If they weren't everywhere with Windows they wouldn't be able to succeed with anything. They are always late to the party and instead of bringing wine to dinner they bring a dead skunk.
I don't have a PC in the kitchen, and I don't have a PC that is always on. Part of the Alexa selling point is at any time you can say "Alexa Turn On Hall Light".
If your PC is turned off, and you tell Cortana to do the same, you're going to be stepping on little Timmy's lego bricks barefoot in the dark because Cortana isn't going to hear you.
Yep. They do this where I work, which leaves me with very little choice but to write the password down on a little yellow sticky note because I'm forced to keep changing it to things I'll never remember.
Or you could do what most people do and keep the same password and affix "1" "2" "3" to the end of it every time they tell you to change your password.
If we want a walled garden, there is already Apple products, which arguably are more secure. The reason Microsoft has been successful and the "default" OS for so long is that they are "open".
As crap as Microsoft are, they are open and easy for the average dumb-user to understand. If you take away open, they're just easy, and plenty of alternatives are easy.
One of the ridiculous problems you'll encounter when trying to design a UBI policy is that UBI advocates keep asking how the fuck UBI recipients are going to live on your paltry income in New York City or San Francisco. Then they get pissed when you point out that they'll be poor in the ghettos dangled 10 miles from these urban centers, as if they expect the poorest of poor to somehow live in the richest of rich neighborhoods.
I sometimes wonder if these people have more or less annual income than credit card debt.
The solution to that is don't live in New York or San Francisco if you're reliant on UBI for income. If you have a job, hopefully you earn enough to get by. If you don't have a job, it might be more prudent not to live in a high cost-of-living area.
Of course, I realise that if you have a job and lose a job and live in one of those areas my reply might sound callous. The alternative is a cost-of-living based UBI, but if you do that you risk people moving around to game the system and potentially forcing cost of living higher in those areas.
and generally have the extra money to pay for that privilege.
And that's what separates it. No one wants to live in the ghetto, or the rough neighbourhoods (not even the roughs). Almost everyone would move to a nice place where they are safe, have good schools for their kids, and nice amenities... IF they could.
Would you like to be given money even if you do not work?
Hell yah!
Would you like to pay higher taxes so that some of it will be given to others even if they do not work?
Hell no!
UBI is inevitable eventually, I can't predict when, but it is an idea that will have its time.
As more and more become automated, more and more jobs will be swallowed up. When robots replaced manufacturing jobs, people moved to service jobs and higher cognitive jobs.
As those jobs get taken (they won't all at once- some may be safe for a long time) we will eventually hit a tipping point. A time when a large % of the population is jobless.
One of two things will happen,: 1) Revolution, the have nots will rise up against those that own all the machines that took the jobs- we'll probably end up with a modern communism.
2) The haves will reluctantly agree to pay massive taxes to prevent a revolution. They will hold on to ownership of the companies that own all the machines but instead of being insanely rich, they will just be rich. We end up with socialism.
I think ending capitalism or introduction UBI is premature. There is still a large majority of people employed, we're beginning to see a trend away from that, and the gap between haves and have-nots is growing. Most people CAN still find a job if they really want and are willing to compromise. (even if it is difficult)
As time goes by, it's going to be harder and harder. Eventually UBI is going to be needed, we're not there yet though.
Poverty and population growth unfortunately almost always go hand-in-hand. I have seen predictions about French overtaking English globally as a first language in the coming century. I don't think that will push French into being the world's dominant language though. If as you say, there are mass migrations from those poor population growth areas, it's usually the people migrating to learn the new language.
The only way there is going to be more pressure for people to learn French as a foreign language is if those French speaking countries get out of poverty and become financially important players on a global stage.
That's because French used to jave a major world importance, which then faded and was replaced by English. When English loses world importance you will be seeing Brits and Americans becoming chauvinistic about the language as well. It's already pretty true, just witness the American tourists who seem angry that they can't be understood in some places.
I liked the attitude in Finland, which was "why the hell do you want to learn Finnish?"
That's already true. Brits get rather annoyed when you use an Americanised word or an American spelling in the UK. Some people are exceptionally hostile to Americanisms. You don't see anyone trying to pass laws or punish people for using Americanisms though.
/ ironically, many "American" words that British people hate on, originated in Britain, they just fell out of common usage in Britain for a while.
On the world scale, the francophonie has more than 50 full members (84 if you include observers), even excluding the Central African Republic and Thailand (human rights violations).
Those countries comprise a billion people. Those "parts of the world they once occupied" are hardly insignificant.
From a worldwide perspective outside those areas they are. Most of the French speaking countries outside Europe are impoverished and not very well connected globally. That might change in the future, but there isn't really anywhere near as much reason to learn French as an outsider than there is English.
It could all be down to 19th century policies. The British knew their territories were too widespread to try to hold on to forever purely using military domineering, and so tried to make their presence at least partially tolerated by maintaining trade and cooperation. (not that Britain didn't do so terrible unspeakable acts- and conquering land in the first place could be considered impolite).
France, and Belgium showed little concern for the countries they occupied and were more brutal in their rape of those countries. They tried to make their territories too scared to rebel. The result is today, those countries are still recovering and relative backwaters.
18th century the world was entering the era of colonialism and exploitation of other people on a massive scale. France was certainly playing 2nd fiddle to Britain during that century, as you can tell by looking at the globe and which countries managed to suppress the most people. Britain's territories were larger and in more desirable locations. France largely took the areas Britain didn't want.
Arguably, on the european continent they were still the largest land-power. Certainly the major land-based military power.
Early 19th century you see France react at being left behind (much the same as Germany after WWI going to WWII)- desperate to maintain their importance in the world they launched their last hurrah, their version of mini-Hitler started his war on Europe and got France stomped into the mud. The effects on France were horrific and they never really rebounded completely. Even if you look at something like population, once the most populous nation in Europe they're now equivalent to the UK (despite being larger territory), and only 3/4 of German population. By end of Napoleonic wars there was no question France was of lower importance.
As AC says above me, a simplified version of mandarin, perhaps with a romanized alphabet will almost certainly be the top language one day. (unless India has a boom this century equivalent to China's last century- in which case English may end up getting even more entrenched so the whole world speaks it).
I can see mandarin and English getting bastardised with a non-tonal mandarin, perhaps with lots of borrowed English, becoming a world-standard.
English is dominant because of English speaking countries being dominant for centuries. Before then it was Spanish or French following centuries of Spanish and French speaking countries being dominant.
Britain passed the Baton on to the US early in the 20th Century after a few centuries of dominating the world.
Once China has been top dog for a century mandarin will replace English. Yes, I know it's complicated, etc, but when they're firmly established as the top dog on the globe and running everything, language will slowly creep in until it is essential to understand mandarin, just like it is English today.
French has been waning in importance for 400 years.
Yes, interesting. What makes you think he did? According to all news reports I have been able to find, he spoke French.
I may have been mistaken. I may have read this quote and misapplied "The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said he would deliver his speech in English. “ If incorrect thanks for pointing that out.
He explained why he was speaking in French, in English.
Over 50% of people in the EU will still understand English to a competent level because it is the language of international business and taught in many schools. It is true, statistically, almost no one will be speaking English as their native language once the UK leaves (although a decent % of Ireland speak English in their homes).
English will still be the most understood language in the EU even if not the native tongue. German will be the most common native tongue in EU (as it already is).
French is only really important to France, parts of Belgium, and the parts of the world they once occupied.
Was it written in a French-based programming language, or an English one?
There's a Brazilian language called 'Lua' whose control structures are English words [if, while, etc]. Why reinventing the wheel? No reason to be chauvinist about it.
You don't understand the Francophone world then. Be in Quebec or France, they actually write laws about making it illegal to use words that are from other languages.
One day "Le Weekend" is understood and used by everyone, the next it has been outlawed and illegal to use in mass media. It's a very chauvinistic attitude.
Compare the French to the Germans, who not only embrace all sorts of languages, it is considered educated to know and use words from other languages in their speech and adopt them into German.
How dare there be a punishment for doing something illegal
The problem is that this is a very harsh punishment for a crime that many people are guilty of. Making a figure up out of my arse, but 10 years for a crime that maybe 25% of the population are guilty of.
These kind of laws that snare a large portion of the population are good for police abuse.
"I suspect Mr Smith is guilty of killing his wife but I can't prove it Sarg." "Well Constable, just check his internet history, see if he's been using a Kodi, we can send him to jail for that instead".
Or - Mr. Bloggs is challenging Mr. Grubbs for the local MP for a seat in parliament.. Mr. Grubbs greases a policeman's hand to check to see if his rival has streamed illegal TV content.
A lot of authoritarian goverments use this kind of tactic. Soviets were famous for having lots of really brutal punishments for crimes that lots of people committed.
Studies have shown that increasing punishment does not prevent people breaking a law. Chance of being caught is the real motivator to prevent people breaking the law.
Look at Saudi Arabia and alcohol laws- real brutal punishment but lots of Europeans who are stationed there play Russian Roulette with alcohol consumption because they think they won't get caught.. It's the same with streaming- the ridiculous 10 year sentence is not going to prevent people because they think they're not going to get caught. All it's going to do is give people ridiculous sentence for a minor offence.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank God for Coal /s
Russia will quake in their boots at the thoughts of our ICBMs with Coal Warheads.
Return Crimea to Ukraine you commie dogs or we will fill your cities with smog by launching our coal warheads at you.
Well, you're still producing energy. Just... a lot faster.
First Law of Thermodynamics disagrees. You're never producing energy.
Now think what happens in 12.000 AD:
I think I should finally be eligible for retirement. I'm going to be out on my boat not worrying about nuclear waste.
Microsoft would fail as a new company these days.
If they weren't everywhere with Windows they wouldn't be able to succeed with anything. They are always late to the party and instead of bringing wine to dinner they bring a dead skunk.
Not really, it's just Microsoft has had a disproportionate number of stupid ideas recently that need mocking.
I don't have a PC in the kitchen, and I don't have a PC that is always on. Part of the Alexa selling point is at any time you can say "Alexa Turn On Hall Light".
If your PC is turned off, and you tell Cortana to do the same, you're going to be stepping on little Timmy's lego bricks barefoot in the dark because Cortana isn't going to hear you.
I wonder what it would order online under those circumstances.
Most likely a Windows 10 S laptop.
password123
Yep. They do this where I work, which leaves me with very little choice but to write the password down on a little yellow sticky note because I'm forced to keep changing it to things I'll never remember.
Or you could do what most people do and keep the same password and affix "1" "2" "3" to the end of it every time they tell you to change your password.
Indeed.
If we want a walled garden, there is already Apple products, which arguably are more secure. The reason Microsoft has been successful and the "default" OS for so long is that they are "open".
As crap as Microsoft are, they are open and easy for the average dumb-user to understand. If you take away open, they're just easy, and plenty of alternatives are easy.
One of the ridiculous problems you'll encounter when trying to design a UBI policy is that UBI advocates keep asking how the fuck UBI recipients are going to live on your paltry income in New York City or San Francisco. Then they get pissed when you point out that they'll be poor in the ghettos dangled 10 miles from these urban centers, as if they expect the poorest of poor to somehow live in the richest of rich neighborhoods.
I sometimes wonder if these people have more or less annual income than credit card debt.
The solution to that is don't live in New York or San Francisco if you're reliant on UBI for income. If you have a job, hopefully you earn enough to get by. If you don't have a job, it might be more prudent not to live in a high cost-of-living area.
Of course, I realise that if you have a job and lose a job and live in one of those areas my reply might sound callous. The alternative is a cost-of-living based UBI, but if you do that you risk people moving around to game the system and potentially forcing cost of living higher in those areas.
Rich people tend to want to live in nice places,
EVERYONE wants to live in nice places!
and generally have the extra money to pay for that privilege.
And that's what separates it. No one wants to live in the ghetto, or the rough neighbourhoods (not even the roughs). Almost everyone would move to a nice place where they are safe, have good schools for their kids, and nice amenities... IF they could.
UBI is inevitable eventually, I can't predict when, but it is an idea that will have its time.
As more and more become automated, more and more jobs will be swallowed up. When robots replaced manufacturing jobs, people moved to service jobs and higher cognitive jobs.
As those jobs get taken (they won't all at once- some may be safe for a long time) we will eventually hit a tipping point. A time when a large % of the population is jobless.
One of two things will happen,:
1) Revolution, the have nots will rise up against those that own all the machines that took the jobs- we'll probably end up with a modern communism.
2) The haves will reluctantly agree to pay massive taxes to prevent a revolution. They will hold on to ownership of the companies that own all the machines but instead of being insanely rich, they will just be rich. We end up with socialism.
I think ending capitalism or introduction UBI is premature. There is still a large majority of people employed, we're beginning to see a trend away from that, and the gap between haves and have-nots is growing. Most people CAN still find a job if they really want and are willing to compromise. (even if it is difficult)
As time goes by, it's going to be harder and harder. Eventually UBI is going to be needed, we're not there yet though.
Poverty and population growth unfortunately almost always go hand-in-hand. I have seen predictions about French overtaking English globally as a first language in the coming century. I don't think that will push French into being the world's dominant language though. If as you say, there are mass migrations from those poor population growth areas, it's usually the people migrating to learn the new language.
The only way there is going to be more pressure for people to learn French as a foreign language is if those French speaking countries get out of poverty and become financially important players on a global stage.
That's because French used to jave a major world importance, which then faded and was replaced by English. When English loses world importance you will be seeing Brits and Americans becoming chauvinistic about the language as well. It's already pretty true, just witness the American tourists who seem angry that they can't be understood in some places.
I liked the attitude in Finland, which was "why the hell do you want to learn Finnish?"
That's already true. Brits get rather annoyed when you use an Americanised word or an American spelling in the UK. Some people are exceptionally hostile to Americanisms. You don't see anyone trying to pass laws or punish people for using Americanisms though.
/ ironically, many "American" words that British people hate on, originated in Britain, they just fell out of common usage in Britain for a while.
On the world scale, the francophonie has more than 50 full members (84 if you include observers), even excluding the Central African Republic and Thailand (human rights violations).
Those countries comprise a billion people. Those "parts of the world they once occupied" are hardly insignificant.
From a worldwide perspective outside those areas they are. Most of the French speaking countries outside Europe are impoverished and not very well connected globally. That might change in the future, but there isn't really anywhere near as much reason to learn French as an outsider than there is English.
It could all be down to 19th century policies. The British knew their territories were too widespread to try to hold on to forever purely using military domineering, and so tried to make their presence at least partially tolerated by maintaining trade and cooperation. (not that Britain didn't do so terrible unspeakable acts- and conquering land in the first place could be considered impolite).
France, and Belgium showed little concern for the countries they occupied and were more brutal in their rape of those countries. They tried to make their territories too scared to rebel. The result is today, those countries are still recovering and relative backwaters.
18th century the world was entering the era of colonialism and exploitation of other people on a massive scale. France was certainly playing 2nd fiddle to Britain during that century, as you can tell by looking at the globe and which countries managed to suppress the most people. Britain's territories were larger and in more desirable locations. France largely took the areas Britain didn't want.
Arguably, on the european continent they were still the largest land-power. Certainly the major land-based military power.
Early 19th century you see France react at being left behind (much the same as Germany after WWI going to WWII)- desperate to maintain their importance in the world they launched their last hurrah, their version of mini-Hitler started his war on Europe and got France stomped into the mud. The effects on France were horrific and they never really rebounded completely. Even if you look at something like population, once the most populous nation in Europe they're now equivalent to the UK (despite being larger territory), and only 3/4 of German population. By end of Napoleonic wars there was no question France was of lower importance.
If France elects Marine Le Pen, I think the world is probably over.
Trump, Le Pen, Kim, and Putin all leaders at the same time?
The world couldn't handle it.
As AC says above me, a simplified version of mandarin, perhaps with a romanized alphabet will almost certainly be the top language one day. (unless India has a boom this century equivalent to China's last century- in which case English may end up getting even more entrenched so the whole world speaks it).
I can see mandarin and English getting bastardised with a non-tonal mandarin, perhaps with lots of borrowed English, becoming a world-standard.
English is dominant because of English speaking countries being dominant for centuries. Before then it was Spanish or French following centuries of Spanish and French speaking countries being dominant.
Britain passed the Baton on to the US early in the 20th Century after a few centuries of dominating the world.
Once China has been top dog for a century mandarin will replace English. Yes, I know it's complicated, etc, but when they're firmly established as the top dog on the globe and running everything, language will slowly creep in until it is essential to understand mandarin, just like it is English today.
French has been waning in importance for 400 years.
Yes, interesting. What makes you think he did? According to all news reports I have been able to find, he spoke French.
I may have been mistaken. I may have read this quote and misapplied "The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said he would deliver his speech in English. “ If incorrect thanks for pointing that out.
He explained why he was speaking in French, in English.
Over 50% of people in the EU will still understand English to a competent level because it is the language of international business and taught in many schools. It is true, statistically, almost no one will be speaking English as their native language once the UK leaves (although a decent % of Ireland speak English in their homes).
English will still be the most understood language in the EU even if not the native tongue.
German will be the most common native tongue in EU (as it already is).
French is only really important to France, parts of Belgium, and the parts of the world they once occupied.
Was it written in a French-based programming language, or an English one?
There's a Brazilian language called 'Lua' whose control structures are English words [if, while, etc]. Why reinventing the wheel? No reason to be chauvinist about it.
You don't understand the Francophone world then. Be in Quebec or France, they actually write laws about making it illegal to use words that are from other languages.
One day "Le Weekend" is understood and used by everyone, the next it has been outlawed and illegal to use in mass media. It's a very chauvinistic attitude.
Compare the French to the Germans, who not only embrace all sorts of languages, it is considered educated to know and use words from other languages in their speech and adopt them into German.
Which sounds the healthier attitude to you?
How dare there be a punishment for doing something illegal
The problem is that this is a very harsh punishment for a crime that many people are guilty of. Making a figure up out of my arse, but 10 years for a crime that maybe 25% of the population are guilty of.
These kind of laws that snare a large portion of the population are good for police abuse.
"I suspect Mr Smith is guilty of killing his wife but I can't prove it Sarg."
"Well Constable, just check his internet history, see if he's been using a Kodi, we can send him to jail for that instead".
Or - Mr. Bloggs is challenging Mr. Grubbs for the local MP for a seat in parliament.. Mr. Grubbs greases a policeman's hand to check to see if his rival has streamed illegal TV content.
A lot of authoritarian goverments use this kind of tactic. Soviets were famous for having lots of really brutal punishments for crimes that lots of people committed.
Studies have shown that increasing punishment does not prevent people breaking a law. Chance of being caught is the real motivator to prevent people breaking the law.
Look at Saudi Arabia and alcohol laws- real brutal punishment but lots of Europeans who are stationed there play Russian Roulette with alcohol consumption because they think they won't get caught.. It's the same with streaming- the ridiculous 10 year sentence is not going to prevent people because they think they're not going to get caught. All it's going to do is give people ridiculous sentence for a minor offence.
As long as Alexa doesn't learn to fart and then giggle.