Rather than asking me to prove a negative how about stepping up to my challenge for you to prove the positive. Please why not show us exactly what MS is doing that is illegal and reference the law they are breaking in the process.
as there was generally improvement with each iteration
Oh? You don't want to be the first person with the control to delete data from your MS account? You don't want to be the first one with ransomware protection on your files, or SE Linux style system controls?
The problem with most people is they look at the GUI, think "Yuk" and therefore conclude that nothing under the hood is changing in Windows 10.
The ONLY reason I am not clamouring over the latest Windows 10 releases which get better and better under the hood, is due to QC issues of late which makes the most recent beta releases fairly risky compared to say beta releases in the Windows 7 days.
that anyone noticed this
No one notices the pirates. What people notice is the news articles published about the pirated versions.
You're kidding right? Windows development releases have been pirated since there were pirates. The only thing that put an end to it was the insiders program allowing anyone to get it for free....
Wait nope, searching for Windows Insider builds returns some 400 odd torrents.
Quite right for what? 16:9 is more right for side by side multitasking than 16:10.
The only thing that is more "right" about 16:10 is that the display looks better turned off in the display home due to your golden ratio rule. By the size of my excel window doesn't give a crap what your ratio is.
Golden for the manufacturers of screens who were able to sell you the two you needed side by side for multitasking.
ask anyone that does a lot of work in Excel or with databases or anything in a terminal where more viewable vertical lines makes life a lot easier
Can I add an opinion? Word-wrap sucks for code, and the vast majority of my excel tables are wider than taller. The only time I've pined for vertical space in Excel is when idiots use word wrap and write a frigging thesis in a cell causing the one row to take up the entire vertical space. The beauty of complaining about excel is that it really doesn't matter how your data is laid out, if you prefer more space one direction or the other, then transpose it.
The reason they are wide in laptops is because idiot marketing droids decided that video on portable devices was the next big thing and all laptops became widescreen.
Indeed, all marketing. Nothing to do with the ability to reduce unit size without making un-typable keyboards, or the Netflix generation re-purposing the laptop for their desires.
As numerous people are pointing out text is optimally read in A4 form as determined by at least two thousand years of empirical experience.
What text? Certainly not Slashdot's text. When I flip my tablet vertically the UI is atrocious with so much white space that effectively I'm reading a newspaper with only the left hand column printed.
The way we optimally do something in the general case, and the way we optimally consume the specific media we are after often differs greatly. Me? 16:9 is great for working in two programs at once. It replaced my previous desire for a second monitor, and while I'm typing and reading source material it certainly looks very similar in dimensions to A4.
Quite the opposite. Google was "caught" offering a very sophisticated set of APIs that they have gone to great lengths to design and integrate into a service they exclusively offer so as to *not* sell your data. They have put a shitload of money and effort into ensuring that all analytics on the data is done themselves, contain it on their own data centres, and ensure that they only provide access to your eyes.
If you're waiting for them to get caught selling your data, I suggest you get a very comfortable chair. Or at least go do something else with your life and come back after hell freezes over and Cocacola starts selling their recipe to anyone who wants to make their drink at home.
There's no whataboutism. Both of these companies suck.
Yeah there's no whataboutism, there's just frothing outrage and inability to exercise a braincell causing people to compare two wildly different companies with wildly different practices and lump them together without reason.
Both Facebook and Google have too much data.
How much data they have and whether it is too much depends entirely on the purpose of said data and how they acquired it.
By European standards, MS is a criminal enterprise at this time because of this.
Not at all. MS complies (bare minimum) with the EU rules but they do comply. A lot of people read more into the rules than what is actually in there, but the gist of things is you're free to collect stuff provided you tell people (they do during the setup), give people the option to find out what is collected (there's a KB on it), and protect the data (no real breaches known so far). The new rules that come into effect in May provide additional requirements such as the requirement to allow users to delete their data, so it should be no surprise the April update (formally the Spring update) provides this option squirrelled away in a menu. There are strict rules to the transfer of data which there is no evidence that MS is actually doing and rules on anonymising which apparently are already in place.
Care to share specifically what MS has done that makes them a criminal and exactly which rule they broke?
Which is the reason why you should be worried about Facebook and Google holding the data in the first place.
Not really. It's why you should worry about Facebook (a company which never quite figured out how to monetise data) or a company which has other products (and makes your data secondary revenue) holding on to your data.
For companies that exist solely by the virtue of having perfected the art of selling you to 3rd parties you're relatively safe. Google knows more about everyone than anyone, and like the famed CocaCola recipe is sharing none of it. Oh but we'll provide you with an API that allows adverts to be targeted directly at Anonymous Cowards, for a fee, exclusively via our platform, but we're not going to share who those Anonymous Cowards are or what we know about them.
I'm far more concerned about Microsoft than Google.
but i think this new wave of anger is because the masses are finally figuring out what only the few have known: data is power, and when it's abused, everything gets fucked quick
You half missed the point. People aren't afraid of the data collection or the power. That is precisely why the other companies get a free pass. They are exclusively pissed at the miss use, which is why Facebook specifically is being targeted. No one was under the delusion that Facebook wasn't collected a huge amount of data. Everyone knew Facebook collected it and monetised it. People know this about other vendors too.
About the only thing that anyone is pissed about is that this data was passed en-mass to a 3rd party. About the only thing the media is pissed about was that it was used to influence an election.
Data itself is a big non-story.
Posted from my Google Phone, intercepted by the NSA, and someone may have even looked over my shoulder while I typed this.
I've been kinda confused that everyone is so angry at Facebook, while MS has been given a free pass.
Becuase you and everyone has missed the point. No one gives a shit when companies collect information. They happily hand it over all the time. They care exclusively about their information then being onsold to 3rd parties en mass and then used against them.
Google doesn't on sell information, but rather acts as a middleman. No one gets to you without Google, and no one gets at you without Google. Microsoft, Apple, etc may or may not on sell information, but so far no major 3rd party has been discovered with a trove of user data that was given to a 3rd party.
Likewise Facebook, no one gave a shit... until a 3rd party with a fuckton of user data used it in an election.
That was the case here. The summary just didn't make it clear. It's only a problem if items are tradable / have value, and if the contents are received via luck in exchange for currency.
I prefer to use cash because every card compromise I've ever had ( including the latest chip cards ) have been wait staff at restaurants who simply copied what they needed from my card.
You could just join the 21st century. There's no reason to hand your card to the staff. There's also very little they can do without your pin number or your password (online banking payment verification systems).
AFTER you've eaten the food, they say you owe them the money. That's a debt.
No it's not. That's a sales contract that has been fulfilled by one party but not the other. You can only incur debt (as per the financial definition) by borrowing money from someone.
They deliver on their side, creating a debt on your side
False. The financial definition of debt is exclusive to the action of borrowing. Just because you have a contractual obligation to pay created by a sale doesn't mean you're in debt.
All they can do is go to court and sue you for failure to fulfil your side of the purchasing contract.
If an owner eliminates tips and raises prices to the exact amount required to make up for it, the total cost to the consumer will be higher because the price of food is subject to sales tax but the tip isn't.
You just justified not abolishing the shithouse tipping culture to save in 20c worth of taxes. That is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard in the whole tipping debate. You should feel bad for even suggesting that there are people out there who care about this, but I suspect the reason you think that is you're probably the cheapest person alive.
Not paying up front doesn't mean you have debt. It just means you have a contractual obligation to pay for the service you received. Contracts do not automatically create debt. Debt with its proper finance definition (such as the one used by the federal reserve) is the amount of money borrowed from another party.
You don't borrow money off someone when they serve you food but rather you enter into a stock standard buyer seller relationship.
You're also not in debt in the supermarket while you're physically holding that box of cereal but haven't paid for it yet.
Cash is legal tender for all debts public and private
The number of situations where you end up with what is classified as a debt in a typical lifetime can be normally counted on one hand. The bank *must* accept cash, the government must accept cash, and that's about where it ends.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than asking me to prove a negative how about stepping up to my challenge for you to prove the positive. Please why not show us exactly what MS is doing that is illegal and reference the law they are breaking in the process.
as there was generally improvement with each iteration
Oh? You don't want to be the first person with the control to delete data from your MS account? You don't want to be the first one with ransomware protection on your files, or SE Linux style system controls?
The problem with most people is they look at the GUI, think "Yuk" and therefore conclude that nothing under the hood is changing in Windows 10.
The ONLY reason I am not clamouring over the latest Windows 10 releases which get better and better under the hood, is due to QC issues of late which makes the most recent beta releases fairly risky compared to say beta releases in the Windows 7 days.
that anyone noticed this
No one notices the pirates. What people notice is the news articles published about the pirated versions.
You're kidding right? Windows development releases have been pirated since there were pirates. The only thing that put an end to it was the insiders program allowing anyone to get it for free. ...
Wait nope, searching for Windows Insider builds returns some 400 odd torrents.
Quite right for what? 16:9 is more right for side by side multitasking than 16:10.
The only thing that is more "right" about 16:10 is that the display looks better turned off in the display home due to your golden ratio rule. By the size of my excel window doesn't give a crap what your ratio is.
4:3 was a sort of "golden ratio" for computing.
Golden for the manufacturers of screens who were able to sell you the two you needed side by side for multitasking.
ask anyone that does a lot of work in Excel or with databases or anything in a terminal where more viewable vertical lines makes life a lot easier
Can I add an opinion? Word-wrap sucks for code, and the vast majority of my excel tables are wider than taller. The only time I've pined for vertical space in Excel is when idiots use word wrap and write a frigging thesis in a cell causing the one row to take up the entire vertical space. The beauty of complaining about excel is that it really doesn't matter how your data is laid out, if you prefer more space one direction or the other, then transpose it.
Honestly I don't miss 4:3.
The reason they are wide in laptops is because idiot marketing droids decided that video on portable devices was the next big thing and all laptops became widescreen.
Indeed, all marketing. Nothing to do with the ability to reduce unit size without making un-typable keyboards, or the Netflix generation re-purposing the laptop for their desires.
As numerous people are pointing out text is optimally read in A4 form as determined by at least two thousand years of empirical experience.
What text? Certainly not Slashdot's text. When I flip my tablet vertically the UI is atrocious with so much white space that effectively I'm reading a newspaper with only the left hand column printed.
The way we optimally do something in the general case, and the way we optimally consume the specific media we are after often differs greatly. Me? 16:9 is great for working in two programs at once. It replaced my previous desire for a second monitor, and while I'm typing and reading source material it certainly looks very similar in dimensions to A4.
Google was only not caught yet.
Quite the opposite. Google was "caught" offering a very sophisticated set of APIs that they have gone to great lengths to design and integrate into a service they exclusively offer so as to *not* sell your data. They have put a shitload of money and effort into ensuring that all analytics on the data is done themselves, contain it on their own data centres, and ensure that they only provide access to your eyes.
If you're waiting for them to get caught selling your data, I suggest you get a very comfortable chair. Or at least go do something else with your life and come back after hell freezes over and Cocacola starts selling their recipe to anyone who wants to make their drink at home.
There's no whataboutism. Both of these companies suck.
Yeah there's no whataboutism, there's just frothing outrage and inability to exercise a braincell causing people to compare two wildly different companies with wildly different practices and lump them together without reason.
Both Facebook and Google have too much data.
How much data they have and whether it is too much depends entirely on the purpose of said data and how they acquired it.
Period.
Use a tampon.
Could you give some examples of facebook giving/selling data to other companies?
Fuck me have you been living underground this year?
By European standards, MS is a criminal enterprise at this time because of this.
Not at all. MS complies (bare minimum) with the EU rules but they do comply. A lot of people read more into the rules than what is actually in there, but the gist of things is you're free to collect stuff provided you tell people (they do during the setup), give people the option to find out what is collected (there's a KB on it), and protect the data (no real breaches known so far). The new rules that come into effect in May provide additional requirements such as the requirement to allow users to delete their data, so it should be no surprise the April update (formally the Spring update) provides this option squirrelled away in a menu. There are strict rules to the transfer of data which there is no evidence that MS is actually doing and rules on anonymising which apparently are already in place.
Care to share specifically what MS has done that makes them a criminal and exactly which rule they broke?
Which is the reason why you should be worried about Facebook and Google holding the data in the first place.
Not really. It's why you should worry about Facebook (a company which never quite figured out how to monetise data) or a company which has other products (and makes your data secondary revenue) holding on to your data.
For companies that exist solely by the virtue of having perfected the art of selling you to 3rd parties you're relatively safe. Google knows more about everyone than anyone, and like the famed CocaCola recipe is sharing none of it. Oh but we'll provide you with an API that allows adverts to be targeted directly at Anonymous Cowards, for a fee, exclusively via our platform, but we're not going to share who those Anonymous Cowards are or what we know about them.
I'm far more concerned about Microsoft than Google.
but i think this new wave of anger is because the masses are finally figuring out what only the few have known: data is power, and when it's abused, everything gets fucked quick
You half missed the point. People aren't afraid of the data collection or the power. That is precisely why the other companies get a free pass. They are exclusively pissed at the miss use, which is why Facebook specifically is being targeted. No one was under the delusion that Facebook wasn't collected a huge amount of data. Everyone knew Facebook collected it and monetised it. People know this about other vendors too.
About the only thing that anyone is pissed about is that this data was passed en-mass to a 3rd party.
About the only thing the media is pissed about was that it was used to influence an election.
Data itself is a big non-story.
Posted from my Google Phone, intercepted by the NSA, and someone may have even looked over my shoulder while I typed this.
I've been kinda confused that everyone is so angry at Facebook, while MS has been given a free pass.
Becuase you and everyone has missed the point. No one gives a shit when companies collect information. They happily hand it over all the time. They care exclusively about their information then being onsold to 3rd parties en mass and then used against them.
Google doesn't on sell information, but rather acts as a middleman. No one gets to you without Google, and no one gets at you without Google.
Microsoft, Apple, etc may or may not on sell information, but so far no major 3rd party has been discovered with a trove of user data that was given to a 3rd party.
Likewise Facebook, no one gave a shit ... until a 3rd party with a fuckton of user data used it in an election.
That would be sad and it is also nothing at all what happened.
That was the case here. The summary just didn't make it clear. It's only a problem if items are tradable / have value, and if the contents are received via luck in exchange for currency.
There's an entire category of pornography dedicated to just faces of women experiencing pleasure.
Or so a friend told me.
I prefer to use cash because every card compromise I've ever had ( including the latest chip cards ) have been wait staff at restaurants who simply copied what they needed from my card.
You could just join the 21st century. There's no reason to hand your card to the staff. There's also very little they can do without your pin number or your password (online banking payment verification systems).
AFTER you've eaten the food, they say you owe them the money. That's a debt.
No it's not. That's a sales contract that has been fulfilled by one party but not the other. You can only incur debt (as per the financial definition) by borrowing money from someone.
They deliver on their side, creating a debt on your side
False. The financial definition of debt is exclusive to the action of borrowing. Just because you have a contractual obligation to pay created by a sale doesn't mean you're in debt.
All they can do is go to court and sue you for failure to fulfil your side of the purchasing contract.
If an owner eliminates tips and raises prices to the exact amount required to make up for it, the total cost to the consumer will be higher because the price of food is subject to sales tax but the tip isn't.
You just justified not abolishing the shithouse tipping culture to save in 20c worth of taxes. That is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard in the whole tipping debate. You should feel bad for even suggesting that there are people out there who care about this, but I suspect the reason you think that is you're probably the cheapest person alive.
Having travelled to America many times I can categorically say I have never experienced this once.
Do you pay upfront when eating in a restaurant?
Not paying up front doesn't mean you have debt. It just means you have a contractual obligation to pay for the service you received. Contracts do not automatically create debt. Debt with its proper finance definition (such as the one used by the federal reserve) is the amount of money borrowed from another party.
You don't borrow money off someone when they serve you food but rather you enter into a stock standard buyer seller relationship.
You're also not in debt in the supermarket while you're physically holding that box of cereal but haven't paid for it yet.
Cash is legal tender for all debts public and private
The number of situations where you end up with what is classified as a debt in a typical lifetime can be normally counted on one hand. The bank *must* accept cash, the government must accept cash, and that's about where it ends.
So the cashless restaurants are going to have lower prices and not charge like 12 bucks for a mixed drink?
Or maybe they still charge 12 bucks for a mixed drink but pay their staff a living wage.
Than Verizon owning it.