Seriously, it should be more than obvious now that if you trust your computer and your data to either Microsoft or Apple, you're an absolute fool and you're going to be abused for it. The only solution is to stop using these vendors. Otherwise, don't complain when you're spied on, your OS is forcibly "upgraded" to a different version that isn't compatible with all your software, or your music library is deleted.
I think this is a great idea and I hope MS implements it. Legality shouldn't be a problem; they can put a clause in their EULA about it. It probably won't fly in the EU so they better block it there, but in the US it won't be a problem.
No, after the 29th then when MS finally succeeds in bypassing your attempts at blocking GWX, it'll do as a poster above pointed out and look through your personal data for credit card info so it can properly bill you for the upgrade.
I personally look forward to this. Windows users deserve this treatment.
At some point, the developers of computers that are used in critical situations (medical operations, battleships, etc) will soon realize that it is to the detriment of their end users to use a general purpose operating system for systems.
It doesn't matter; the developers have no input about the OS to be used. That decision is made by management.
You don't need a proprietary hardware stack, you just need a decent RTOS. There's plenty of them out there. But you're not going to be able to use Visual Basic with those.
Without technology, doctors wouldn't be able to do a lot of the stuff they can do now.
This is like saying we don't need ultra-reliable avionics systems because we shouldn't rely on technology, so we should just go back to horses and wagons.
Relying on technology is fine as long as you do it right. Using Windows doesn't qualify there. It'd be criminally negligent to use Windows on an airplane's avionics systems, and it's no different for medical systems.
Very interesting, usually QNX gets glowing praise, but it does seem like a lot of that praise comes from people who've never worked directly with it and are just passing on the general reputation, much like people saying how great BMWs are even though they've never driven one or worked on one. (How do you know that "German engineering" is so great if you've never actually worked on one of them? FWIW I've never worked on one either, I'm just pointing out this fallacy.)
What RTOSes would you suggest for this application? Green Hills maybe? They seem to make good use of it in military applications. Nucleus?
Yeah, the cardiologist was probably pissed/confused and the OR techs and nurses were freaking out a bit, but I doubt the patient was in any actual direct danger from the crash. Any danger would indirect, such as prolonging the procedure and exposing the patient to more anesthetic, or rendering the procedure futile and they'd have to try it all over again the next day.
Those are all bad enough. Surgery is serious business, and forcing a surgery to be botched so that the patient has to go through with it again is a serious risk to life and limb. I sure hope the patient in this case sues the hell out of everyone involved here for using a Windows-based solution.
I sure hope there's some utterly gigantic lawsuits for this bullshit before too many people get killed. There is absolutely no excuse for using Windows in any life-critical application. Even Microsoft says so in their EULA.
I think Bernie would be a better choice for two reasons here: 1) Hilary is despised by the Republicans. Bernie, not so much. They just don't agree with him. 2) As you point out, with Hillary they'll pass bipartisan legislation to increase spying, etc. With Bernie, they won't because he'll veto that crap. So even if he's unsuccessful in getting anything good passed, at least he won't sign off on anything bad like Hillary will. I'd rather Washington come to a complete standstill than getting more pro-corporate/pro-0.01% garbage passed and little to nothing good. And then with that much gridlock but Bernie as President, at least he'd have a chance at convincing voters to get out to the polls in 2018 to vote for some better Congresspeople so maybe he can do some good stuff in 2019-2020. Hillary isn't going to work to get anyone good elected, she'll just help get her corrupt buddies like DWS elected.
As for the carriers, keep in mind that exists for 2 reasons: 1. Jobs program 2. Maintaining the ability to build nuclear ships at all - once lost, that ability is hard to get back
I disagree: nothing about these two factors have changed in 20 years. But the costs are far greater. There's other factors at work.
Too many Americans think we're the best at EVERYTHING, without being willing to look at other nations and seeing what they do best... This is foolish, we are not the only "great nation" in the world.
We have a massive case of NIH.
Actually, that is why I put a UBI in there, to avoid 0% tax rates.
I believe that everyone should pay something into the system, everyone takes part. If millions of people pay nothing, then they have no investment in the system.
This isn't a big point, but I somewhat disagree. The UBI still isn't much money, and I think people should be encouraged to work. I think a tax-free amount at the onset would help that, because taxes discourage activities. Give them a little carrot that they can keep 100% of their first $10k and not have to bother filing taxes. After that, they have to pay, but then they won't feel so bad about it because they're making more significant money (and are probably more educated anyway). Again this isn't a big point; where and how much to set these taxation thresholds is something you really need to do a big study for.
More than Hillary, that's what. Bernie would actually push for a lot more, and then compromise, so we'll get something rather than nothing. Hillary will just go straight to "compromise" and get nothing that the opposition wasn't already prepared to agree to in the first place.
And Bernie would use the bully pulpit to push Congress to do better, and to help get more like-minded politicians elected. Hillary will only help with the campaigns of fellow corporatists like her buddy Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who's a huge fan of payday lenders who prey on low-income people with usurious interest rates.
The man literally wants to double-triple-quadruple taxes on everyone from the lower middle class and up to pay for massive government expansion. We're talking about tax increases that will actually cause almost everyone in the country to not be able to afford their house payment.
Sorry, but this is just dumb. Go find a calculator and plug in your income and see what your tax increase would be. I did (I make probably average for a professional software engineer on Slashdot), and came up with a somewhat high-sounding number. Then, I calculated how much I spend per month on my health insurance premiums. It's a wash. I'll pay higher taxes, and then save just as much by having universal healthcare. Sounds like a good deal to me, especially when I can see that my poorer friends aren't struggling with healthcare problems.
Yeah, if you're netting $500k/year or something, you're going to pay higher taxes. Boo hoo. For everyone making less than 6 figures, it's going to be an improvement.
Except for nuking the Middle East, this sounds pretty good actually. I do disagree on the tax rates; it should be 0% for lower incomes. Since you've thrown a UBI in there, it doesn't have to be very high, maybe the first $10k is tax-free. However, to make your UBI and universal healthcare work you'll need much higher taxes at the top end, more like 50% for the $1M+ people and 35% for the $100k-1M people.
As for the military, the thing really needs to be revamped. We should be able to afford just as much military hardware for half as much money. Look at how much an aircraft carrier costs now. 20 years ago, it was around $2.5B for a carrier. Now it's suddenly $15B. Military costs have risen far more than the rate of inflation. And there's been a huge amount of merging in the defense contracting industry, which probably isn't a coincidence. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but we taxpayers are not getting much for our defense dollars, and it needs to be fixed.
This is a problem I see with a lot of analyses: they assume that current costs are fixed or rising, and that there's no way to make them lower. The government does have the ability to change the costs of things if it manages things smartly. And it is possible to manage things more intelligently: various European countries have proven this by doing it. Healthcare costs (per capita) are much cheaper there, telecom/internet service is much cheaper, etc.
(At least she would start slightly fewer wars, and appoint reasonably sane justices to the SCOTUS.)
I disagree. Hillary hasn't seen a single war she didn't like. She voted for Bush's Iraq war, she pushed Obama to get involved in Libya, she tried to get involved in Syria. She's a warmonger. Trump, OTOH, said the Iraq war was "stupid", and has been basically an isolationist except for some talk about bombing ISIS.
Oh please, Sanders hasn't "forced" Hillary anywhere. He's gotten her to rip off some of his positions to get votes, but after she's elected she'll be just like Obama, only worse: she'll adopt right-wing policies and completely ignore her campaign promises. Hillary is your typical politician who will say anything to get elected, and then work for the benefit of her donors.
The problem with your highly flawed analysis is that neither Democratic candidate is pandering to the far-left crazies that you're complaining about. They're probably all voting for Bernie because he's as far left as you're going to see in a Presidential race, but that doesn't mean that Bernie is running around supporting that kind of thinking. Bernie is a European-style social democrat, and from a European perspective is a centrist. He wants capitalism but with strong regulation and a strong welfare state, just like Denmark and Sweden. I've never heard of him praising "safe spaces", talking about "microaggressions", or any of that other loony-left bullshit that's come about in the past 5 years. And what do you expect? The guy's 75 years old; it was only recently that he even changed his position on marijuana legalization.
In a nutshell, Hillary is a Republican-lite who wants another war in the middle east but wants to push some women's issues to get elected (like paycheck fairness, which is a BS issue anyway as the wage gap is a myth caused by older-generation women choosing lower-paying jobs, and it's no longer an issue among the under-30 crowd where women out-earn men), and Bernie is a slightly-left-leaning social democrat who wants to give us western-European-style universal healthcare and free college tuition and some better regulation and taxation of the ultra-rich. Neither one is guilty of what you're bitching about. The far-left loonies are mostly confined to college campuses right now, and they don't have a candidate in this race; Bernie is as far left as they'll ever find, and even there they make fools of themselves like when the BLM protesters crashed one of his rallies.
You notice all those politicians in the democrat camp supporting those ideas, and wanting to implement them in the US at large.
I'm hoping this election cycle results in the GOP splitting in two. The racists, fascists, and religious fundamentalists can be loaded into one party while the sane Republicans who don't mind working WITH people on the opposite side of the aisle to get things done can be in a second party.
So which one of these is the Trump side?
The racists definitely seem to prefer Trump. However the religious fundamentalists definitely do not: they liked theocratic Cruz. The fascists, I don't know, I guess that depends on your definition of fascism.
Also, Trump always talks about deal-making, so it seems like the less-extreme people voted for Trump. Cruz was notorious for being impossible to work with, that's why his own party hated him and Boehner called him "Lucifer in the flesh".
This doesn't mean that the Trump side isn't also crazy. I'm just pointing out that the whole party is crazy in one way or another, and until now was an alliance of nuts working together somehow, but it's fallen apart.
The Dems aren't much better; there's serious discord between the Hillary and Bernie wings. People on each side really hate each other, with a lot of Bernie supporters threatening to vote for either Trump or 3rd-party. Of course, with all the GOP voters who've vowed not to vote for Trump no matter what (#nevertrump), including party insiders, that'll probably make up for all the Berniecrat defectors.
The problem with that (at 25%) is that sales tax is a horribly regressive tax, so basically you're advocating screwing over lower-income people.
What we *should* be doing is simply eliminating sales tax altogether. Only income and property taxes should be allowed, except maybe on large luxury purchases and fuel.
This is a great idea actually. The tribe could cheaply sell PO Boxes to everyone in the country. They don't even need that many physical boxes, they'd just be virtual boxes. Then they just reship your stuff to you after receiving it.
It's funny to see the Native Americans screwing over white man with his own stupid laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Why shouldn't they? What are the users going to do, complain? Switch to Microsoft?
Well that's what they get for trusting Apple.
Seriously, it should be more than obvious now that if you trust your computer and your data to either Microsoft or Apple, you're an absolute fool and you're going to be abused for it. The only solution is to stop using these vendors. Otherwise, don't complain when you're spied on, your OS is forcibly "upgraded" to a different version that isn't compatible with all your software, or your music library is deleted.
I think this is a great idea and I hope MS implements it. Legality shouldn't be a problem; they can put a clause in their EULA about it. It probably won't fly in the EU so they better block it there, but in the US it won't be a problem.
No, after the 29th then when MS finally succeeds in bypassing your attempts at blocking GWX, it'll do as a poster above pointed out and look through your personal data for credit card info so it can properly bill you for the upgrade.
I personally look forward to this. Windows users deserve this treatment.
At some point, the developers of computers that are used in critical situations (medical operations, battleships, etc) will soon realize that it is to the detriment of their end users to use a general purpose operating system for systems.
It doesn't matter; the developers have no input about the OS to be used. That decision is made by management.
You don't need a proprietary hardware stack, you just need a decent RTOS. There's plenty of them out there. But you're not going to be able to use Visual Basic with those.
Without technology, doctors wouldn't be able to do a lot of the stuff they can do now.
This is like saying we don't need ultra-reliable avionics systems because we shouldn't rely on technology, so we should just go back to horses and wagons.
Relying on technology is fine as long as you do it right. Using Windows doesn't qualify there. It'd be criminally negligent to use Windows on an airplane's avionics systems, and it's no different for medical systems.
Very interesting, usually QNX gets glowing praise, but it does seem like a lot of that praise comes from people who've never worked directly with it and are just passing on the general reputation, much like people saying how great BMWs are even though they've never driven one or worked on one. (How do you know that "German engineering" is so great if you've never actually worked on one of them? FWIW I've never worked on one either, I'm just pointing out this fallacy.)
What RTOSes would you suggest for this application? Green Hills maybe? They seem to make good use of it in military applications. Nucleus?
Yeah, the cardiologist was probably pissed/confused and the OR techs and nurses were freaking out a bit, but I doubt the patient was in any actual direct danger from the crash. Any danger would indirect, such as prolonging the procedure and exposing the patient to more anesthetic, or rendering the procedure futile and they'd have to try it all over again the next day.
Those are all bad enough. Surgery is serious business, and forcing a surgery to be botched so that the patient has to go through with it again is a serious risk to life and limb. I sure hope the patient in this case sues the hell out of everyone involved here for using a Windows-based solution.
I sure hope there's some utterly gigantic lawsuits for this bullshit before too many people get killed. There is absolutely no excuse for using Windows in any life-critical application. Even Microsoft says so in their EULA.
I think Bernie would be a better choice for two reasons here:
1) Hilary is despised by the Republicans. Bernie, not so much. They just don't agree with him.
2) As you point out, with Hillary they'll pass bipartisan legislation to increase spying, etc. With Bernie, they won't because he'll veto that crap. So even if he's unsuccessful in getting anything good passed, at least he won't sign off on anything bad like Hillary will. I'd rather Washington come to a complete standstill than getting more pro-corporate/pro-0.01% garbage passed and little to nothing good. And then with that much gridlock but Bernie as President, at least he'd have a chance at convincing voters to get out to the polls in 2018 to vote for some better Congresspeople so maybe he can do some good stuff in 2019-2020. Hillary isn't going to work to get anyone good elected, she'll just help get her corrupt buddies like DWS elected.
As for the carriers, keep in mind that exists for 2 reasons:
1. Jobs program
2. Maintaining the ability to build nuclear ships at all - once lost, that ability is hard to get back
I disagree: nothing about these two factors have changed in 20 years. But the costs are far greater. There's other factors at work.
Too many Americans think we're the best at EVERYTHING, without being willing to look at other nations and seeing what they do best... This is foolish, we are not the only "great nation" in the world.
We have a massive case of NIH.
Actually, that is why I put a UBI in there, to avoid 0% tax rates.
I believe that everyone should pay something into the system, everyone takes part. If millions of people pay nothing, then they have no investment in the system.
This isn't a big point, but I somewhat disagree. The UBI still isn't much money, and I think people should be encouraged to work. I think a tax-free amount at the onset would help that, because taxes discourage activities. Give them a little carrot that they can keep 100% of their first $10k and not have to bother filing taxes. After that, they have to pay, but then they won't feel so bad about it because they're making more significant money (and are probably more educated anyway). Again this isn't a big point; where and how much to set these taxation thresholds is something you really need to do a big study for.
And yes, Linux still sucks more than Windows for gaming.
No it doesn't, not any more. Linux won't ruin your game by popping up a window and forcing you to do updates. You can't say that about Windows.
What would Bernie actually be able to accomplish?
More than Hillary, that's what. Bernie would actually push for a lot more, and then compromise, so we'll get something rather than nothing. Hillary will just go straight to "compromise" and get nothing that the opposition wasn't already prepared to agree to in the first place.
And Bernie would use the bully pulpit to push Congress to do better, and to help get more like-minded politicians elected. Hillary will only help with the campaigns of fellow corporatists like her buddy Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who's a huge fan of payday lenders who prey on low-income people with usurious interest rates.
The man literally wants to double-triple-quadruple taxes on everyone from the lower middle class and up to pay for massive government expansion. We're talking about tax increases that will actually cause almost everyone in the country to not be able to afford their house payment.
Sorry, but this is just dumb. Go find a calculator and plug in your income and see what your tax increase would be. I did (I make probably average for a professional software engineer on Slashdot), and came up with a somewhat high-sounding number. Then, I calculated how much I spend per month on my health insurance premiums. It's a wash. I'll pay higher taxes, and then save just as much by having universal healthcare. Sounds like a good deal to me, especially when I can see that my poorer friends aren't struggling with healthcare problems.
Yeah, if you're netting $500k/year or something, you're going to pay higher taxes. Boo hoo. For everyone making less than 6 figures, it's going to be an improvement.
Except for nuking the Middle East, this sounds pretty good actually. I do disagree on the tax rates; it should be 0% for lower incomes. Since you've thrown a UBI in there, it doesn't have to be very high, maybe the first $10k is tax-free. However, to make your UBI and universal healthcare work you'll need much higher taxes at the top end, more like 50% for the $1M+ people and 35% for the $100k-1M people.
As for the military, the thing really needs to be revamped. We should be able to afford just as much military hardware for half as much money. Look at how much an aircraft carrier costs now. 20 years ago, it was around $2.5B for a carrier. Now it's suddenly $15B. Military costs have risen far more than the rate of inflation. And there's been a huge amount of merging in the defense contracting industry, which probably isn't a coincidence. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but we taxpayers are not getting much for our defense dollars, and it needs to be fixed.
This is a problem I see with a lot of analyses: they assume that current costs are fixed or rising, and that there's no way to make them lower. The government does have the ability to change the costs of things if it manages things smartly. And it is possible to manage things more intelligently: various European countries have proven this by doing it. Healthcare costs (per capita) are much cheaper there, telecom/internet service is much cheaper, etc.
I'm pretty sure Amazon is technically breaking the law when that happens.
(At least she would start slightly fewer wars, and appoint reasonably sane justices to the SCOTUS.)
I disagree. Hillary hasn't seen a single war she didn't like. She voted for Bush's Iraq war, she pushed Obama to get involved in Libya, she tried to get involved in Syria. She's a warmonger. Trump, OTOH, said the Iraq war was "stupid", and has been basically an isolationist except for some talk about bombing ISIS.
Oh please, Sanders hasn't "forced" Hillary anywhere. He's gotten her to rip off some of his positions to get votes, but after she's elected she'll be just like Obama, only worse: she'll adopt right-wing policies and completely ignore her campaign promises. Hillary is your typical politician who will say anything to get elected, and then work for the benefit of her donors.
The problem with your highly flawed analysis is that neither Democratic candidate is pandering to the far-left crazies that you're complaining about. They're probably all voting for Bernie because he's as far left as you're going to see in a Presidential race, but that doesn't mean that Bernie is running around supporting that kind of thinking. Bernie is a European-style social democrat, and from a European perspective is a centrist. He wants capitalism but with strong regulation and a strong welfare state, just like Denmark and Sweden. I've never heard of him praising "safe spaces", talking about "microaggressions", or any of that other loony-left bullshit that's come about in the past 5 years. And what do you expect? The guy's 75 years old; it was only recently that he even changed his position on marijuana legalization.
In a nutshell, Hillary is a Republican-lite who wants another war in the middle east but wants to push some women's issues to get elected (like paycheck fairness, which is a BS issue anyway as the wage gap is a myth caused by older-generation women choosing lower-paying jobs, and it's no longer an issue among the under-30 crowd where women out-earn men), and Bernie is a slightly-left-leaning social democrat who wants to give us western-European-style universal healthcare and free college tuition and some better regulation and taxation of the ultra-rich. Neither one is guilty of what you're bitching about. The far-left loonies are mostly confined to college campuses right now, and they don't have a candidate in this race; Bernie is as far left as they'll ever find, and even there they make fools of themselves like when the BLM protesters crashed one of his rallies.
You notice all those politicians in the democrat camp supporting those ideas, and wanting to implement them in the US at large.
Citation needed.
Turkey is a crappy third-world country with an Islamist as their president. That's not comparable.
For a good comparison, look at any western *industrialized* nation: they *ALL* have parliamentary systems: UK, France, Germany, etc. Even Japan.
I'm hoping this election cycle results in the GOP splitting in two. The racists, fascists, and religious fundamentalists can be loaded into one party while the sane Republicans who don't mind working WITH people on the opposite side of the aisle to get things done can be in a second party.
So which one of these is the Trump side?
The racists definitely seem to prefer Trump. However the religious fundamentalists definitely do not: they liked theocratic Cruz. The fascists, I don't know, I guess that depends on your definition of fascism.
Also, Trump always talks about deal-making, so it seems like the less-extreme people voted for Trump. Cruz was notorious for being impossible to work with, that's why his own party hated him and Boehner called him "Lucifer in the flesh".
This doesn't mean that the Trump side isn't also crazy. I'm just pointing out that the whole party is crazy in one way or another, and until now was an alliance of nuts working together somehow, but it's fallen apart.
The Dems aren't much better; there's serious discord between the Hillary and Bernie wings. People on each side really hate each other, with a lot of Bernie supporters threatening to vote for either Trump or 3rd-party. Of course, with all the GOP voters who've vowed not to vote for Trump no matter what (#nevertrump), including party insiders, that'll probably make up for all the Berniecrat defectors.
The problem with that (at 25%) is that sales tax is a horribly regressive tax, so basically you're advocating screwing over lower-income people.
What we *should* be doing is simply eliminating sales tax altogether. Only income and property taxes should be allowed, except maybe on large luxury purchases and fuel.
This is a great idea actually. The tribe could cheaply sell PO Boxes to everyone in the country. They don't even need that many physical boxes, they'd just be virtual boxes. Then they just reship your stuff to you after receiving it.
It's funny to see the Native Americans screwing over white man with his own stupid laws.
That logic isn't going to go very far when South Dakota sues you and issues a summons.
The best thing to do is to refuse sales to SD until this gets settled in court by someone else.