So many people making comments like this. So many sociopaths.
Even if the kernel of your thought was valid, you're missing what is obvious to others. What about the "smart" person driving the car that hits the inattentive pedestrian? Their guilt and sorrow is trivial enough to you that taking steps to prevent it isn't worth a thought? What about the parents of the inattentive pedestrian, who tried to instill sensibility in their child but... rebellious teens still think they know everything? What about the boyfriend or girlfriend of he inattentive pedestrian? What about the paramedics who have to scrape up the liquified remains - and don't give me "job creation FTW!"
What about the human cost?
All this, assuming that your premise - you did one stupid thing so you deserve to die, and society shouldn't try to help prevent that - has any redeeming qualities to start with.
Exchange support covers mail, contacts, and calendar data.
Is it really that useful to merge these three types of data into a single program? This sounds as dumb as merging a music player, video player, device manager and online music/video/app store into a single program.
That's failing to address what Exchange is. Outlook is the client, end-user experience and that is what merges e-mail/contacts/calendar data. Outlook is a reasonable mail client but not in and of itself indispensable.
Exchange is a server product that Outlook can optionally connect to, and it enables exchange of data. More than the obvious e-mail exchange user-to-user, it handles all the expected bonus features like user groups, forwarding, out-of-office messages (server-side, not client-side). It's handles device sync much, much better than IMAP can. It comes with a web portal. You can also make "public folders", containing things like shared calendars, shared contact lists, and shared mailboxes, allowing users to exchange useful information of those types. More, Outlook really starts to shine in an Exchange environment, enabling slick handling of things like meeting invites. You can make special "resource or room" mailboxes for things like boardrooms, and users can schedule meetings with those resources, and see free/busy availability and so on. You can delegate user access to all the various types of data it handles, allowing teamwork.
That's a summary. But really, it's sort of "why would anyone use an SQL database when there's flat text files?" If all you're doing is quick notes, text files are fine. If on the other hand you're looking to do something more complicated, SQL is a huge difference. Well, Outlook as a mail client is... ok. But as a client to Exchange, for businesses that can use group scheduling or contacts or delegation or shared anything, it's almost completely without peer.
This is like saying 'Dont play Asteroids, wait for Pac-Man'.......
No, it's more like "don't spend $500 for Asteroids on a monitor at 800x600 with a joystick that only goes left and down, wait for next year's version that supports double the resolution and adds right and up and costs $300". Suggesting that waiting for v2 of the various VR gear is waiting for some completely different thing makes no sense at all. This tech stuff is iterative. Quality, capability, applicability and availability go up while price goes down. Sure, in the meantime you're stuck with 2D gaming but... well... strangely that's been pretty damned fun for the last three decades. What's another year or two?
If old people are going to stay around, they should consider going back to work too, otherwise it won't be affordable.
If it isn't affordable and the old people who want to stay around don't consider going back to work, they're evidently too far gone already. Obvious cat is obvious.
I think it would be interesting, in browsers for example, to be able to select text and, with a little more pressure, have a context menu or a dictionary( like in kindle) pop up but only select and show "copy and paste" otherwise.
It's hard enough to master the coordination to select reasonable sized text on touch screens. No need to make it more complicated when a simple alteration in pressure causes a different outcome. Try this; selecting text works like is already does, and there's a menu/ribbon/UI element that appears when you have something selected, and that lets you DO THINGS, such as Cut/Copy/FindDefinition. Wow.
The more likely a UI is to cause a new user to ask "what did I just do", the worse it is.
"Google offered four different scenarios where Launcher Shortcuts make sense: Navigating users to a particular location in a mapping app, sending messages to a friend in a communication app, playing the next episode of a TV show in a media app, or loading the last save point in a gaming app."
How about a button that you can see, that does this stuff when you click it? None of these use-cases justify variable pressure sensitivity. Basically, drawing applications do, and that's about it. If this was actually somehow beneficial, we would've seen pressure-sensitive mouse buttons standardized two decades ago.
Unlike what seems like a large portion of Slashdot, I don't think there's an ethical defense for piracy.
The issue is that digital rights are an alien concept. Just like I - as a non-physicist - will never truly grasp subatomic physics, large portions of digital rights make ZERO sense to a consumer. That's a huge sign that they're nonsensical.
You can't explain to a non-lawyer that it's unethical or wrong to take the songs from a CD you've bought and put them on your new iPod. The law tells us that's wrong, unethical, and illegal, and we're all bad people for doing it. It's roughly equivalent to a farmer selling you a banana and telling you that you can only eat it while facing East and wearing plaid. Sure, terms of the sale are legally enforceable, but as soon as you get home, you're going to take your clothes off, face wherever something interesting is happening, and eat your banana. Which is not a euphemism. Probably.
Nonsensical laws are unethical. Circumventing unethical laws is not, if you have no means to have them repealed.
Because we do not have appropriately accurate modeling of the parts of the earth which cause earthquakes occur.
Actually, it's because we're bad at predicting, period, end of sentence
Wonderful things like reinforcement bias and the availability heuristic meddle with our accuracy. There's a reason why earthquake insurance sells the best days after an earthquake, when statistically that's when there's the least risk. When something horrible happens, people suddenly remember, and Do Something, but as the years add up since the last event, we become lax.
That's the personal level. I recommend reading Risk by Dan Gardner to lean a bunch about this in general. From that book, he moved on with Philip Tetlock and wrote Future Babble and then Superforecasting, which more closely refine the general psychology covered in Risk down to mathematical models and expert opinions. Risk is a fascinating read useful to individuals to understand why grocery stores have sales with "limit 10 per customer", and why more extra Americans died driving the year after September 11th than died in the attacks themselves, and the other two get (much) more into "why are economists wrong so often" (Future Babble), and finally "why are some people so good at analyzing data and predicting things like complex geopolitical events and the like, and how can we learn to be like them" (Superforecasting).
I leave locating the books to the audience as you know what bookstores you prefer and the author and titles are very clear.
But speed reading reduces enjoyment and comprehension, so removes the pleasure from pleasure reading, and the comprehension from technical reading. So there ends up being no advantages.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree on that one. My basement library is just shy of a thousand novels and by no means contains all that I've read in my life. I have a philosophy that I don't give up on a book, no matter how crappy it is. There's almost always a nugget of "worthwhile" somewhere in there. But some authors are bad at various things. From realistic dialogue to exposition to dialogue, there's often something that's really not worth reading. I've become very good at catching on what's bad within a few chapters, and skimming through that type of material.
Sure, you don't speed-read/skim through say... Douglas Adams. The whole point is the intricate wordplay. It takes a lot of time for me to make it through good writing, such as Iain M. Banks. On the other hand, I can plow through lesser works rapidly and derive enjoyment. Some mediocre books I re-read, simply because - like The Princess Bride - the "just the good bits" edition can be much, much better than the original.
So don't assume. I often get more pleasure out of skimming... which is why I do it.
Here is what we *DO* need: USB cables that are transparent so you can SEE the colors of wire going to the pins of each connector. *THIS* is what will prevent damage due to bad cables. Your "software" is not needed, and wouldn't help anyway.
Or... you know... purchasers who aren't going for $.03 "USB3c 15ft MAXBESTDEALYOUBUYAWESOMESAUCE!"
By and large, if you buy from reputable distributors, this is a non-issue.
No, because a person can not at home create a nuclear weapon or gasoline with no ingredients whatsoever. They can however create encryption software with exactly 0 input from anyone else.
I hear you, but that's not meaningful. An insignificant number of people will bother. What is concerning to the government isn't that you, or I, or anyone else fluent in programming could write an encryption routine. What concerns them is companies like Google and Apple doing it by default, so that even incapable or incompetent enemies of the state benefit.
That I could, theoretically, obtain and use fissile materials if I simply knew enough (and yes, that bar is high) isn't at all the same as the idea that every person is issued the parts to assemble a nuclear weapon at birth. Just add water.
We seem to have a bunch of politicians that are convinced the citizenry are fucking stupid.
Don't live up their expectations.
Wish you weren't an AC, but still, people keep making that argument like it's somehow insightful or meaningful. It's not.
You can make a parallel argument that making it illegal for companies to manufacture and sell personal nuclear weapons is "outlawing physics". Or that making it illegal to sell sarin gas is "outlawing chemistry". Or that making it illegal to distribute anthrax is "outlawing biology".
Such a parallel argument would be equally missing-the-point. Just because a thing is possible to do doesn't preclude laws making that thing illegal to do, or to own. And while those laws may not make owning or doing that thing impossible, they can make it rare or difficult for Joe Average to do or own.
Even tax return has a box right near the end that says "contribute extra to US/state treasury".
Use it.
How does that box:
1} provide stipulations and instructions regarding how you want your extra contribution spent?
2} influence or inspire others to do as you have done?
It doesn't matter if these folks want to toot their own horns if in the end the result is money being spent on worthwhile* causes.
*Yes, I recognize there's always the cute game of "we got $x in bonus money we can 'only' spend on roads, so it's reduce our regular road budget by $x and go buy some more pork", but that's an issue with corrupt politicians, not corrupt taxpayers.
No. Leave it alone. Devices that are too thin for a standard jack are perfect candidates for a micro-USB ethernet adapter. The default assumption for RJ45 should remain as it is. No need for yet another connector to require we carry five different possible adapters and cables.
Everyone putting food on the shelf in that state will be required to do this as far as I understand, so _everyone_ is in the same boat.
The label itself doesn't stigmatize anything. Labels never do. It's the more nebulous "public opinion" that does. Same reason (most) homosexual people don't wear shirts saying "I'm gay". The shirt wouldn't stigmatize anything. But it sure would give ignorant people the means to identify those they wish to discriminate - wrongly - against.
Wait. There is one way. The label being present denotes a product that "someone in authority" has legislated needs to be identified. It's not the label per se doing the stigmatization but the regulation requiring it sure does.
This gives consumers the choice.
This gives consumers the choice they are not qualified to make. It's enabling fear-mongering. It's enabling discrimination on grounds that Joe Average doesn't understand. I'm not saying it should be impossible, or even difficult, to research and find out how a given food is developed. It's just that this label requirement is awfully similar to my country's requirements that cigarette manufacturers print photos of diseased lungs, and rotten hearts on their packages... only unjustified.
If they want to buy more expensive non GMO options they will be able to make that decision.
The fear the companies have is that there will be non GMO products available at the same price they have been selling theirs at, and everyone will buy that instead.
If everyone is using the same base GMO ingredients, then no one has anything to worry about and everyone will keep buying exactly what they are already buying
I'm not a fan of Monsato and the gang, but until there's some real evidence that GMO is something that matters in a health sense, this is like requiring farmers to put a label on their product saying "fertilized with SHIT". Those companies who do hydroponics will be all for such a label. And the public will be thrilled that they can (pay more to) buy SHIT-free produce. But it's all stupid, because there's no reason to think that hydroponic tomatoes are safer, better, or in any meaningful way different from SHIT tomatoes.
that users (or should I say morons) have repeatedly been shown to fly their toys near airports, even in the flight path, where there is a higher likelihood of a strike occurring.
Well, sort of. The study didn't ignore the obvious... that the vast majority of reported "near my airplane" cases weren't near the airplane. Most of the cases weren't in violation of existing FCC flight regulations. So what we've been mislead or misinformed, or both, as to the frequency of this threat. In most cases, objects observed by pilots were either legally-operated drones, or unidentified objects (which pretty much suggests they weren't very close). It is understandably a pilot's job to be paranoid. But the numbers released here shows this is being blown out of proportion.
Thing is, they aren't get to get everyone. And as long as anyone is still on Win7/8, they can't reduce support for it early.
Thing is, they don't need to get everyone. If they don't have to support old stuff, that reduces their costs and improves their strategic plans in a way that is (arguably) worth some dollar amount. Let's call that number $[x]. In dropping support (or just providing very poor support) for old versions of their software, they will also lose business that is worth $[y]. If [x] is a much larger number than [y]... well...
Errr. Thing is, they do need to get everyone. Read my comment. You can't reduce support for a product that still has users. It doesn't matter if the market share is down to 5%, you still need to provide the same level of support. If you're thinking about per-incident telephone support, that's a money-making proposition. Support costs are really about the effort to patch & update older OSs. And you can't stop doing that until the 10-year extended support period is over.
There have been theories that Microsoft is gathering a lot of telemetry that they intend on leveraging or selling, but there is a pretty simple, non-nefarious reason why they would want to push people to the latest version: support costs.
Thing is, they aren't get to get everyone. And as long as anyone is still on Win7/8, they can't reduce support for it early.
I figure it's mostly about getting as large a base of users with Windows Store as possible, as quickly as possible. People might not start using it today, or tomorrow, but the sooner you start, the sooner it might become the distribution point for software.
Microsoft Exchange being a bunch of dickheads that promote case sensitive usernames on email. Fucking retards.
This is a fine example of "making shit up". Good job Anonymous Coward.
To be clear, with Exchange you can set SMTP addresses to use mixed case for readability purposes (JohnSmith@mydomain.com) but it has zero impact on accepting mail; that mailbox will accept jOHNsMITH@mydomain.com as well.
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago!
It doesn't matter.
First up, I didn't read about this on TMZ or any other site five hours ago because I start my "news" day here because Slashdot has the mix of topics most interesting to me.
Secondly, since this isn't "news" I can/will act on, being behind five hours or even a couple days doesn't change anything.
I thought he sided with the FBI against Apple. He thinks Apple should include a backdoor in their phones for the FBI...and now he's pointing out how dangereous backdoors are....
No, he didn't side with anyone. He offered to decrypt the phone. That's not what the FBI wants. The FBI wants Apple to produce vulnerable code. John didn't offer to produce vulnerable code. By making his offer, McAfee was illustrating that the FBI isn't after the decrypted data.
Slashdot Mirror
Let Darwinism take its course.
So many people making comments like this. So many sociopaths.
Even if the kernel of your thought was valid, you're missing what is obvious to others. What about the "smart" person driving the car that hits the inattentive pedestrian? Their guilt and sorrow is trivial enough to you that taking steps to prevent it isn't worth a thought? What about the parents of the inattentive pedestrian, who tried to instill sensibility in their child but... rebellious teens still think they know everything? What about the boyfriend or girlfriend of he inattentive pedestrian? What about the paramedics who have to scrape up the liquified remains - and don't give me "job creation FTW!"
What about the human cost?
All this, assuming that your premise - you did one stupid thing so you deserve to die, and society shouldn't try to help prevent that - has any redeeming qualities to start with.
Is it really that useful to merge these three types of data into a single program? This sounds as dumb as merging a music player, video player, device manager and online music/video/app store into a single program.
That's failing to address what Exchange is. Outlook is the client, end-user experience and that is what merges e-mail/contacts/calendar data. Outlook is a reasonable mail client but not in and of itself indispensable.
Exchange is a server product that Outlook can optionally connect to, and it enables exchange of data. More than the obvious e-mail exchange user-to-user, it handles all the expected bonus features like user groups, forwarding, out-of-office messages (server-side, not client-side). It's handles device sync much, much better than IMAP can. It comes with a web portal. You can also make "public folders", containing things like shared calendars, shared contact lists, and shared mailboxes, allowing users to exchange useful information of those types. More, Outlook really starts to shine in an Exchange environment, enabling slick handling of things like meeting invites. You can make special "resource or room" mailboxes for things like boardrooms, and users can schedule meetings with those resources, and see free/busy availability and so on. You can delegate user access to all the various types of data it handles, allowing teamwork.
That's a summary. But really, it's sort of "why would anyone use an SQL database when there's flat text files?" If all you're doing is quick notes, text files are fine. If on the other hand you're looking to do something more complicated, SQL is a huge difference. Well, Outlook as a mail client is... ok. But as a client to Exchange, for businesses that can use group scheduling or contacts or delegation or shared anything, it's almost completely without peer.
This is like saying 'Dont play Asteroids, wait for Pac-Man'.......
No, it's more like "don't spend $500 for Asteroids on a monitor at 800x600 with a joystick that only goes left and down, wait for next year's version that supports double the resolution and adds right and up and costs $300". Suggesting that waiting for v2 of the various VR gear is waiting for some completely different thing makes no sense at all. This tech stuff is iterative. Quality, capability, applicability and availability go up while price goes down. Sure, in the meantime you're stuck with 2D gaming but... well... strangely that's been pretty damned fun for the last three decades. What's another year or two?
If old people are going to stay around, they should consider going back to work too, otherwise it won't be affordable.
If it isn't affordable and the old people who want to stay around don't consider going back to work, they're evidently too far gone already. Obvious cat is obvious.
Stuff the airlines, I'm more concerned about the enviroment.
What's the point in a pristine environment if you can't fly there to enjoy it?
Yes, I'm kidding. Mostly.
I think it would be interesting, in browsers for example, to be able to select text and, with a little more pressure, have a context menu or a dictionary( like in kindle) pop up but only select and show "copy and paste" otherwise.
It's hard enough to master the coordination to select reasonable sized text on touch screens. No need to make it more complicated when a simple alteration in pressure causes a different outcome. Try this; selecting text works like is already does, and there's a menu/ribbon/UI element that appears when you have something selected, and that lets you DO THINGS, such as Cut/Copy/FindDefinition. Wow.
The more likely a UI is to cause a new user to ask "what did I just do", the worse it is.
"Google offered four different scenarios where Launcher Shortcuts make sense: Navigating users to a particular location in a mapping app, sending messages to a friend in a communication app, playing the next episode of a TV show in a media app, or loading the last save point in a gaming app."
How about a button that you can see, that does this stuff when you click it? None of these use-cases justify variable pressure sensitivity. Basically, drawing applications do, and that's about it. If this was actually somehow beneficial, we would've seen pressure-sensitive mouse buttons standardized two decades ago.
Unlike what seems like a large portion of Slashdot, I don't think there's an ethical defense for piracy.
The issue is that digital rights are an alien concept. Just like I - as a non-physicist - will never truly grasp subatomic physics, large portions of digital rights make ZERO sense to a consumer. That's a huge sign that they're nonsensical.
You can't explain to a non-lawyer that it's unethical or wrong to take the songs from a CD you've bought and put them on your new iPod. The law tells us that's wrong, unethical, and illegal, and we're all bad people for doing it. It's roughly equivalent to a farmer selling you a banana and telling you that you can only eat it while facing East and wearing plaid. Sure, terms of the sale are legally enforceable, but as soon as you get home, you're going to take your clothes off, face wherever something interesting is happening, and eat your banana. Which is not a euphemism. Probably.
Nonsensical laws are unethical. Circumventing unethical laws is not, if you have no means to have them repealed.
Because we do not have appropriately accurate modeling of the parts of the earth which cause earthquakes occur.
Actually, it's because we're bad at predicting, period, end of sentence
Wonderful things like reinforcement bias and the availability heuristic meddle with our accuracy. There's a reason why earthquake insurance sells the best days after an earthquake, when statistically that's when there's the least risk. When something horrible happens, people suddenly remember, and Do Something, but as the years add up since the last event, we become lax.
That's the personal level. I recommend reading Risk by Dan Gardner to lean a bunch about this in general. From that book, he moved on with Philip Tetlock and wrote Future Babble and then Superforecasting, which more closely refine the general psychology covered in Risk down to mathematical models and expert opinions. Risk is a fascinating read useful to individuals to understand why grocery stores have sales with "limit 10 per customer", and why more extra Americans died driving the year after September 11th than died in the attacks themselves, and the other two get (much) more into "why are economists wrong so often" (Future Babble), and finally "why are some people so good at analyzing data and predicting things like complex geopolitical events and the like, and how can we learn to be like them" (Superforecasting).
I leave locating the books to the audience as you know what bookstores you prefer and the author and titles are very clear.
Some mediocre books I re-read, simply because - like The Princess Bride - the "just the good bits" edition can be much, much better than the original.
Except there isn't an unabridged Princess Bride.
Right your are. Huh.
But speed reading reduces enjoyment and comprehension, so removes the pleasure from pleasure reading, and the comprehension from technical reading. So there ends up being no advantages.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree on that one. My basement library is just shy of a thousand novels and by no means contains all that I've read in my life. I have a philosophy that I don't give up on a book, no matter how crappy it is. There's almost always a nugget of "worthwhile" somewhere in there. But some authors are bad at various things. From realistic dialogue to exposition to dialogue, there's often something that's really not worth reading. I've become very good at catching on what's bad within a few chapters, and skimming through that type of material.
Sure, you don't speed-read/skim through say... Douglas Adams. The whole point is the intricate wordplay. It takes a lot of time for me to make it through good writing, such as Iain M. Banks. On the other hand, I can plow through lesser works rapidly and derive enjoyment. Some mediocre books I re-read, simply because - like The Princess Bride - the "just the good bits" edition can be much, much better than the original.
So don't assume. I often get more pleasure out of skimming... which is why I do it.
Here is what we *DO* need: USB cables that are transparent so you can SEE the colors of wire going to the pins of each connector. *THIS* is what will prevent damage due to bad cables. Your "software" is not needed, and wouldn't help anyway.
Or... you know... purchasers who aren't going for $.03 "USB3c 15ft MAXBESTDEALYOUBUYAWESOMESAUCE!" By and large, if you buy from reputable distributors, this is a non-issue.
She is a big Mac user
Special sauce, lettuce, cheese?
No, because a person can not at home create a nuclear weapon or gasoline with no ingredients whatsoever. They can however create encryption software with exactly 0 input from anyone else.
I hear you, but that's not meaningful. An insignificant number of people will bother. What is concerning to the government isn't that you, or I, or anyone else fluent in programming could write an encryption routine. What concerns them is companies like Google and Apple doing it by default, so that even incapable or incompetent enemies of the state benefit.
That I could, theoretically, obtain and use fissile materials if I simply knew enough (and yes, that bar is high) isn't at all the same as the idea that every person is issued the parts to assemble a nuclear weapon at birth. Just add water.
We seem to have a bunch of politicians that are convinced the citizenry are fucking stupid.
Don't live up their expectations.
Wish you weren't an AC, but still, people keep making that argument like it's somehow insightful or meaningful. It's not.
You can make a parallel argument that making it illegal for companies to manufacture and sell personal nuclear weapons is "outlawing physics". Or that making it illegal to sell sarin gas is "outlawing chemistry". Or that making it illegal to distribute anthrax is "outlawing biology".
Such a parallel argument would be equally missing-the-point. Just because a thing is possible to do doesn't preclude laws making that thing illegal to do, or to own. And while those laws may not make owning or doing that thing impossible, they can make it rare or difficult for Joe Average to do or own.
Even tax return has a box right near the end that says "contribute extra to US/state treasury". Use it.
How does that box:
1} provide stipulations and instructions regarding how you want your extra contribution spent?
2} influence or inspire others to do as you have done?
It doesn't matter if these folks want to toot their own horns if in the end the result is money being spent on worthwhile* causes.
*Yes, I recognize there's always the cute game of "we got $x in bonus money we can 'only' spend on roads, so it's reduce our regular road budget by $x and go buy some more pork", but that's an issue with corrupt politicians, not corrupt taxpayers.
No. Leave it alone. Devices that are too thin for a standard jack are perfect candidates for a micro-USB ethernet adapter. The default assumption for RJ45 should remain as it is. No need for yet another connector to require we carry five different possible adapters and cables.
However, there are reasons beyond health and safety that people might choose one product over another... even irrational reasons.
So... you're advocating law-enforced legislation for the purpose of enabling irrational behaviour.
Why do you think it stigmatizes anything?
Everyone putting food on the shelf in that state will be required to do this as far as I understand, so _everyone_ is in the same boat.
The label itself doesn't stigmatize anything. Labels never do. It's the more nebulous "public opinion" that does. Same reason (most) homosexual people don't wear shirts saying "I'm gay". The shirt wouldn't stigmatize anything. But it sure would give ignorant people the means to identify those they wish to discriminate - wrongly - against.
Wait. There is one way. The label being present denotes a product that "someone in authority" has legislated needs to be identified. It's not the label per se doing the stigmatization but the regulation requiring it sure does.
This gives consumers the choice.
This gives consumers the choice they are not qualified to make. It's enabling fear-mongering. It's enabling discrimination on grounds that Joe Average doesn't understand. I'm not saying it should be impossible, or even difficult, to research and find out how a given food is developed. It's just that this label requirement is awfully similar to my country's requirements that cigarette manufacturers print photos of diseased lungs, and rotten hearts on their packages... only unjustified.
If they want to buy more expensive non GMO options they will be able to make that decision.
The fear the companies have is that there will be non GMO products available at the same price they have been selling theirs at, and everyone will buy that instead.
If everyone is using the same base GMO ingredients, then no one has anything to worry about and everyone will keep buying exactly what they are already buying
I'm not a fan of Monsato and the gang, but until there's some real evidence that GMO is something that matters in a health sense, this is like requiring farmers to put a label on their product saying "fertilized with SHIT". Those companies who do hydroponics will be all for such a label. And the public will be thrilled that they can (pay more to) buy SHIT-free produce. But it's all stupid, because there's no reason to think that hydroponic tomatoes are safer, better, or in any meaningful way different from SHIT tomatoes.
that users (or should I say morons) have repeatedly been shown to fly their toys near airports, even in the flight path, where there is a higher likelihood of a strike occurring.
Well, sort of. The study didn't ignore the obvious... that the vast majority of reported "near my airplane" cases weren't near the airplane. Most of the cases weren't in violation of existing FCC flight regulations. So what we've been mislead or misinformed, or both, as to the frequency of this threat. In most cases, objects observed by pilots were either legally-operated drones, or unidentified objects (which pretty much suggests they weren't very close). It is understandably a pilot's job to be paranoid. But the numbers released here shows this is being blown out of proportion.
Thing is, they aren't get to get everyone. And as long as anyone is still on Win7/8, they can't reduce support for it early.
Thing is, they don't need to get everyone. If they don't have to support old stuff, that reduces their costs and improves their strategic plans in a way that is (arguably) worth some dollar amount. Let's call that number $[x]. In dropping support (or just providing very poor support) for old versions of their software, they will also lose business that is worth $[y]. If [x] is a much larger number than [y]... well...
Errr. Thing is, they do need to get everyone. Read my comment. You can't reduce support for a product that still has users. It doesn't matter if the market share is down to 5%, you still need to provide the same level of support. If you're thinking about per-incident telephone support, that's a money-making proposition. Support costs are really about the effort to patch & update older OSs. And you can't stop doing that until the 10-year extended support period is over.
There have been theories that Microsoft is gathering a lot of telemetry that they intend on leveraging or selling, but there is a pretty simple, non-nefarious reason why they would want to push people to the latest version: support costs.
Thing is, they aren't get to get everyone. And as long as anyone is still on Win7/8, they can't reduce support for it early.
I figure it's mostly about getting as large a base of users with Windows Store as possible, as quickly as possible. People might not start using it today, or tomorrow, but the sooner you start, the sooner it might become the distribution point for software.
Microsoft Exchange being a bunch of dickheads that promote case sensitive usernames on email. Fucking retards.
This is a fine example of "making shit up". Good job Anonymous Coward.
To be clear, with Exchange you can set SMTP addresses to use mixed case for readability purposes (JohnSmith@mydomain.com) but it has zero impact on accepting mail; that mailbox will accept jOHNsMITH@mydomain.com as well.
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago!
It doesn't matter.
First up, I didn't read about this on TMZ or any other site five hours ago because I start my "news" day here because Slashdot has the mix of topics most interesting to me.
Secondly, since this isn't "news" I can/will act on, being behind five hours or even a couple days doesn't change anything.
I thought he sided with the FBI against Apple. He thinks Apple should include a backdoor in their phones for the FBI...and now he's pointing out how dangereous backdoors are....
No, he didn't side with anyone. He offered to decrypt the phone. That's not what the FBI wants. The FBI wants Apple to produce vulnerable code. John didn't offer to produce vulnerable code. By making his offer, McAfee was illustrating that the FBI isn't after the decrypted data.