And say a friend texts you during the work day and asks if you want to meet up at a restaurant after work? Without your car, you may just have to pass on that if it's not one of the places strategically close enough to you or a metro stop so you can get there!
Here's a typical case of cause and effect, if you're a place regularly serving alcohol making people unfit to drive maybe it's a good idea to locate somewhere which makes it easy to get to and from without a taxi or a designated driver? If like "normal" people you'd want as customers use public transport, that is. My impression of the US is that using public transport is such a "special case" that you just don't cater to it. One oddity I remember from the grocery store in the US was the bags, they were just horribly flimsy and uncomfortable clearly designed to barely get the goods from the counter to the trunk and from the trunk in your door. They were all but useless for even short to medium walking distances. It's just so institutionalized that you have a car and trying to patch in anything else just becomes an afterthought.
Why is that movie theaters seem to be about the only business that not only doesn't understand or even attempt to follow supply and demand with their pricing of both the attractions and the food, but seem to publicly admit that they don't think supply/demand makes sense? If nobody wants to buy something I'm selling, the price is too high. Any sane person in the world would lower their price. That's the whole idea behind supply and demand.
No it's not, you're making a ton of assumptions about the price/demand curve here. If a product costs me $8 to make and I sell it for $9, then I might make more money selling it for $10 as long as my sales don't drop by half or more. If you think more volume is always better then McDonald's dollar meals should be the only game in down but in fact there's lot of food places making good money on selling better food at higher prices. If you're struggling the right answer could just as easily be to offer a more premium service for a higher price as the opposite. Often the demand curve is not nearly as elastic as you'd think because people are busy and have limited time or they've had their fill, you'd not go to the cinema every day even if it was a dollar. Like it or not, sometimes the answer is to make more money off them when they first go.
The above means effectively a requirement for GPL'd software to be "free as in beer".
You can charge whatever you want, but those you give it to must be able to give it away for free. If I'm not able to give it away for free, then per the FSF it's not free software because somebody else controls who I can redistribute it to and how much they'd have to pay for it. I'm not infringing on my free speech if I charge admission to my band's concert. But if someone else could demand money every time I'd like to hold a concert, then clearly that's a restriction on my speech. No matter if they hand out those licenses in a FRAND manner or not.
I think you underestimate how much the local community might be willing to back up local business, if it's clear that the choice is otherwise having none at all. Once you start losing social facilities like the cinema then young people start moving away and you turn into a dying community of old farts. I live in a considerably bigger city and never feel my presence is "make-or-break" for services, sure individual shops come and go but there'll always be another. Out near our cabin I notice an entirely different attitude in the permanent residents, they'd better use the local services because otherwise they'll go tits up and then they won't have any. With apologies to Niemöller:
First the market forces came for the cinema, and I didn't care out since I didn't use the cinema. Then they came for the restaurant, and I didn't care since I didn't go to the restaurant. Then they came for the hospital, and I didn't care since I was healthy and didn't need it. Then they came for the grocery store, and I found everyone else had already left.
Where I live in Australia it costs around $17 per adult to see a movie at the cinema. The last movie I went to had around 8 people watching it. If they charged $5 per adult I bet there would have been a lot more people watching that movie
But if they'd make any money on it would very much depend on whether the cinema is charged per viewer or per showing of the movie and I suspect it's the former. It'd be very hard to make individual deals depending on the "willingness to pay" in that particular town, most likely they're charged as much as other cinemas who may have an audience more willing to pay. In my experience the smaller, regional cinemas are at least as expensive as the big city cinemas, even though rural salaries are typically lower.
Every time you decide to redistribute GPL program that you bought or obtained from someone who paid for patent license you need to include per-unit costs in your price (and pay it to a patent owner). If the said per-unit cost was non-zero, you cannot redistribute the program for free, but actually GPL does not mandate you to redistribute software for free; it allows to include whatever costs you take for redistributing it (this time it means patent costs).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is actually spelled out quite clearly even back in the GPLv2:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Directly or indirectly basically means it is your responsibility to license the whole downstream for a potentially infinite number of copies. Since no patent owner is going to give you such a license - it's basically permission for everyone, anywhere to use their patent - you can't distribute the software at all. This in intentional so that patent owners can't use their patent to "sell" copies of GPL code.
The major difference between exceptions and null checks is the granularity. You can for example have a try/catch around the whole function parser that will kick in on any sort of failure and just say "whoops, something bad happened parsing this command" and it won't really matter what part inside that failed as long as you can recover, in that case probably by just ignoring that command and keep running. With null checks you must have one in every possible place you might call a null pointer. Particularly for a server then it can often happen that this client session is borked because it triggered some kind of "impossible" exception, you have to kill it but unless the entire server state is borked you don't need to kill the whole server. It's actually one of the things I hate the most with C/C++, without exceptions then one error means the whole application goes boom.
GPL is designed to protect users from companies who would take free software, add compelling features to its own product, and restrict users of the improved product. Under a 14+14 year scheme like that of the original Copyright Act, such a company would have to replicate the existing 28 years of improvements before doing that.
Or in other words, the first GNU code should fall out of copyright four years from now. In six years, they could start hacking from Linux 0.01. OMG, how terrible...
No doubt about that, the only question is if they're choking the economy they're trying to save so hard that it actually ends up being a bigger rescue operation than necessary. It doesn't matter how bad off you are, if further cuts make the economy collapse even more then the net effect is just sinking even deeper into the pit. Either Germany has to really drag them up and take the cost of it, or let them choke. Right now they're holding them just high enough that the nose is free and they're both getting tired of it.
People have gone tablet crazy, they estimate that here in Norway around 100,000 tablets have been sold this year for Christmas in a country to 5 million. That's 1 in 50 getting a tablet for Christmas. Not sure how many actually hate it, but Win8 was certainly met with a giant yawn in the market. Must be frustrating for MS to see that nobody wants Microsoft phones and tablets. Apple and Google on the other hand must be making a very, very good year...
Netbooks weren't stupid, they were just superseeded. I have a netbook and when I bought it useful tablets weren't anywhere to be found and I wanted more than my phone could deliver. I bought it primarily as a second computer to do things on the go - mainly consume information - and now tablets do a better job at that. If you're seriously into producing content that'll still happen on a laptop or a desktop, netbook have simply lost the support role they used to have.
They did work out well in the past. It's easy to call treatments of the past barbaric without perspective.
Not to mention the basic ideas of lobotomy are very much alive, I knew a guy with very severe epilepsy attacks. I think the surgery he had was something like this:
Multiple subpial transaction
This is used when it's not possible to remove the part of the brain that's causing the seizures. The surgeon will make a series of cuts to help separate the damaged part of the brain from the surrounding area. This stops seizures from moving from one part of the brain to other parts of the brain.
He was in his 30s and that enabled him to finally move out of his parent's house, get a bit of education and a driver's license. It didn't come without downsides but overall he was much, much better off than before.
The future might be that you must buy a Linux device to run Linux because the Microsoft devices only run Windows, the Apple devices only run IOS and the Google devices only run unrootable Android. That the OS is sold by a different vendor than the hardware it runs on is really an anomaly caused by IBM being a total fool in the 80s, after seeing Apple's success and MS finally doing hardware with the Surface tablet I'm pretty sure that's where we're heading back to buying hardware and software as one unit that doesn't separate one way or the other, you can't run the software on other hardware or other software on the hardware.
Intel sells to Apple, Intel sells to Microsoft, Intel would love to sell to all the smart phone vendors, why wouldn't they want to sell to someone making a Linux device? And if you couldn't just wipe your Windows PC and install Linux on it anymore, I'm sure there'd be a good market by now. Or for that matter, take something like the Raspberry Pi, does it even run any locked down OS? That's pretty much the worst case, yeah to run Linux you must buy a Raspberry Pi. But let's not let that get in the way of the OMG the sky is falling craze where general purpose computers will cease to exist.
I have this belief that if I buy something I can do what the hell I want with it.
Seller: "Here's a tablet, it runs Win8 RT. In fact, it's intentionally designed to never run anything but Win8 RT." Buyer: "I want to run Linux on it" S: "Well, you can't" B: "But it's my device" S: "Sure, but it won't do that. Even if you go to the pet shop and buy a gold fish and it's yours it still won't fly. I'm telling you, it won't be possible." B: "Well I'm buying one anyway" * tries to install Linux and fails * B: "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA it doesn't run Linux" S: "..."
Why are they under any obligation to sell you something that does "all it can do", instead of just what they promised it could do? If they were crawling around as much in your wallet saying "You could pay us more" as we're crawling around in the product saying "You could give me more" there'd be outrage. Just a few stories down it was the same about the iDevice margins, why should it be the user's business whether it costs $200 or $500 to make? Here's the sticker price, if you feel it's worth it then pay or don't pay as it might be, not whine about how they could have sold it for less. It's an offer, but it's a free country so they don't have to give your their best possible offering.
People have internal and external motivation but I think it's orthogonal to introvert and extrovert. The most obvious examples are the introverts who wish they could be popular and cool, they define their self worth in terms of what others think of them despite being introverts. And the attention whores that really define themselves only on what others think of them is a small minority of the extroverts, most of them are just social with self worth of their own. Good thing too because the greatest insult you can make to an attention whore is completely ignoring them, only met a few but they act like you just stomped on their puppy.
How is going into your motherboard's menu and disabling SecureBoot not easy?
Well you could read the link I just posted and find out, but in case you didn't getting into the BIOS wasn't obvious, he had to ignore a big red warning and after doing that he had to enable legacy boot, then a specific legacy device, then hold a secret button while rebooting to boot into it. If that's your understanding of easy, have you ever had the feeling other people perceive the world differently than you?
About a decade ago, I would typically keep about $100 in the house just because. Now days it's rare if I have $15 around at any given time.
Well I usually have some cash around just because it's guaranteed to work. I recently had to replace my VISA card because it appeared somehow it'd been compromised, which meant doing several days of Christmas shopping without it until a replacement arrived. I do have a credit card laying around here somewhere too but cash always works. It doesn't mean I use it much, but it's useful to have when you need it.
The BIOS is the last remnant of the original IBM PC from the early 80s, and the limitations are many. That you take the one feature Microsoft wants (Secure Boot) and think the whole of UEFI revolves around it and to secure Microsoft's monopoly makes you the moron. Initially it was Intel who wanted a better way to boot Itanium processors without pretending to be a 1980s PC, then later Apple used it for their Intel Macs since they controlled both the hardware and the OS. Secure Boot is a much more recent addition.
The main problem with UEFI is that when they first could replace the BIOS, they wanted to fix all issues past, present and future no matter if you used completely different storage hardware, input hardware, display hardware or network boot of types both known and unknown. The result is that it's practically a complex "pre-OS" by itself that wants all the hardware initialized and EFI drivers installed.
I'd go with the opposite approach, *unless* a defined boot key is held down then just run whatever is defined as the standard boot option ASAP, load as many bytes as requested in memory (today it loads 512 bytes, leading to boot loader chaining) and turn over control to the OS immediately. It can handle the remaining probing/initialization. If you *do* press the boot key and the simple boot device selection isn't enough you'd have to load an "extended BIOS" from USB/CD-ROM that could have all the other junk to give you a GUI, mouse, network, wireless, RAID etc. support and if you wanted network boot over wireless then it could install code to do just that, sort of a "custom boot method" flash area that would provide the flexibility. But the BIOS itself wouldn't contain everything and the kitchen sink the way UEFI does.
I will personally make m/boards for you that run whatever CPU you want (...) It may not be as good as an Intel CPU, but it will work.
So which is it, can you make me a LGA1155 socket motherboard or can't you? Or did you mean "any CPU you want, as long as it's an ancient and outdated one with open specs"?
Desktop motherboard manufacturers know that in the past and in the present that following the dictates of Microsoft is how to survive. But those days are mostly over. I doubt any of the MB manufacturers are going to stand up and fart in Microsoft's face and say NO. But I suspect they know the trend is moving away from Microsoft and with the Linux noises that companies like Valve are making that Microsoft will only get weaker. Thus they will probably pretend to put UEFI onto the motherboard but make it really really easy for anyone with the capability to install linux to turn it off.
Whether Microsoft is experiencing competition from Macs or iPads or Android tablets doesn't matter, the only thing is how many repurpose a machine that came with Windows installed. That market share is still 1% and more importantly the motherboard manufacturers don't care - they got their sale back when it had Windows on it. Hell if Linux fans have to buy a different motherboard to run Linux on it, they get double sales.
Plus companies know that all kinds of businesses will want to put a whole range of products on their systems from oddballs like DOS with many wanting XP, Vista, and Windows 7.
And Microsoft will, if they're kind, sign MS-DOS, XP, Vista, Windows 7 and anything else Microsoft has made just not DR-DOS, OS/2, BSD or Linux.
All that said, Microsoft's worst nightmare would be for a company to start releasing Motherboards/Machines with UEFI disabled as a feature and telling the world that smart discerning high-end customers buy systems without UEFI and that the drones buy what the suits at Microsoft tell them.
Yeah, because getting on Microsoft's shit list so they get trouble getting validated for the next Windows version and lose all their big OEM contracts is so going to help business. Nobody's going to do that for a number of reasons.
i didnt have any problems booting from usb, although it was turned off by default, but i am not buying tablets and what not so they just going to loose money on me..
Anything that wants the "Made for Windows 8" sticker must ship with Secure Boot enabled, whether it's tablets, laptops, desktops or whatever. In practice that is any Win8 machine shipped from a major OEM, I'm guessing there's smaller stores who might install Win8 without enabling it but try it on any HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Asus or any other big name machine shipping with Win8. Clearly the machine you tried isn't one of them, because you will find it is very, very hard to boot anything else...
So using this jumping-the-tracks train of logic, we should make guns free so no criminal will ever want to steal one. BINGO!
No, you just took the facepalm to a new level because criminals steal guns since they can't legally buy them, not because they can't afford them. Fundamentally, the article is right because thieves don't steal for shits and giggles, but because you have valuables and because that value exceeds the risk. Just like every tourist guide will warn you not to wear your expensive jewelry to the slum areas. Where the article goes off the rails is in suggesting that we shouldn't have expensive items in an effort to reduce crime. If you extended that to say burglary then we should all live like Tibetan monks. Sure, there's very little reason to robbing them, but the cure is worse than the disease (with no offense to people who choose to live that way). If a $200 phone can do what my $600 phone used to do that's great, but I'm doing it for the $400 and not to reduce crime.
If somebody rear-ends my car at a light, they have caused me harm. Do I therefore get out of my car and start screaming at him to "punish" him for his sins? No, I simply call the police to have a report created, and exchange insurance info. It will no doubt cost the guy money, and his insurance company will no doubt give him incentive not to repeat the incident. But, the fact is that it was an accident - that is why we call them accidents.
In this case it was more like the driver of the car rear-ending you getting out of his car and start blaming you for braking too fast, then looks like he's about to drive off leaving you to clean up the mess. In that case, yeah I might throw the first curse word too.
Slashdot Mirror
And say a friend texts you during the work day and asks if you want to meet up at a restaurant after work? Without your car, you may just have to pass on that if it's not one of the places strategically close enough to you or a metro stop so you can get there!
Here's a typical case of cause and effect, if you're a place regularly serving alcohol making people unfit to drive maybe it's a good idea to locate somewhere which makes it easy to get to and from without a taxi or a designated driver? If like "normal" people you'd want as customers use public transport, that is. My impression of the US is that using public transport is such a "special case" that you just don't cater to it. One oddity I remember from the grocery store in the US was the bags, they were just horribly flimsy and uncomfortable clearly designed to barely get the goods from the counter to the trunk and from the trunk in your door. They were all but useless for even short to medium walking distances. It's just so institutionalized that you have a car and trying to patch in anything else just becomes an afterthought.
Why is that movie theaters seem to be about the only business that not only doesn't understand or even attempt to follow supply and demand with their pricing of both the attractions and the food, but seem to publicly admit that they don't think supply/demand makes sense? If nobody wants to buy something I'm selling, the price is too high. Any sane person in the world would lower their price. That's the whole idea behind supply and demand.
No it's not, you're making a ton of assumptions about the price/demand curve here. If a product costs me $8 to make and I sell it for $9, then I might make more money selling it for $10 as long as my sales don't drop by half or more. If you think more volume is always better then McDonald's dollar meals should be the only game in down but in fact there's lot of food places making good money on selling better food at higher prices. If you're struggling the right answer could just as easily be to offer a more premium service for a higher price as the opposite. Often the demand curve is not nearly as elastic as you'd think because people are busy and have limited time or they've had their fill, you'd not go to the cinema every day even if it was a dollar. Like it or not, sometimes the answer is to make more money off them when they first go.
The above means effectively a requirement for GPL'd software to be "free as in beer".
You can charge whatever you want, but those you give it to must be able to give it away for free. If I'm not able to give it away for free, then per the FSF it's not free software because somebody else controls who I can redistribute it to and how much they'd have to pay for it. I'm not infringing on my free speech if I charge admission to my band's concert. But if someone else could demand money every time I'd like to hold a concert, then clearly that's a restriction on my speech. No matter if they hand out those licenses in a FRAND manner or not.
I think you underestimate how much the local community might be willing to back up local business, if it's clear that the choice is otherwise having none at all. Once you start losing social facilities like the cinema then young people start moving away and you turn into a dying community of old farts. I live in a considerably bigger city and never feel my presence is "make-or-break" for services, sure individual shops come and go but there'll always be another. Out near our cabin I notice an entirely different attitude in the permanent residents, they'd better use the local services because otherwise they'll go tits up and then they won't have any. With apologies to Niemöller:
First the market forces came for the cinema, and I didn't care out since I didn't use the cinema.
Then they came for the restaurant, and I didn't care since I didn't go to the restaurant.
Then they came for the hospital, and I didn't care since I was healthy and didn't need it.
Then they came for the grocery store, and I found everyone else had already left.
Where I live in Australia it costs around $17 per adult to see a movie at the cinema. The last movie I went to had around 8 people watching it. If they charged $5 per adult I bet there would have been a lot more people watching that movie
But if they'd make any money on it would very much depend on whether the cinema is charged per viewer or per showing of the movie and I suspect it's the former. It'd be very hard to make individual deals depending on the "willingness to pay" in that particular town, most likely they're charged as much as other cinemas who may have an audience more willing to pay. In my experience the smaller, regional cinemas are at least as expensive as the big city cinemas, even though rural salaries are typically lower.
Every time you decide to redistribute GPL program that you bought or obtained from someone who paid for patent license you need to include per-unit costs in your price (and pay it to a patent owner). If the said per-unit cost was non-zero, you cannot redistribute the program for free, but actually GPL does not mandate you to redistribute software for free; it allows to include whatever costs you take for redistributing it (this time it means patent costs).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is actually spelled out quite clearly even back in the GPLv2:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Directly or indirectly basically means it is your responsibility to license the whole downstream for a potentially infinite number of copies. Since no patent owner is going to give you such a license - it's basically permission for everyone, anywhere to use their patent - you can't distribute the software at all. This in intentional so that patent owners can't use their patent to "sell" copies of GPL code.
The major difference between exceptions and null checks is the granularity. You can for example have a try/catch around the whole function parser that will kick in on any sort of failure and just say "whoops, something bad happened parsing this command" and it won't really matter what part inside that failed as long as you can recover, in that case probably by just ignoring that command and keep running. With null checks you must have one in every possible place you might call a null pointer. Particularly for a server then it can often happen that this client session is borked because it triggered some kind of "impossible" exception, you have to kill it but unless the entire server state is borked you don't need to kill the whole server. It's actually one of the things I hate the most with C/C++, without exceptions then one error means the whole application goes boom.
GPL is designed to protect users from companies who would take free software, add compelling features to its own product, and restrict users of the improved product. Under a 14+14 year scheme like that of the original Copyright Act, such a company would have to replicate the existing 28 years of improvements before doing that.
Or in other words, the first GNU code should fall out of copyright four years from now. In six years, they could start hacking from Linux 0.01. OMG, how terrible...
No doubt about that, the only question is if they're choking the economy they're trying to save so hard that it actually ends up being a bigger rescue operation than necessary. It doesn't matter how bad off you are, if further cuts make the economy collapse even more then the net effect is just sinking even deeper into the pit. Either Germany has to really drag them up and take the cost of it, or let them choke. Right now they're holding them just high enough that the nose is free and they're both getting tired of it.
People have gone tablet crazy, they estimate that here in Norway around 100,000 tablets have been sold this year for Christmas in a country to 5 million. That's 1 in 50 getting a tablet for Christmas. Not sure how many actually hate it, but Win8 was certainly met with a giant yawn in the market. Must be frustrating for MS to see that nobody wants Microsoft phones and tablets. Apple and Google on the other hand must be making a very, very good year...
Netbooks weren't stupid, they were just superseeded. I have a netbook and when I bought it useful tablets weren't anywhere to be found and I wanted more than my phone could deliver. I bought it primarily as a second computer to do things on the go - mainly consume information - and now tablets do a better job at that. If you're seriously into producing content that'll still happen on a laptop or a desktop, netbook have simply lost the support role they used to have.
They did work out well in the past. It's easy to call treatments of the past barbaric without perspective.
Not to mention the basic ideas of lobotomy are very much alive, I knew a guy with very severe epilepsy attacks. I think the surgery he had was something like this:
Multiple subpial transaction
This is used when it's not possible to remove the part of the brain that's causing the seizures. The surgeon will make a series of cuts to help separate the damaged part of the brain from the surrounding area. This stops seizures from moving from one part of the brain to other parts of the brain.
He was in his 30s and that enabled him to finally move out of his parent's house, get a bit of education and a driver's license. It didn't come without downsides but overall he was much, much better off than before.
The future might be that you must buy a Linux device to run Linux because the Microsoft devices only run Windows, the Apple devices only run IOS and the Google devices only run unrootable Android. That the OS is sold by a different vendor than the hardware it runs on is really an anomaly caused by IBM being a total fool in the 80s, after seeing Apple's success and MS finally doing hardware with the Surface tablet I'm pretty sure that's where we're heading back to buying hardware and software as one unit that doesn't separate one way or the other, you can't run the software on other hardware or other software on the hardware.
Intel sells to Apple, Intel sells to Microsoft, Intel would love to sell to all the smart phone vendors, why wouldn't they want to sell to someone making a Linux device? And if you couldn't just wipe your Windows PC and install Linux on it anymore, I'm sure there'd be a good market by now. Or for that matter, take something like the Raspberry Pi, does it even run any locked down OS? That's pretty much the worst case, yeah to run Linux you must buy a Raspberry Pi. But let's not let that get in the way of the OMG the sky is falling craze where general purpose computers will cease to exist.
I have this belief that if I buy something I can do what the hell I want with it.
Seller: "Here's a tablet, it runs Win8 RT. In fact, it's intentionally designed to never run anything but Win8 RT."
Buyer: "I want to run Linux on it"
S: "Well, you can't"
B: "But it's my device"
S: "Sure, but it won't do that. Even if you go to the pet shop and buy a gold fish and it's yours it still won't fly. I'm telling you, it won't be possible."
B: "Well I'm buying one anyway"
* tries to install Linux and fails *
B: "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA it doesn't run Linux"
S: "..."
Why are they under any obligation to sell you something that does "all it can do", instead of just what they promised it could do? If they were crawling around as much in your wallet saying "You could pay us more" as we're crawling around in the product saying "You could give me more" there'd be outrage. Just a few stories down it was the same about the iDevice margins, why should it be the user's business whether it costs $200 or $500 to make? Here's the sticker price, if you feel it's worth it then pay or don't pay as it might be, not whine about how they could have sold it for less. It's an offer, but it's a free country so they don't have to give your their best possible offering.
People have internal and external motivation but I think it's orthogonal to introvert and extrovert. The most obvious examples are the introverts who wish they could be popular and cool, they define their self worth in terms of what others think of them despite being introverts. And the attention whores that really define themselves only on what others think of them is a small minority of the extroverts, most of them are just social with self worth of their own. Good thing too because the greatest insult you can make to an attention whore is completely ignoring them, only met a few but they act like you just stomped on their puppy.
How is going into your motherboard's menu and disabling SecureBoot not easy?
Well you could read the link I just posted and find out, but in case you didn't getting into the BIOS wasn't obvious, he had to ignore a big red warning and after doing that he had to enable legacy boot, then a specific legacy device, then hold a secret button while rebooting to boot into it. If that's your understanding of easy, have you ever had the feeling other people perceive the world differently than you?
About a decade ago, I would typically keep about $100 in the house just because. Now days it's rare if I have $15 around at any given time.
Well I usually have some cash around just because it's guaranteed to work. I recently had to replace my VISA card because it appeared somehow it'd been compromised, which meant doing several days of Christmas shopping without it until a replacement arrived. I do have a credit card laying around here somewhere too but cash always works. It doesn't mean I use it much, but it's useful to have when you need it.
Any x86 machine must also include the ability to turn secure boot off as well, according to ms win8 certification guidelines.
Yeah.... but they don't have to make it easy. Here's one tale of the new future.
The BIOS is the last remnant of the original IBM PC from the early 80s, and the limitations are many. That you take the one feature Microsoft wants (Secure Boot) and think the whole of UEFI revolves around it and to secure Microsoft's monopoly makes you the moron. Initially it was Intel who wanted a better way to boot Itanium processors without pretending to be a 1980s PC, then later Apple used it for their Intel Macs since they controlled both the hardware and the OS. Secure Boot is a much more recent addition.
The main problem with UEFI is that when they first could replace the BIOS, they wanted to fix all issues past, present and future no matter if you used completely different storage hardware, input hardware, display hardware or network boot of types both known and unknown. The result is that it's practically a complex "pre-OS" by itself that wants all the hardware initialized and EFI drivers installed.
I'd go with the opposite approach, *unless* a defined boot key is held down then just run whatever is defined as the standard boot option ASAP, load as many bytes as requested in memory (today it loads 512 bytes, leading to boot loader chaining) and turn over control to the OS immediately. It can handle the remaining probing/initialization. If you *do* press the boot key and the simple boot device selection isn't enough you'd have to load an "extended BIOS" from USB/CD-ROM that could have all the other junk to give you a GUI, mouse, network, wireless, RAID etc. support and if you wanted network boot over wireless then it could install code to do just that, sort of a "custom boot method" flash area that would provide the flexibility. But the BIOS itself wouldn't contain everything and the kitchen sink the way UEFI does.
I will personally make m/boards for you that run whatever CPU you want (...) It may not be as good as an Intel CPU, but it will work.
So which is it, can you make me a LGA1155 socket motherboard or can't you? Or did you mean "any CPU you want, as long as it's an ancient and outdated one with open specs"?
Desktop motherboard manufacturers know that in the past and in the present that following the dictates of Microsoft is how to survive. But those days are mostly over. I doubt any of the MB manufacturers are going to stand up and fart in Microsoft's face and say NO. But I suspect they know the trend is moving away from Microsoft and with the Linux noises that companies like Valve are making that Microsoft will only get weaker. Thus they will probably pretend to put UEFI onto the motherboard but make it really really easy for anyone with the capability to install linux to turn it off.
Whether Microsoft is experiencing competition from Macs or iPads or Android tablets doesn't matter, the only thing is how many repurpose a machine that came with Windows installed. That market share is still 1% and more importantly the motherboard manufacturers don't care - they got their sale back when it had Windows on it. Hell if Linux fans have to buy a different motherboard to run Linux on it, they get double sales.
Plus companies know that all kinds of businesses will want to put a whole range of products on their systems from oddballs like DOS with many wanting XP, Vista, and Windows 7.
And Microsoft will, if they're kind, sign MS-DOS, XP, Vista, Windows 7 and anything else Microsoft has made just not DR-DOS, OS/2, BSD or Linux.
All that said, Microsoft's worst nightmare would be for a company to start releasing Motherboards/Machines with UEFI disabled as a feature and telling the world that smart discerning high-end customers buy systems without UEFI and that the drones buy what the suits at Microsoft tell them.
Yeah, because getting on Microsoft's shit list so they get trouble getting validated for the next Windows version and lose all their big OEM contracts is so going to help business. Nobody's going to do that for a number of reasons.
i didnt have any problems booting from usb, although it was turned off by default, but i am not buying tablets and what not so they just going to loose money on me..
Anything that wants the "Made for Windows 8" sticker must ship with Secure Boot enabled, whether it's tablets, laptops, desktops or whatever. In practice that is any Win8 machine shipped from a major OEM, I'm guessing there's smaller stores who might install Win8 without enabling it but try it on any HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Asus or any other big name machine shipping with Win8. Clearly the machine you tried isn't one of them, because you will find it is very, very hard to boot anything else...
So using this jumping-the-tracks train of logic, we should make guns free so no criminal will ever want to steal one. BINGO!
No, you just took the facepalm to a new level because criminals steal guns since they can't legally buy them, not because they can't afford them. Fundamentally, the article is right because thieves don't steal for shits and giggles, but because you have valuables and because that value exceeds the risk. Just like every tourist guide will warn you not to wear your expensive jewelry to the slum areas. Where the article goes off the rails is in suggesting that we shouldn't have expensive items in an effort to reduce crime. If you extended that to say burglary then we should all live like Tibetan monks. Sure, there's very little reason to robbing them, but the cure is worse than the disease (with no offense to people who choose to live that way). If a $200 phone can do what my $600 phone used to do that's great, but I'm doing it for the $400 and not to reduce crime.
If somebody rear-ends my car at a light, they have caused me harm. Do I therefore get out of my car and start screaming at him to "punish" him for his sins? No, I simply call the police to have a report created, and exchange insurance info. It will no doubt cost the guy money, and his insurance company will no doubt give him incentive not to repeat the incident. But, the fact is that it was an accident - that is why we call them accidents.
In this case it was more like the driver of the car rear-ending you getting out of his car and start blaming you for braking too fast, then looks like he's about to drive off leaving you to clean up the mess. In that case, yeah I might throw the first curse word too.