No you are supposed to interact with a tiny screen something like a tablet while the media center is often physically connected to the TV. That's one of the reasons the system supports home networking and remote operation so well.
. Everyone in my office has a multi-monitor setup with a mouse and keyboard - powered by a laptop that is connected to docking station. This has pretty much become the typical setup.
We have sales data, that isn't typical. If it were typical people would have bought multiple laptops like that configuration with docking stations and that just isn't the case. For example the best selling high end laptops (Apple) don't even have a docking station option though they certainly support external monitors. There are 3rd party solutions like Samsung's but they don't come to being anywhere near the total volume.
That's great to see: right to be forgotten = right to censorship Exactly the point!
I love the Guardian doing a long article about the guy asking for right to be forgotten thereby guaranteeing it doesn't happen.
BTW as long as you are giving me good news regarding Europe. What is the opinion in Europe about the persecution (no government jobs, taking kids from parents...) restrictions on Scientology?
Oh I see. Well then we have good cases from previous decades where there were physical files. The USA ownership avoided these complications by having their own sets of keys and access badges. No one from the foreign subdivision did anything other than not interfere. The foreign employees didn't knowingly do anything because they weren't in the loop.
I always find it amazing how Apple users keep trying to convince everyone that 'everyone' is buying Macs 'now'. OSX only has ~5% more market share than Linux for the desktop.
Marketshare by unit Mac doesn't do so well. But Apple is running at about 2.2x average selling price so marketshare by revenue is higher. Apple has had 85-91% of all laptop hardware profits for about 8 years or something. So profitshare they well ahead of Windows. They are more or less the only meaningful non-commodity vendor. That's not the same situation as desktop Linux.
I made that switch from Windows 2000 to OS X 10.1. It wasn't that bad. Even then Fink (additional stuff for the Darwin BSD system) had most of those little tools. If anything I find that the hundreds if not thousands of little tools that come with the operating system make using Windows systems painful. Whenever I have to use them I'm always constantly amazed by the "that isn't built in yet!"
Microsoft seems to bet that their dominance of the desktop market is a guaranteed thing. I'd love to see them proven wrong.
No they don't. That's why they are doing this. They understand quite well that Android / iOS could easily displace them in home / small business as Android gets more functional. And the longer they push that battle off the worst position they'll be in to fight. If they are going to have to go through a painful transition doing it now when their customers even in home / small business can't easily move will be better than 4 years from now when they might very well be able to more easily move.
___
If they lose this round then most likely they walk away from home / small business and become an mid and large enterprise vendor. They can move their solutions up market and simply drop support for isolated PCs. Everything requires infrastructure to run. Short term that's likely to boost their earnings.
But they understand the danger. They get that home / small business is an incubator of creativity. And they remember quite well how they displaced DEC, IBM, HP, Data General, Wang... in the enterprise with their products that had originated in the home / small business space.
It wouldn't shock me if Vista is gaining users based on XP migration. Lots of people may have been entitled to a free Vista upgrade with their system when they had XP, or be able to use Vista on their older systems. Lowest cost transition.
You are using too many pronouns. Who is throwing who in jail for what?
____
Anyway the point is in reality that Azure is designed so that MS USA can do what they need to do. The agreement is designed to notify customers of that fact that they are effectively exporting data to the USA when they use Azure. Which makes this whole thing moot.
That might be too much incentive for people to finally switch to Mac or Linux.
He was talking enterprises. We know home / small business are switching to Linux (Android) and iOS in huge numbers. That's part of what is driving the change. The assumption is that enterprises are tightly held and their costs of switching is high. I think the experiments in the early 2000s where companies tried switching to Linux and mostly failed showed that once a Windows culture is established the incentives to switch need to be very high.
My guess is that if Microsoft were to implement an aggressive switch to more expensive feature rich desktop / laptops portables (i.e. higher cost better products)
Top 1/3rd would love it as new features became available quickly Botton 1/3rd would peal off to Android / Linux Middle 1/3rd would grouse but stick with Microsoft and boost their spend
Which is a very good outcome.
. Early netbooks have shown that the power of Windows to keep users is finite: Linux gained significant market share in the segment, until Microsoft created the ultra-cheap (or was it even free?) Starter Edition of XP.
Exactly. That's precisely the threat Android poses now. But now unlike with netbooks Microsoft can't afford to underprice them because the cheaper hardware means that x86 Windows would be more expensive even if the OS sold for a slightly negative amount of money.
This can be tested with American politicians. Over and over again the public's opinion of them rises quickly even when the negative information is out there as long as it isn't being aggressively pushed.
What the EU prohibited was OUTDATED opinions and FALSE data being searchable under a person's name.
What is an outdated opinion? Let's take the actual case. Person X's home went into foreclosure on date Y. A legal auction took place. Under his name the most prominent thing he had ever done, as defined by a listing in the most reliable sources was default on his mortgage. Google stated that by having this high on the search ranking. That is still true information today.
Ok, let's take an example that Americans might understand better, the No Fly List.
Excellent example. If this were a fully public database it would have negative information on tens of millions of Americans by law enforcement agencies. Statements about who they considered risky and why. Absolutely Good would be free to index this information and present it. That's completely protected free speech. So where do you want to go with this example?
There were actual cases, in the 70s and 80s of US banks declaring customers dead. The bank, as a legal person, is entitled to opinions, according to the Supreme Court (Hobby Lobby case).
That's not the Hobby Lobby case. Corporations were entitled to opinions prior to Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby was about whether corporations should be entitled to legal protections for the religious opinions. In America religious opinions grant protections against laws, the state is held to a higher degree of scrutiny called "compelling state interest". In Hobby Lobby the court found that Hobby Lobby had a religious opinion and thus the state had to meet compelling state interest.
There have been cases in the US of people dying in hospitals (particularly the ER room) because staff held the opinion they should be ignored, duty of care be damned.
The opinion is protected. The action is not. Someone is free to advocate in the USA that duty of care is a bad idea. That's a 1st amendment protected opinion.
In other words, many Americans only believe in the right of opinions that don't affect them. As soon as an opinion actually matters, as soon as a view is of consequence to that person, truth takes precedence.
You haven't shown that. So far your examples have missed the mark.
But computers in the EU are under EU law
Absolutely I agree. Google shouldn't be operating in the EU physically. European search engines should be.
Look at Snowden's publications.
Glenn Grenwald is not being prosecuted for publishing Snowden's statements. The state protects his free speech.
Then tell me, flat-out, that you cannot think of a single situation where the right to associate (not publish, there's no issue about publication, just explicit association) might possibly be trumped by your right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (as I believe someone once referred to it).
There are situations where the state has a compelling interest in prior restraint. These should be far and few between and individually argued before courts. The right to make broad statements of compelling interest where censorship becomes the default, no I don't think that should exist.
Person Y states an opinion about Person X. Government G disagrees with that opinion because they like Person X and makes it a crime to reference it. Person Z makes reference to it and is punished.
That's anti-free speech. What Google is being asked to do is deliberately and in a premeditated fashion lie to the people of Europe and tell them false government approved "truths" rather than actual truth. That's the core of censorship.
. Also, the right to free speech is not absolute, but already limited even in the US in various ways, see hate speech
Hate speech is not illegal in the United States. That's a European policy not an American one.
*bleep*, copyright.
Copyright is a category error. Person Y says mean thing about X. Copyright is that Person Y owns the statement and has rights to it. Free speech is that Person Y is allowed to say it. If Person Z wants to repeat the entire statement that's a violation of copyright. If Person Z wants to indicate that Person Y said that mean thing that is protected speech and copyright doesn't apply.
Which is why a movie review is not a violation of copyright even if it contains short segments from the movie.
Only because they have incompetent programmers that can't understand code closer to hardware than four levels of abstraction away, and don't understand how to write their own graphical extensions, which OpenGL supports, and will always kick DirectX's ass on.
Assume that's true. So what? Writing your own graphical extensions introduces costs. Testing them across video cards and supporting that introduces huge costs. Of course going low level is faster but that's not issue.
How is that their big problem? They don't need high adoption. Moreover they control the supply of Windows 7 licenses they can resolve the adoption problem very easily. Today Windows 8.1 sells with downgrade rights to and Windows 7 Professional and Windows Vista Business. Tomorrow they eliminate that. If adoption was their problem the solution is trivial.
: Touch screens make sense for certain form factors, but not for desktops. Search the term "gorilla arm" to see why.
That's nonsense. That's not how touch works on a desktop system. On a desktop the separate monitor blows up and provides context for a tablet that provides a detailed view. Example: http://terrywhite.com/wp-conte...
This is the setup artists have been using for years.
The desktop is not a "legacy" platform.
Yes it is. The massive conversion to laptops show that. The sales data for 6 years clearly show that. You may not like that it is a legacy platform, Microsoft doesn't but it is.
. It's a platform that's very specifically optimized for getting work done with a keyboard, mouse, and large form factor screen.
That's like saying the carriage is not a legacy transportation system because it is specifically optimized for getting places on dirt paths with a horse. A fixed large factor screen rather than plugging into available multi factor screens is legacy. Using a mouse is legacy. Mandatory keyboard is legacy.
as the business world has demonstrated loud and clear by their absolute refusal to move to Windows 8.
The business world is being moved from XP to Windows 7. Windows 8 doesn't serve much purpose for them yet. It wasn't designed for them. However as the office division is the biggest advocates of the new style GUIs they will be moved. Office Division has clearly indicated they want to move to touch mandatory.
and they're slowly backing off of the ridiculous notion that their desktop OS should behave like a tablet.
We'll see. You are assuming a lot. My guess is that desktop as they move to Windows 9, 10, 11 gets treated more and more like a foreign guest OS of the hypervisor with Metro/NewGUI being the main interface for everything. The way they handled the start button with creating an entire paradigm for programmability of bottom icons for interface pages indicates they don't want the desktop page to resume as the standard.
So far only OneNote and Lync have really thought through touch. If Office 2015 has more that says something. If they dump the touch Lync client that says they are abandoning touch to be stuck in the shrinking desktop ghetto forever.
That's a very narrow niche app for a desktop, non-touchscreen computer,
Systems without a touchscreen or a digitizer shouldn't exist. Of course Windows 8 works badly on Windows 7 hardware the same way that running Windows 7 on a Pentium with 16m of ram and a huge virtual ram disk will be a miserable experience.
Assume that every opinion about you ever held by anyone who ever knew you was known and fully indexed. Assume that this was true about everyone in the world. Everyone has all sorts of people that hate them and have strongly negative opinions about them. Everyone has people that like them and have strongly positive opinions about them.
Given this infinite database a reader can make a fairly good assessment of your actual character. Of the 18,700 that have an opinion about you if 400 think you are a liar and 12,700 think you are truthful (with the other 5600 having no opinion) you probably are mostly pretty honest but lie once in a while. If 12,700 think you are liar and 400 think you are truthful you likely are a liar. If you start becoming truthful then the data will overtime show a trend.
There isn't much to debate. The argument for most Americans (not just libertarians, I'm not a libertarian at all) is pretty clear. You own your opinions. You don't own other's opinions about you. If X has the right to control Y's speech then you simply don't have freedom. Americans simply do not want and will not tolerate a situation where their own government has the right to tell X what he can and cannot say about Y. They certainly do not want such a situation being imposed by governments in which they have no voice.
I can get Europeans want different rules. So stop using Google and use European search engines.
You aren't going to get very far with that argument with Americans. Most Americans have seen what governments that have ultimate control of what opinions their citizens can or cannot hold look like. They will never agree to live in a society where the government has the right to regulate opinion. They fully understand that the governments that regulate opinion are doing so for reasons they believe to be good, and reject the concept regardless.
Arguably what Europe is experiencing with the internet is what earlier generations objected to with American TV and movies. Google is exporting American culture, in particular the American's deep belief in freedom of speech. Americans are used to reliable and unreliable sources. The standards for libel and slander are very high for the "victim". As a result Americans are used to seeing mixed information including very critical information. This is very different than Europe.
European politicians have always objected to the American "negative advertising" for example. Many European journalists think it actually leads to better elections where politicians not only present the good stuff but their opponents are able to present the bad stuff. Listeners / viewers / readers are expect to make reasoned judgements about conflicting information.
We aleady have intellectual property laws which limit the information flow on the internet in extreme ways. Why should indviduals not have some rights on information about themselves?
Because Google is an American company. In America speech about something, particularly critical speech, is strongly protected. One of the protections for speech is ownership and rights to your own speech. Person X has no right to control what person Y says about them. That's the very meaning of free speech.
. "doing no evil" is long gone. google now are clearly asshole.
Fighting European censorship falls under doing good in my book. Your laws are evil. And its perfectly OK for different countries to feel that way. What's not OK is for Europeans to try and export their censorship globally.
if a judge does decide to throw them in jail for a few days for contempt just to make their point abundantly clear.
How is a European judge going to throw an American in jail? We had essentially the same conversation about Azure. If Europeans want products run in accordance with European law and culture they should create them, and stop using American products.
Yandex, Seznam, Conduit, Vinden.nl are all European engines. If Europeans want European law then use those. The internet is open. Google should run according to USA law, Yandex according to Russian law and Baidu according to Chinese law.
Slashdot Mirror
No you are supposed to interact with a tiny screen something like a tablet while the media center is often physically connected to the TV. That's one of the reasons the system supports home networking and remote operation so well.
We have sales data, that isn't typical. If it were typical people would have bought multiple laptops like that configuration with docking stations and that just isn't the case. For example the best selling high end laptops (Apple) don't even have a docking station option though they certainly support external monitors. There are 3rd party solutions like Samsung's but they don't come to being anywhere near the total volume.
Not sure if I get what you are asking. But I'll try:
AMD: http://developer.amd.com/resou...
NVidia: https://developer.nvidia.com/n...
https://developer.nvidia.com/o...
That's great to see: right to be forgotten = right to censorship
Exactly the point!
I love the Guardian doing a long article about the guy asking for right to be forgotten thereby guaranteeing it doesn't happen.
BTW as long as you are giving me good news regarding Europe. What is the opinion in Europe about the persecution (no government jobs, taking kids from parents...) restrictions on Scientology?
Oh I see. Well then we have good cases from previous decades where there were physical files. The USA ownership avoided these complications by having their own sets of keys and access badges. No one from the foreign subdivision did anything other than not interfere. The foreign employees didn't knowingly do anything because they weren't in the loop.
Marketshare by unit Mac doesn't do so well. But Apple is running at about 2.2x average selling price so marketshare by revenue is higher. Apple has had 85-91% of all laptop hardware profits for about 8 years or something. So profitshare they well ahead of Windows. They are more or less the only meaningful non-commodity vendor. That's not the same situation as desktop Linux.
I made that switch from Windows 2000 to OS X 10.1. It wasn't that bad. Even then Fink (additional stuff for the Darwin BSD system) had most of those little tools. If anything I find that the hundreds if not thousands of little tools that come with the operating system make using Windows systems painful. Whenever I have to use them I'm always constantly amazed by the "that isn't built in yet!"
No they don't. That's why they are doing this. They understand quite well that Android / iOS could easily displace them in home / small business as Android gets more functional. And the longer they push that battle off the worst position they'll be in to fight. If they are going to have to go through a painful transition doing it now when their customers even in home / small business can't easily move will be better than 4 years from now when they might very well be able to more easily move.
___
If they lose this round then most likely they walk away from home / small business and become an mid and large enterprise vendor. They can move their solutions up market and simply drop support for isolated PCs. Everything requires infrastructure to run. Short term that's likely to boost their earnings.
But they understand the danger. They get that home / small business is an incubator of creativity. And they remember quite well how they displaced DEC, IBM, HP, Data General, Wang... in the enterprise with their products that had originated in the home / small business space.
It wouldn't shock me if Vista is gaining users based on XP migration. Lots of people may have been entitled to a free Vista upgrade with their system when they had XP, or be able to use Vista on their older systems. Lowest cost transition.
You are using too many pronouns. Who is throwing who in jail for what?
____
Anyway the point is in reality that Azure is designed so that MS USA can do what they need to do. The agreement is designed to notify customers of that fact that they are effectively exporting data to the USA when they use Azure. Which makes this whole thing moot.
I think GP was talking about doing low level stuff in OpenGL. And that's allowed and possible.
It is not that MS UK has to cooperate it is that MS USA has to use their leverage to get them to cooperate.
He was talking enterprises. We know home / small business are switching to Linux (Android) and iOS in huge numbers. That's part of what is driving the change. The assumption is that enterprises are tightly held and their costs of switching is high. I think the experiments in the early 2000s where companies tried switching to Linux and mostly failed showed that once a Windows culture is established the incentives to switch need to be very high.
My guess is that if Microsoft were to implement an aggressive switch to more expensive feature rich desktop / laptops portables (i.e. higher cost better products)
Top 1/3rd would love it as new features became available quickly
Botton 1/3rd would peal off to Android / Linux
Middle 1/3rd would grouse but stick with Microsoft and boost their spend
Which is a very good outcome.
Exactly. That's precisely the threat Android poses now. But now unlike with netbooks Microsoft can't afford to underprice them because the cheaper hardware means that x86 Windows would be more expensive even if the OS sold for a slightly negative amount of money.
This can be tested with American politicians. Over and over again the public's opinion of them rises quickly even when the negative information is out there as long as it isn't being aggressively pushed.
What is an outdated opinion? Let's take the actual case. Person X's home went into foreclosure on date Y. A legal auction took place. Under his name the most prominent thing he had ever done, as defined by a listing in the most reliable sources was default on his mortgage. Google stated that by having this high on the search ranking. That is still true information today.
Excellent example. If this were a fully public database it would have negative information on tens of millions of Americans by law enforcement agencies. Statements about who they considered risky and why. Absolutely Good would be free to index this information and present it. That's completely protected free speech. So where do you want to go with this example?
That's not the Hobby Lobby case. Corporations were entitled to opinions prior to Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby was about whether corporations should be entitled to legal protections for the religious opinions. In America religious opinions grant protections against laws, the state is held to a higher degree of scrutiny called "compelling state interest". In Hobby Lobby the court found that Hobby Lobby had a religious opinion and thus the state had to meet compelling state interest.
The opinion is protected. The action is not. Someone is free to advocate in the USA that duty of care is a bad idea. That's a 1st amendment protected opinion.
You haven't shown that. So far your examples have missed the mark.
Absolutely I agree. Google shouldn't be operating in the EU physically. European search engines should be.
Glenn Grenwald is not being prosecuted for publishing Snowden's statements. The state protects his free speech.
There are situations where the state has a compelling interest in prior restraint. These should be far and few between and individually argued before courts. The right to make broad statements of compelling interest where censorship becomes the default, no I don't think that should exist.
Person Y states an opinion about Person X.
Government G disagrees with that opinion because they like Person X and makes it a crime to reference it.
Person Z makes reference to it and is punished.
That's anti-free speech. What Google is being asked to do is deliberately and in a premeditated fashion lie to the people of Europe and tell them false government approved "truths" rather than actual truth. That's the core of censorship.
Hate speech is not illegal in the United States. That's a European policy not an American one.
Copyright is a category error.
Person Y says mean thing about X.
Copyright is that Person Y owns the statement and has rights to it.
Free speech is that Person Y is allowed to say it.
If Person Z wants to repeat the entire statement that's a violation of copyright.
If Person Z wants to indicate that Person Y said that mean thing that is protected speech and copyright doesn't apply.
Which is why a movie review is not a violation of copyright even if it contains short segments from the movie.
Assume that's true. So what? Writing your own graphical extensions introduces costs. Testing them across video cards and supporting that introduces huge costs. Of course going low level is faster but that's not issue.
How is that their big problem? They don't need high adoption. Moreover they control the supply of Windows 7 licenses they can resolve the adoption problem very easily. Today Windows 8.1 sells with downgrade rights to and Windows 7 Professional and Windows Vista Business. Tomorrow they eliminate that. If adoption was their problem the solution is trivial.
That's nonsense. That's not how touch works on a desktop system. On a desktop the separate monitor blows up and provides context for a tablet that provides a detailed view. Example: http://terrywhite.com/wp-conte...
This is the setup artists have been using for years.
Yes it is. The massive conversion to laptops show that. The sales data for 6 years clearly show that. You may not like that it is a legacy platform, Microsoft doesn't but it is.
That's like saying the carriage is not a legacy transportation system because it is specifically optimized for getting places on dirt paths with a horse. A fixed large factor screen rather than plugging into available multi factor screens is legacy. Using a mouse is legacy. Mandatory keyboard is legacy.
The business world is being moved from XP to Windows 7. Windows 8 doesn't serve much purpose for them yet. It wasn't designed for them. However as the office division is the biggest advocates of the new style GUIs they will be moved. Office Division has clearly indicated they want to move to touch mandatory.
We'll see. You are assuming a lot. My guess is that desktop as they move to Windows 9, 10, 11 gets treated more and more like a foreign guest OS of the hypervisor with Metro/NewGUI being the main interface for everything. The way they handled the start button with creating an entire paradigm for programmability of bottom icons for interface pages indicates they don't want the desktop page to resume as the standard.
So far only OneNote and Lync have really thought through touch. If Office 2015 has more that says something. If they dump the touch Lync client that says they are abandoning touch to be stuck in the shrinking desktop ghetto forever.
Systems without a touchscreen or a digitizer shouldn't exist. Of course Windows 8 works badly on Windows 7 hardware the same way that running Windows 7 on a Pentium with 16m of ram and a huge virtual ram disk will be a miserable experience.
Assume that every opinion about you ever held by anyone who ever knew you was known and fully indexed.
Assume that this was true about everyone in the world.
Everyone has all sorts of people that hate them and have strongly negative opinions about them.
Everyone has people that like them and have strongly positive opinions about them.
Given this infinite database a reader can make a fairly good assessment of your actual character. Of the 18,700 that have an opinion about you if 400 think you are a liar and 12,700 think you are truthful (with the other 5600 having no opinion) you probably are mostly pretty honest but lie once in a while. If 12,700 think you are liar and 400 think you are truthful you likely are a liar. If you start becoming truthful then the data will overtime show a trend.
The solution to bad speech is more speech.
There isn't much to debate. The argument for most Americans (not just libertarians, I'm not a libertarian at all) is pretty clear. You own your opinions. You don't own other's opinions about you. If X has the right to control Y's speech then you simply don't have freedom. Americans simply do not want and will not tolerate a situation where their own government has the right to tell X what he can and cannot say about Y. They certainly do not want such a situation being imposed by governments in which they have no voice.
I can get Europeans want different rules. So stop using Google and use European search engines.
You aren't going to get very far with that argument with Americans. Most Americans have seen what governments that have ultimate control of what opinions their citizens can or cannot hold look like. They will never agree to live in a society where the government has the right to regulate opinion. They fully understand that the governments that regulate opinion are doing so for reasons they believe to be good, and reject the concept regardless.
Arguably what Europe is experiencing with the internet is what earlier generations objected to with American TV and movies. Google is exporting American culture, in particular the American's deep belief in freedom of speech. Americans are used to reliable and unreliable sources. The standards for libel and slander are very high for the "victim". As a result Americans are used to seeing mixed information including very critical information. This is very different than Europe.
European politicians have always objected to the American "negative advertising" for example. Many European journalists think it actually leads to better elections where politicians not only present the good stuff but their opponents are able to present the bad stuff. Listeners / viewers / readers are expect to make reasoned judgements about conflicting information.
Because Google is an American company. In America speech about something, particularly critical speech, is strongly protected. One of the protections for speech is ownership and rights to your own speech. Person X has no right to control what person Y says about them. That's the very meaning of free speech.
Fighting European censorship falls under doing good in my book. Your laws are evil. And its perfectly OK for different countries to feel that way. What's not OK is for Europeans to try and export their censorship globally.
How is a European judge going to throw an American in jail? We had essentially the same conversation about Azure. If Europeans want products run in accordance with European law and culture they should create them, and stop using American products.
Yandex, Seznam, Conduit, Vinden.nl are all European engines. If Europeans want European law then use those. The internet is open. Google should run according to USA law, Yandex according to Russian law and Baidu according to Chinese law.