Neither company makes computers, if you're trying to be literal, but yes, they sell computers branded under their names of their own design. Microsoft has a line of convertible tablet/laptop computers called Surface.
But then it would work in Windows 7 and we can't have that. We need to force people onto Windows 10.
There's nothing about this announcement that suggests support for generic IMAP clients are being removed. And I suspect 99% of users use webmail to access Outlook.com and Hotmail anyway.
Windows Live Mail is unusual in connecting to Microsoft's email services via a proprietary protocol, rather than conventional IMAP. It's the removal of this protocol that ultimately is behind today's announcement.
So why were voters adamantly against Lyft and Uber being exempt from these regulations?
I mean, you describe it as a "shakedown" by "City Council members (with) close ties to the local Taxi companies", yet it looks to me like even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite, a majority of Austinites supported it. Are you arguing a majority of the people in Austin have "close ties" to the local Taxi companies? Or were they bamboozled by a campaign that apparently barely existed and somehow managed to miss the "truthful" message of a campaign that was supposedly hard to miss?
And what, exactly, is the problem with free city mandated background checks anyway?
Just curious, but this kinda sorta looks like one of those cases where Uber (et al) has decided their business shouldn't be subject to any of the same regulations as existing companies that do the same thing, even the regulations that have nothing to do with the differences in their service. Would you say this is a fair description of what's happening here?
Or do you think local governments should only be able to regulate the precise nature and quality of background checks if it applies to drivers who are hailed from the street, but not if they're hailed from an app on a mobile phone?
What is it about apps that makes the concept of background checks entirely different?
This is useless bullshit- there is NO need to move to a mail app on Windows just to send and receive mail.
That's not what this story is about. This story refers to support for a specific Microsoft Windows mail app being discontinued. I would say it's the opposite of what you describe, but it's not even that - you'll continue to be able to use other Windows mail apps, as well as the web interface, to Hotmail and Outlook et al.
In this case, the commentator is not a threat (well, not likely, anyway - that is, no less likely to be a threat than you are.) The quote in TFS is incomplete. It ends with:
The person wronged probably knows people who know people in low places who'd take on the challenge pro-bono, after a proper "cooling-off" period.
Basically the commentator was alleging that the person law enforcement "confiscated" property from was violent and linked to organized crime, and would probably arrange for a hit on the officers involved if the law doesn't solve the problem for him.
Not happy about the support for violence, and if I were a moderator I'd have removed or hidden that comment, but the commentator is not a threat to the officers involved. (Well, unless he's a hitman looking for business;-)
I can't endorse the GP's language but I understand his frustration. He proved pretty much everything he needed to, and the idiots making the usual anti-systemd allegations failed in every way. You guys blamed a bug in a file system on systemd. He showed you where to look, you refused to do so.
You're like the GamerGators of the Linux world, inventing your own little reality and descending to smears when the rest of the world points out you're wrong.
Corporate America moves slowly - but that also means that most of corporate America hasn't moved to Windows 10 yet (I happen to know - I don't work for them, but I know people who do - that FPL, Florida's main power company, only moved from XP to Windows 7 about three or four years ago, for instance.)
This kind of thing means they're less likely to switch from Windows 7, which is going to be a problem for Microsoft in the long term. Let's face it, 7 isn't broken, and the only "disadvantage" it has over 10 is the inability to run Windows Store apps, which most corporate environments couldn't give two hoots about.
Yes. On July the 29th there will be no semi-forced upgrades to Windows 10.
On July 30th, Microsoft will announce Windows 10.1, and announce that it's free for Windows 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 users. To upgrade, just reboot your PC, and the new operating system will be installed automatically.
Then you're not using Sharepoint, just the subset that works within Chrome and Firefox.
If you're not at the very least checking out and editing Office documents (which is an IE only thing, and doesn't even work with Edge), you're not really using Sharepoint as intended.
I've seen two massive operations use it, but with neither were there any signs it was a useful tool beyond encouraging some employees (not even all, it's too hard for most) to centralize their documentation. It's easier, for most people, to use standard network shares and email to collaborate.
And, as others have mentioned, vital functionality requires Internet Explorer. Specific versions of Internet Explorer. It doesn't work properly with Edge, for instance.
The fact this tool requires "Sharepoint consultants" to set it up "properly" is a warning flag. The only Microsoft tool I've seen that needs both but ends up being a joy and a genuine advantage to a corporation once it is is ActiveDirectory - but it remains surprising nobody's stepped in with a simpler alternative to that. Sharepoint? *shudder*...
Supposedly if you revert, it'll stop nagging you, so that's worth a try if you don't want to rely on third party tools that Microsoft might want to prevent from working at some point...
History is full of monsters who weren't part of the status quo when they came to power. I really don't think "not status quo"/"not consummate politician" is a rational reason by itself to support Trump, however much I can't stand Clinton or dislike the American political establishment. I'd like to replace the status quo with something better, not worse.
There's no strategic need for him to become more racist et al. All he needs to do is not repudiate his prior comments to ensure he continues to get the support of his current base.
There's nothing to stop him from drifting left on the issues the GP mentioned while continuing to hold the views he's infamous for. He won't pick off a majority of Bernie supporters, but it's conceivable that a large enough group consists of people who aren't natural Democrats, were attracted by some of Sander's social policies, and who might be persuaded to vote for a third party (rather than for Clinton) if "Trump doesn't seem that bad."
Exactly. I'm no fan of Clinton, and under normal circumstances there'd be no question of me doing anything other than vote third party at this election. But if there's a serious risk of a President Trump, and Trump is likely to be able to push his agenda through Congress, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Clinton.
The Republicans seem very likely to "choose" Trump as their candidate. The question now is whether non-Trump Republicans can convince the rest of us he'd be as ineffectual as Clinton is likely to be in office.
Plus, you should probably mention the importance of encryption to DRM. I think everyone on Slashdot can get behind the idea that without strong, well encrypted, digital rights management systems, the studios would find their movies being quite literally stolen from them by people we can only describe as digital terrorists, their revenues and profits destroyed as unpaying freeloaders enjoy the fruits of the studios hard, expensive, work without paying a cent.
(You need to know what arguments to use if you want to persuade the government to knock it off...)
(Oh f---, have I just persuaded most of Slashdot to oppose encryption?)
On the one hand, if this apparent fraudster is Nakamoto, then this is hillarious. On the other hand, if this guy, who has apparently fooled at least two major figures in the BTC community, isn't, then this is hillarious.
Not sure how it passed you by but its creation was a big thing, and there were plenty of "That's it, I've had enough! I'm going to Kiro5hin!" messages whenever Slashdot did anything wrong for about five years afterwards. This was in the 2000-2005 timeframe.
...the problem with Apple is the amount of stuff they produce that doesn't seem like it'll be successful, and ends up being massively successful. So those of us skeptical get burnt after predicting one too many failures and shut up, especially when Gruber et al are rationally debunking similarly skeptical media about it, but we're still thinking "Why the F would someone want a watch that doesn't even display the time unless you wiggle it, and that has to be charged once a day?"
I was impressed, kinda, by the Pebble, which doesn't have either of these problems, but it still never jumped out as something I'd definitely use. The iWatch is more expensive, you can't glance at it to tell the time, and it needs to be made part of an evening ritual of charging. All for the ability to reduce the number of times you take your phone out of your pocket.
Beyond "Yes, but it's Apple, you're always wrong about Apple" I don't see why this was ever thought to be a thing people would desperately want.
systemd is about getting stuff done. sysvinit basically became obsolete around 20-25 years ago, at around the time network services became a thing and when security required more than just deciding who could log into your box from a network you largely controlled.
I've had to recover too many boxes using boot CDs because a faulty network card has prevented some resource from starting that the existing sysvinit scripts rely upon causing sysvinit to just hang to think sysvinit is the utopian ideal systemd opponents portray it as. And, before anyone mentions the various rivals, most don't solve the same problems, and none support Linux's security model. Starting services in boxes using cgroups, for example, which ought to be the default for any network facing service, requires manual hacking together of shell scripts to create something that can't easily be managed by a centralized service manager.
systemd is a good idea. It's not perfect, but judging by the fact its opponents insist on using "faults" that are misleading, minor, or irrelevant, I don't think we're likely to get anything better than systemd for a very long time.
As someone who started with Slackware in 1997, and has been running GNU/Linux in some form or another ever since, his primary desktop GNU/Linux 90% of that time, I can tell you your "made people like me" statement is an exaggeration.
Frankly, this kind of essay is more or less standard fare from systemd opponents, and it's probably standard fare because it's actually hard to come up with a reasonable criticism of systemd, especially considering what it replaces. sysvinit should have died the moment the Internet became a thing, but it's soldiered on, a ghastly mess of hacks that results in virtually unrecoverable machines far too easily.
systemd is not perfect, but it's a hell of an improvement on what preceded it, and virtually every criticism of it is either overblown (OMG it has a 'sudo' command? How terrible! The world is going to end!) or downright misleading (binary logs... that can be dumped using the strings command. Yeah, big problem, not. stderr not logged? Perhaps you should fault your distro for turning it off, rather than systemd that happily logs stderr?)
Yes, this, uh, adult, reasoned, calmly and rationally stated essay really instills confidence in the maturity and professionalism of the maintainers of this distribution.
(That son, I say that son, is a a a joke son, I say a joke.)
I guess an operation where the patient's brain is removed, head is cut off, a new head put on, and finally their brain implanted in the new head (attached to their old body) would be a head transplant. Part of me wonders if that would be likely more easier than this operation is likely to be?
(Here's hoping it's successful, for all concerned.)
Now it makes sense. I stopped using the Mac some time around iTunes 4, and hadn't used iTunes since but I didn't recall iTunes ever being as awful as TFS suggests. It was very easy to quickly import CDs, make playlists, and manage an iPod, and when the iTMS (yeah, that old) came about, that didn't seem to be a problem. I liked it then, it was a whole lot nicer to use than the WinAMP derived stuff everyone else used at the time.
I wonder if an issue here is that iTunes in its current configuration is obsolete. The only reason the iTMS was ever built into it was to make downloading music automatic, but as all content is now cloud synced, there's not a whole lot of point in building a giant store within a music player app. Likewise, syncing an music player device, tablet, or phone, is more easily be done with controls on the device itself.
Perhaps it's time Apple stripped down the application, and brought it back to its roots? (And perhaps it's time the iTunes store migrated to the web, with a mobile app, just like Android does, where it belongs?)
First, the content industry has been complaining about the analogue hole for a while now and Intel - being that friendly sort that brought us HDCP - is more than happy to help them close that hole.
That's... no, just no. You can convert any "digital" set of headphones to an analog output device by cutting the wires that lead directly into the speaker of each ear phone. This isn't video with huge data rates and convoluted electronics used to control panels containing millions of pixels, it's a simple two wire analog representation of audio, and always will be.
The content industry is unlikely to consider this terribly useful. This is about selling more types of audio widget and fixing the problems with the ones we have. For example, most phones will keep pausing audio if there's even the slightest wiggle on the plug and the plug is in any way under spec, and many will even start a Google Search, because they're programmed to interpret sudden cuts in voltage on a headset as meaning the user hit a "Hang up" or "Pause" button. Yes, really.
Why is it done that way? Well, what way would you do it? The phone makers and headset makers have precisely three wires to work with, and they're all spoken for. Even grafting a microphone on that is a problem.
The only solution to this is to use a different connector. Which is what Intel are proposing.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither company makes computers, if you're trying to be literal, but yes, they sell computers branded under their names of their own design. Microsoft has a line of convertible tablet/laptop computers called Surface.
There's nothing about this announcement that suggests support for generic IMAP clients are being removed. And I suspect 99% of users use webmail to access Outlook.com and Hotmail anyway.
Windows Live Mail is unusual in connecting to Microsoft's email services via a proprietary protocol, rather than conventional IMAP. It's the removal of this protocol that ultimately is behind today's announcement.
Windows Live Mail is not a service, it's an application. The second line you quote makes that clear.
So why were voters adamantly against Lyft and Uber being exempt from these regulations?
I mean, you describe it as a "shakedown" by "City Council members (with) close ties to the local Taxi companies", yet it looks to me like even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite, a majority of Austinites supported it. Are you arguing a majority of the people in Austin have "close ties" to the local Taxi companies? Or were they bamboozled by a campaign that apparently barely existed and somehow managed to miss the "truthful" message of a campaign that was supposedly hard to miss?
And what, exactly, is the problem with free city mandated background checks anyway?
Just curious, but this kinda sorta looks like one of those cases where Uber (et al) has decided their business shouldn't be subject to any of the same regulations as existing companies that do the same thing, even the regulations that have nothing to do with the differences in their service. Would you say this is a fair description of what's happening here?
Or do you think local governments should only be able to regulate the precise nature and quality of background checks if it applies to drivers who are hailed from the street, but not if they're hailed from an app on a mobile phone?
What is it about apps that makes the concept of background checks entirely different?
That's not what this story is about. This story refers to support for a specific Microsoft Windows mail app being discontinued. I would say it's the opposite of what you describe, but it's not even that - you'll continue to be able to use other Windows mail apps, as well as the web interface, to Hotmail and Outlook et al.
Basically the commentator was alleging that the person law enforcement "confiscated" property from was violent and linked to organized crime, and would probably arrange for a hit on the officers involved if the law doesn't solve the problem for him.
Not happy about the support for violence, and if I were a moderator I'd have removed or hidden that comment, but the commentator is not a threat to the officers involved. (Well, unless he's a hitman looking for business ;-)
I can't endorse the GP's language but I understand his frustration. He proved pretty much everything he needed to, and the idiots making the usual anti-systemd allegations failed in every way. You guys blamed a bug in a file system on systemd. He showed you where to look, you refused to do so.
You're like the GamerGators of the Linux world, inventing your own little reality and descending to smears when the rest of the world points out you're wrong.
Corporate America moves slowly - but that also means that most of corporate America hasn't moved to Windows 10 yet (I happen to know - I don't work for them, but I know people who do - that FPL, Florida's main power company, only moved from XP to Windows 7 about three or four years ago, for instance.)
This kind of thing means they're less likely to switch from Windows 7, which is going to be a problem for Microsoft in the long term. Let's face it, 7 isn't broken, and the only "disadvantage" it has over 10 is the inability to run Windows Store apps, which most corporate environments couldn't give two hoots about.
Yes. On July the 29th there will be no semi-forced upgrades to Windows 10.
On July 30th, Microsoft will announce Windows 10.1, and announce that it's free for Windows 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 users. To upgrade, just reboot your PC, and the new operating system will be installed automatically.
Then you're not using Sharepoint, just the subset that works within Chrome and Firefox.
If you're not at the very least checking out and editing Office documents (which is an IE only thing, and doesn't even work with Edge), you're not really using Sharepoint as intended.
I've seen two massive operations use it, but with neither were there any signs it was a useful tool beyond encouraging some employees (not even all, it's too hard for most) to centralize their documentation. It's easier, for most people, to use standard network shares and email to collaborate.
And, as others have mentioned, vital functionality requires Internet Explorer. Specific versions of Internet Explorer. It doesn't work properly with Edge, for instance.
The fact this tool requires "Sharepoint consultants" to set it up "properly" is a warning flag. The only Microsoft tool I've seen that needs both but ends up being a joy and a genuine advantage to a corporation once it is is ActiveDirectory - but it remains surprising nobody's stepped in with a simpler alternative to that. Sharepoint? *shudder*...
Supposedly if you revert, it'll stop nagging you, so that's worth a try if you don't want to rely on third party tools that Microsoft might want to prevent from working at some point...
History is full of monsters who weren't part of the status quo when they came to power. I really don't think "not status quo"/"not consummate politician" is a rational reason by itself to support Trump, however much I can't stand Clinton or dislike the American political establishment. I'd like to replace the status quo with something better, not worse.
There's no strategic need for him to become more racist et al. All he needs to do is not repudiate his prior comments to ensure he continues to get the support of his current base.
There's nothing to stop him from drifting left on the issues the GP mentioned while continuing to hold the views he's infamous for. He won't pick off a majority of Bernie supporters, but it's conceivable that a large enough group consists of people who aren't natural Democrats, were attracted by some of Sander's social policies, and who might be persuaded to vote for a third party (rather than for Clinton) if "Trump doesn't seem that bad."
Exactly. I'm no fan of Clinton, and under normal circumstances there'd be no question of me doing anything other than vote third party at this election. But if there's a serious risk of a President Trump, and Trump is likely to be able to push his agenda through Congress, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Clinton.
The Republicans seem very likely to "choose" Trump as their candidate. The question now is whether non-Trump Republicans can convince the rest of us he'd be as ineffectual as Clinton is likely to be in office.
Plus, you should probably mention the importance of encryption to DRM. I think everyone on Slashdot can get behind the idea that without strong, well encrypted, digital rights management systems, the studios would find their movies being quite literally stolen from them by people we can only describe as digital terrorists, their revenues and profits destroyed as unpaying freeloaders enjoy the fruits of the studios hard, expensive, work without paying a cent.
(You need to know what arguments to use if you want to persuade the government to knock it off...)
(Oh f---, have I just persuaded most of Slashdot to oppose encryption?)
On the one hand, if this apparent fraudster is Nakamoto, then this is hillarious. On the other hand, if this guy, who has apparently fooled at least two major figures in the BTC community, isn't, then this is hillarious.
Not sure how it passed you by but its creation was a big thing, and there were plenty of "That's it, I've had enough! I'm going to Kiro5hin!" messages whenever Slashdot did anything wrong for about five years afterwards. This was in the 2000-2005 timeframe.
I was impressed, kinda, by the Pebble, which doesn't have either of these problems, but it still never jumped out as something I'd definitely use. The iWatch is more expensive, you can't glance at it to tell the time, and it needs to be made part of an evening ritual of charging. All for the ability to reduce the number of times you take your phone out of your pocket.
Beyond "Yes, but it's Apple, you're always wrong about Apple" I don't see why this was ever thought to be a thing people would desperately want.
systemd is about getting stuff done. sysvinit basically became obsolete around 20-25 years ago, at around the time network services became a thing and when security required more than just deciding who could log into your box from a network you largely controlled.
I've had to recover too many boxes using boot CDs because a faulty network card has prevented some resource from starting that the existing sysvinit scripts rely upon causing sysvinit to just hang to think sysvinit is the utopian ideal systemd opponents portray it as. And, before anyone mentions the various rivals, most don't solve the same problems, and none support Linux's security model. Starting services in boxes using cgroups, for example, which ought to be the default for any network facing service, requires manual hacking together of shell scripts to create something that can't easily be managed by a centralized service manager.
systemd is a good idea. It's not perfect, but judging by the fact its opponents insist on using "faults" that are misleading, minor, or irrelevant, I don't think we're likely to get anything better than systemd for a very long time.
As someone who started with Slackware in 1997, and has been running GNU/Linux in some form or another ever since, his primary desktop GNU/Linux 90% of that time, I can tell you your "made people like me" statement is an exaggeration.
Frankly, this kind of essay is more or less standard fare from systemd opponents, and it's probably standard fare because it's actually hard to come up with a reasonable criticism of systemd, especially considering what it replaces. sysvinit should have died the moment the Internet became a thing, but it's soldiered on, a ghastly mess of hacks that results in virtually unrecoverable machines far too easily.
systemd is not perfect, but it's a hell of an improvement on what preceded it, and virtually every criticism of it is either overblown (OMG it has a 'sudo' command? How terrible! The world is going to end!) or downright misleading (binary logs... that can be dumped using the strings command. Yeah, big problem, not. stderr not logged? Perhaps you should fault your distro for turning it off, rather than systemd that happily logs stderr?)
Yes, this, uh, adult, reasoned, calmly and rationally stated essay really instills confidence in the maturity and professionalism of the maintainers of this distribution.
(That son, I say that son, is a a a joke son, I say a joke.)
I guess an operation where the patient's brain is removed, head is cut off, a new head put on, and finally their brain implanted in the new head (attached to their old body) would be a head transplant. Part of me wonders if that would be likely more easier than this operation is likely to be?
(Here's hoping it's successful, for all concerned.)
Now it makes sense. I stopped using the Mac some time around iTunes 4, and hadn't used iTunes since but I didn't recall iTunes ever being as awful as TFS suggests. It was very easy to quickly import CDs, make playlists, and manage an iPod, and when the iTMS (yeah, that old) came about, that didn't seem to be a problem. I liked it then, it was a whole lot nicer to use than the WinAMP derived stuff everyone else used at the time.
I wonder if an issue here is that iTunes in its current configuration is obsolete. The only reason the iTMS was ever built into it was to make downloading music automatic, but as all content is now cloud synced, there's not a whole lot of point in building a giant store within a music player app. Likewise, syncing an music player device, tablet, or phone, is more easily be done with controls on the device itself.
Perhaps it's time Apple stripped down the application, and brought it back to its roots? (And perhaps it's time the iTunes store migrated to the web, with a mobile app, just like Android does, where it belongs?)
That's... no, just no. You can convert any "digital" set of headphones to an analog output device by cutting the wires that lead directly into the speaker of each ear phone. This isn't video with huge data rates and convoluted electronics used to control panels containing millions of pixels, it's a simple two wire analog representation of audio, and always will be.
The content industry is unlikely to consider this terribly useful. This is about selling more types of audio widget and fixing the problems with the ones we have. For example, most phones will keep pausing audio if there's even the slightest wiggle on the plug and the plug is in any way under spec, and many will even start a Google Search, because they're programmed to interpret sudden cuts in voltage on a headset as meaning the user hit a "Hang up" or "Pause" button. Yes, really.
Why is it done that way? Well, what way would you do it? The phone makers and headset makers have precisely three wires to work with, and they're all spoken for. Even grafting a microphone on that is a problem.
The only solution to this is to use a different connector. Which is what Intel are proposing.