precise), the government can have an ombudsman step in and force a resolution on opposing side of an industrial action. These usually find in favour of the employer rather than the unions, as an ombudsman forcing a company into a money-losing position doesn't "solve" anything. This section of the law is very rarely used, as most industrial action is resolved between corps and unions, but it is designed simply so that a particular sector can't hold the entire economy to ransom - pretty much this is a perfect case study.
The only 99%ers in the Occupy Wall Street protest are the long-term homeless, and even many of them scrape into the 1% on welfare. Everyone you see wearing a "we are the 99%" t-shirt, is actually in the top 1% of wealthy in the world. They're just jealous of those even richer than them.
Except what their engineers call a "living wage" is twice the average family income.
/me crosses fingers.
Its a joke.. its a joke.. please let it be a joke.
Whom do you suggest should decide on the definition of a word? Where do you think Oxford, et al, draw their current definitions from?
Aside from that, I agree with every aspect of your stance against the criminalisation of copyright infringement. I concur that copyright has been warped and distorted completely from its original purpose, and that copyright now almost serves the opposite purpose that it was intended to. It was intended to provide an author with a modest fee, to encourage the author to continue and produce more works, knowing that it can provide an income - and the need for that income would cease once the author died. In fact, the terms used to be short enough as to encourage the author/artist to continue producing for the rest of their life.
Thesedays, consideration for the author/artist is the smallest piece of the copyright pie. It's almost entirely about protecting corporate profit, and extending these profits from a single work for as long as possible after the death of the original author. It in fact stifles further originality, as a single IP (eg, LOTR) can be milked indefinitely without the need for new works.
I'm just not hung up on the word. Perhaps it's because I don't fall victim to propaganda wars by big media. Probably it's because I speak multiple languages and I'm just not concerned about the colloquial definition of a single word - if it changes, so be it. I don't care if downloading movies adopts the name "murder". As long as people doing so aren't being charged with the crime which shares the same name, the adaptation of the word doesn't have a lot of meaning to me. In fact, it would actually weaken the seriousness attached to the word "murder".
Likewise, if every civil dispute is to be known as "stealing", it weakens people's reactions to "stealing" - if it were an agenda by Big Media to attach the label, it would have the reverse effect to what they desire. It wouldn't make "copying movies" more serious, it'd make "stealing" less serious. Don't get me wrong, I do recognise that they want to fool people into believing this (the ads on DVDs/in cinemas comparing downloading a movie to robbery). I just don't think the term being used is the thing to get upset about.
TL;DR version:
You cannot steal an idea, thoughts, etc
Dictionary definition:
Steal
"to appropriate (ideas, etc) without acknowledgment, as in plagiarism"
My point was only ever that geeks are trying to ignore any definition of the word steal which doesn't suit them - I'm not arguing the merits of or against any act.
I never brought up copyright infringement? I wasn't arguing for or against copyright infringement at any point in time. I was purely talking about the word "steal".
You seem to be confusing the verb as a word, as I'm talking about it, and the criminal act. You're setting out with the notion that to "steal" only involves the physical world. May I ask where you got this notion? Not from the dictionary (although I'm certain you can find a dictionary with physical removal as the only definition of the word "steal", there are plenty also available which don't), The entire point I was trying to make is that this act IS covered under the modern definition of steal.
I was only *ever* talking about the word, and how some geeks prefer to keep a singular definition for the word and excise all others that don't happen to suit their point of view or their argument.
Here are some definitions for Steal from various dictionaries:
- "to commit or practice theft."
- "to obtain surreptitiously"
- "to appropriate (ideas, etc) without acknowledgment, as in plagiarism"
- "to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of"
What I was commenting on, in reply to GP, was that many folks around here choose to ignore the latter three and make the argument that "stealing" is only ever the first definition there, and that all other definitions are false, and therefore, plagiarism (to use the example in the definition) isn't stealing. The truth of the matter, is if plagiarism is a definition of stealing, then plagiarism is stealing. Words have multiple definitions, and /.ers and pirates like to pretend this particular word only has one.
It was just a comment on GPs attempt to dismiss the matter of "stealing" having occurred, when, if you accept the latter three definitions above, it did. If you choose to dismiss any dictionary which defines "steal" as also involving non-physical objects, that's your choice - but that doesn't resolve a dispute on the topic. Geeks need to man up about this and accept that words change. It's like folks are treating "steal" as a dirty word, and something they like to pretend they're not involved with; Denying any modern meaning of the word is how they go about setting themselves apart, and feel better about what they do.
I'm not arguing about whether or not copyright infringement is good or bad. Sorry if my message came across that way. What I was criticising was the fact that geeks are at the forefront of every advancement in society, and embrace new ideas and modern movements, but they make a special case for the word "steal" (which has evolved with the language, and includes obtaining without permission), and pretend it doesn't have that meaning simply so they can keep saying that copyright infringement isn't "stealing". I wasn't commenting on the stealing itself whatsoever, or whether it's good or bad. Apologies for not being more clear. I do disagree with you that copyright infringement isn't stealing, but I agree it's not theft. :)
I concur, good sir. But we were talking about the word "steal" not "theft". Contrary to my comments about "steal", "theft" almost universally does involve the removing of products, and deprivation. To recap, GP made a common /, rail against the word "stole", to describe the actions of people who made a copy of the database. I pointed out that "steal" doesn't necessarily involve deprivation, and the legal definition includes taking without permission - even if no deprivation occurs. Talking about a verb here, not the crime itself.
Completely agreed - the crime of theft almost always involves deprivation of property in legal definition.
Alas, it's a common feeling around these parts. If only they were all joking..
Right, and I often hear them say that, except the problem is that no part of the definition of steal ever involves deprivation. Usually stealing leads to deprivation, but it's not required. Since the early 1900s, the definition of steal has included obtaining without permission, no deprivation involved whatsoever, especially in legal dictionaries which are what matters in this context.
Similarly, if you take control of a bus, but continue to drive all passengers to their destination and allow them to alight, you're still guilty of kidnapping (actually, the definition of this varies between States, however in my country there is one legal definition, and it includes conveyance without legal permission.)
I know the pirates want to hold onto a single, antiquidated definition of the word to try and force their views, but language changes - geeks are usually at the forefront of this adoption, and it's sad to see people so eager to give up societal advancement for personal gain. For all our pretence of social and moral superiority over our forebears, folks are as self-indulgent as ever - this hyporitical stance against the modern definition of "steal" is a great example.
According to the dictionary, they stole it. Perhaps you have a personal, very narrow definition of Steal. The word means more than you think it does.
Goddamn that site hurts my eyes. Looks very similar to the Metro UI.
Once I was in World of Warcraft (to judge me!) and I was inviting folks to a dungeon group in The Deadmines. I'm a nice guy and nothing rude was said, however one kid messaged and asked if he could come - I said "no, you're too low level" (we had no high-level toons running us through, and the highest member of the group so far was level 17 - kid was level 13 - backstory for anyone familiar with the game :)).
Anywho, he replied "You have to take me!!!!" when I said no, he replied "I'm reporting you to a GM!!!" "For what?" "For exclusion!!!!"
With young kids in school now, I can tell ya - they're being taught that exclusion is a form of bullying at a public level. In the school yard apparently it's so that nobody feels excluded because blah blah cry me a river. But the point is they're bring raised with this point of view. I was a skinny dweeby kid - I was exluded from everything. But I learnt a lot about life from my experiences as a kid. It seems kids are being raised today to think 1) life should be an easy ride 2) you deserve to be famous 3) the world owes you for gracing us with your presence 4) nobody has a right to tell you what to do or not to do - even if they're a parent trying to protect you.
+5
The MetroUI for a desktop PC is god-awful. Microsoft is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy here. They make the taskbar more useful with the addition of Quick Launch and then (in Windows 7) with integrated application pinning with ease, so of course folks need to use the Start Menu less. That doesn't mean we dislike the Start Menu. I still use it fairly frequently although quite likely, more than 11% less than I did in Windows XP.
Their answer to this (rather than realising that this means their UI and taskbar are working out well and perhaps build on those strengths) is to change the OS to use some crappy UI (yes, I've used the developer preview extensively.. still can't get over my utter disgust for it) and force it to the front of our screen every time we want to use a function that previously we would have gone to the Start Menu for.. Yuck.. yuck.. yuck.
I can see most geeks giving Win8 a miss - unfortunately the legions of new computer "users" who can't manage with anything more than a pretty coloured box to touch will probably drive sales and make the app-store a massive "win", meaning it might be forced on us in Windows 9 as well. Can only hope that business's skip of Windows 8 will give Microsoft pause for thought.
Only if there was actually something wrong with your car.
I see you fail at reading comprehension and missed the first half of the sentence. I really don't know why I bother.
Congratulations on knowing little about cars or computers.
Incorrect, but nice try. What you quoted was about people, not either of those. Another reading comprehension fail, but that's okay. You're new at this.
Advanced computer scammers use popups and tracking combined with the leakiness of your browser
Except we're not talking about advanced computer scammers. We're talking about cold-calling Indians who ALSO use publically available information to garner phone numbers. And yes - I've had this company call a new phone number that even I didn't know.
Taking this a bit further, car thieves who gain access to registration lists can target vehicles with known security vulnerabilities
Right.. except this elaborate analogy you're concocting is getting further from any parallel to techniques used by the company in question, so doesn't serve as a rebuttal to my rebuttal.. *eye roll*
And etc more comments you make about specialised directed attacks. Except that's not what's going on here. So the rant sorely misses the point, which is simply that not everyone who falls victim to any scam is an idiot, nor deserves to be judged as much. But since you can't even maintain a coherent train of thought from the original post through to this point and instead keep trying to escalate and divert the debate to the point where you eventually have a scenario which actually does fit your billing, there's not much reason to continue. Your next post will be even further off track.
A console window is a command prompt. You need to use it to install a great deal of Linux software. Alternatively, I've never needed to use the command prompt in the past 2 years on any of my WIndows boxes. I'm not sure quite what you're trying to say. In normal usage, one never has to see a command prompt in Windows.
The key words here are normal usage.
Installing software is normal usage for a home user. This frequently requires a bash prompt in Linux. It doesn't under Windows.
Checking netstat is not normal usage for a home user. Performing a timed shutdown via console is not normal usage. Please give an example of a command prompt action which a normal user is required to undertake in Windows. Because what you've claimed is.. backwards. Most Windows users I know have _never_ been to a command prompt, and their PC works fine...
Bad analogy, as much as I like car analogies. :) First of all, if someone doesn't know how to drive, we tell them to get off the road because they pose a serious risk to the lives of others and themselves. If the same applied (in the same respect.. I'm sure someone can accidently strangle themselves with a mouse cable if they try really hard) to computers, we wouldn't let folks use those either, but there's no comparison.
For the first part of the analogy, the individual "spotting cars on the highway", while they may have specialist knowledge, they don't have inside knowledge. They haven't been poking around in your car and being able to gain insight that you can't verify. The computer equivalent to this would be "I saw your computer through your Window the other night and reckon you've got malware". Neither will happen. With the internet example, it's quite possible for someone else to view the packets you're sending, and quite often when someone actually is DDoSing through malware, their ISP will cut off their net connection and contact them to get it fixed.
A better equivalency would rather be that your car breaks down on the side of the road, and a few minutes later a breakdown/tow truck comes along and says he was just on the way back from a job and asks if you'd like any help. He looks inside your bonnet and says then mechanowhatsit is broken and it'll need to be towed as he can't do a road-side fix on it. He takes you back to the garage and lets you know the car will be ready for collection tomorrow, and you can just pay the bill for repairs then - he was already "on his way back" so the trip is free. Delighted with this helpful bloke with inside knowledge of the internals of your car, you catch a cab home. When you return in the morning, the truck's gone, your car's gone, and the attendant's never heard of him. Many folks have fallen for this, and it's not because they're "idiots".
Maybe their skills are better suited.. to a more intimate environment? ;)
J/K. :) Don't get me wrong - I understand there are many.. many idiots around. I just don't find that everyone bamboozled by computers is necessarily an idiot, some being brilliant in their own fields, but still, after all these years, unable to format text.