Microsoft is behaving like it is a failure. For me, they've gone from the small bubble popup, to stand-alone advert windows taking up half my screen that I can't just Esc to close, instead I have to click the X button.
Hah, so "you don't know that our 1.0 release isn't bad *yet*, so you should assume it's good".
I suppose you'd welcome being unceremoniously moved by some government from your home to a strange neighborhood. Hey, you really don't know the area yet, so don't be such a Debbie Downer!
You probably would start thinking [i]why[/i] you're being moved. Well, you might start thinking why MS is being so pushy with Windows 10.
But it wouldn't be an app, obviously. I can barely get my 56 year old mom to navigate an ipad.
Any system would have to be voice driven, it would have to have audible directions, it would need one button, with "Where would you like to go" as the only command. The elderly would likely forget what the keywords would be, or start rambling a bit, and their elocution would be degraded, so that's where the difficulties would come from.
Tell us more of your desires that none of us care about in the least. What color should this car be. Two doors, or four? Hatchback, or sedan? Interior? Leather or fabric?
> You can't just slap a cigarette on your arm and hope the nicotine penetrates. It doesn't work like that.
What about chewing tobacco, and all the people getting centralized tooth, gum and mouth cancer? Clearly it doesn't just enter your stomach for digestion.
And most of your other examples are temporary applications. Shampoo? How long do you keep it on? Sunscreen often stays on for an entire day, since a lot of it is water resistent. Besides, there are many studies about sunscreen chemicals being absorbed. I don't know how you could even deny something like that.
On the flip side, think of the financial savings from public insurance treating fewer people for skin maladies. Your skeptical view is almost the default for/., to the point of being a platitude. To me, this is similar to requiring motorcycle helmets and the financial savings long term.
I don't think anyone disproves the fact that exposing skin that seldom is exposed to sun is more risky than gradually building up a tan. Exposing your forearm and your genitals to equal amounts/intensities of sunlight will have vastly different effects on the areas. (depending on how often your genitals are out in the sun, obviously)
What a dumb comment. No one said wearing nothing is better. What's being said is that the chemicals put in sunscreen has been shown to be harmful. Things that allow the lotion to be spread more easily, for example.
GMO foods won't grow tentacles and become self aware, but companies making them can go to hell. Honestly, it only takes a Monsanto seed to be spread on a field a mile away from yours for you to become an involuntary customer of theirs. And if you want to fight them, their lawyers will bankrupt you That's what I have a problem with.
Version 12 had that on by default. Loved it, it sounds like Chrome has it but it requires enabling. On Opera, it was one less thing to change after a fresh install. Somehow that browser came out of the box just the way I liked it.
How is AM crooked? Did they fleece people of their money? Or steal their private information? It's no different than any of the hundreds of dating sites, and I can't imagine you'd believe that 100% of people on eHarmony are single. AM simply found a niche, a hook to differentiate themselves from other dating sites. In the end, they connected consenting adults to do with their personal lives what they wish. They weren't the ones lying. They were upfront with the services they provided. So I think your anger is directed at the wrong parties.
I think the child porn comparison was only to make the point that viewing it doesn't quell the "desire".
In a society like India where rape seems to be such a non-issue, where it takes a woman to commit suicide and a worldwide outcry before anything is done, maybe warping young people's minds with free access to porno is not such a good idea. I don't think that anyone would say that free access to porn that we've had in the US has not affected us indiviidually in a significant manner.
That's a statistic I'd find hard to believe. And besides, immediate death is just a small part of it. There are a few hundred people that were in the Russian army at the time and had to respond to the disaster who have either died of various cancers or are suffering from them now. There are kids in Ukraine that are born with many genetic defects, like holes in their hearts, presumably because their parents were affected.
I wouldn't count this out as a negative effect. And these are obvious effects. How many people there suffer from lesser ilnesses that might or might not be attributed to Chernobyl, like stroke, cancers, etc.
I'm not opposed to nuclear. I think it needs to be a viable option if we are to stop producing CO2, but I won't pretend that it's harmless, either. Even if we get to a 100% safety record, there's still the matter of storage, and transporting that waste to the storage areas. How many TEPCOs do we need to realize many of these companies entrusted with the task can be very incompetent and borderline criminal in ignoring safety lapses pointed out by inspectors.
Can you actually explain how he did not put Americans in jeopardy, or does your aluminum hat cause you to automatically reject anything anyone from the government tells you.
Statistics are really better applied to entire populations, rather than individuals, no?
After all, they did say only a portion of the millenials or the older folk sway one way on the issue. So the other portion will sway the other way. Whichever way you feel about the issues, there's a spot for you. That's how percentages work.
Does any company have some sort of a moral obligation to provide anyone with internet access? I understand it's becoming more important to living, but at the same time, lack of connectivity is just one of many aspects that would affect whether you live in one spot. So if no internet, then you would move, no? Not lambast a company for not seeing a business case to extending their service to your area.
My rotting infrastructure gets me 20Mbps download. And that can more than double for "turbo" and other such services I don't need. Quite good for a rotted infra.
So if electricity is so cheap, why doesn't my electric company give it away for free?
Wait until full electric cars gain a great percentage of cars out on the road and start putting a real load on the system and on the meter of the business housing them. We'll see if they remain free.
And if they do then I *will* question why I am paying an electric bill at home.
And they aren't smart enough to figure that for the amount that gas stays cheap, it will never offset the thousands in sales taxes they pay during registration. It's your usual sales tax on the entire purchase price (at least in NY).
But then you wonder how this compares to our ban on assisted suicide for the terminally ill and of chronic disease. One group can decide to make a fairly perilous trip, and another cannot choose to end theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
> No, no failure so far.
Microsoft is behaving like it is a failure. For me, they've gone from the small bubble popup, to stand-alone advert windows taking up half my screen that I can't just Esc to close, instead I have to click the X button.
Hah, so "you don't know that our 1.0 release isn't bad *yet*, so you should assume it's good".
I suppose you'd welcome being unceremoniously moved by some government from your home to a strange neighborhood. Hey, you really don't know the area yet, so don't be such a Debbie Downer!
You probably would start thinking [i]why[/i] you're being moved. Well, you might start thinking why MS is being so pushy with Windows 10.
But it wouldn't be an app, obviously. I can barely get my 56 year old mom to navigate an ipad.
Any system would have to be voice driven, it would have to have audible directions, it would need one button, with "Where would you like to go" as the only command. The elderly would likely forget what the keywords would be, or start rambling a bit, and their elocution would be degraded, so that's where the difficulties would come from.
But it cannot be a physical interaction.
Tell us more of your desires that none of us care about in the least. What color should this car be. Two doors, or four? Hatchback, or sedan? Interior? Leather or fabric?
You have use on the edge of our seats!
> You can't just slap a cigarette on your arm and hope the nicotine penetrates. It doesn't work like that.
What about chewing tobacco, and all the people getting centralized tooth, gum and mouth cancer? Clearly it doesn't just enter your stomach for digestion.
And most of your other examples are temporary applications. Shampoo? How long do you keep it on? Sunscreen often stays on for an entire day, since a lot of it is water resistent. Besides, there are many studies about sunscreen chemicals being absorbed. I don't know how you could even deny something like that.
On the flip side, think of the financial savings from public insurance treating fewer people for skin maladies. Your skeptical view is almost the default for /., to the point of being a platitude. To me, this is similar to requiring motorcycle helmets and the financial savings long term.
I don't think anyone disproves the fact that exposing skin that seldom is exposed to sun is more risky than gradually building up a tan. Exposing your forearm and your genitals to equal amounts/intensities of sunlight will have vastly different effects on the areas. (depending on how often your genitals are out in the sun, obviously)
What a dumb comment. No one said wearing nothing is better. What's being said is that the chemicals put in sunscreen has been shown to be harmful. Things that allow the lotion to be spread more easily, for example.
GMO foods won't grow tentacles and become self aware, but companies making them can go to hell. Honestly, it only takes a Monsanto seed to be spread on a field a mile away from yours for you to become an involuntary customer of theirs. And if you want to fight them, their lawyers will bankrupt you That's what I have a problem with.
Version 12 had that on by default. Loved it, it sounds like Chrome has it but it requires enabling. On Opera, it was one less thing to change after a fresh install. Somehow that browser came out of the box just the way I liked it.
How is AM crooked? Did they fleece people of their money? Or steal their private information? It's no different than any of the hundreds of dating sites, and I can't imagine you'd believe that 100% of people on eHarmony are single. AM simply found a niche, a hook to differentiate themselves from other dating sites. In the end, they connected consenting adults to do with their personal lives what they wish. They weren't the ones lying. They were upfront with the services they provided. So I think your anger is directed at the wrong parties.
I think the child porn comparison was only to make the point that viewing it doesn't quell the "desire".
In a society like India where rape seems to be such a non-issue, where it takes a woman to commit suicide and a worldwide outcry before anything is done, maybe warping young people's minds with free access to porno is not such a good idea. I don't think that anyone would say that free access to porn that we've had in the US has not affected us indiviidually in a significant manner.
That's a statistic I'd find hard to believe. And besides, immediate death is just a small part of it. There are a few hundred people that were in the Russian army at the time and had to respond to the disaster who have either died of various cancers or are suffering from them now. There are kids in Ukraine that are born with many genetic defects, like holes in their hearts, presumably because their parents were affected.
I wouldn't count this out as a negative effect. And these are obvious effects. How many people there suffer from lesser ilnesses that might or might not be attributed to Chernobyl, like stroke, cancers, etc.
I'm not opposed to nuclear. I think it needs to be a viable option if we are to stop producing CO2, but I won't pretend that it's harmless, either. Even if we get to a 100% safety record, there's still the matter of storage, and transporting that waste to the storage areas. How many TEPCOs do we need to realize many of these companies entrusted with the task can be very incompetent and borderline criminal in ignoring safety lapses pointed out by inspectors.
I was being partly facetious. As if damage done to America can be eaily quantified, or even told to the public.
But I was also chiding him for his obvious and automatic dislike for government and everything being released by it.
Can you actually explain how he did not put Americans in jeopardy, or does your aluminum hat cause you to automatically reject anything anyone from the government tells you.
Statistics are really better applied to entire populations, rather than individuals, no?
After all, they did say only a portion of the millenials or the older folk sway one way on the issue. So the other portion will sway the other way. Whichever way you feel about the issues, there's a spot for you. That's how percentages work.
If your neighbor knew everything you bought, you'd have a shitfit, but if google or your credit card company or paypal or Amazon... Oh wait...
Well, so you *do* think they have a moral obligation then.
Is there anything stopping more than one provider from serving an area? If so, this might be an issue you would take up with your local legislature.
Does any company have some sort of a moral obligation to provide anyone with internet access? I understand it's becoming more important to living, but at the same time, lack of connectivity is just one of many aspects that would affect whether you live in one spot. So if no internet, then you would move, no? Not lambast a company for not seeing a business case to extending their service to your area.
My rotting infrastructure gets me 20Mbps download. And that can more than double for "turbo" and other such services I don't need. Quite good for a rotted infra.
So if electricity is so cheap, why doesn't my electric company give it away for free?
Wait until full electric cars gain a great percentage of cars out on the road and start putting a real load on the system and on the meter of the business housing them. We'll see if they remain free.
And if they do then I *will* question why I am paying an electric bill at home.
Plus a few grand in taxes at registration.
And they aren't smart enough to figure that for the amount that gas stays cheap, it will never offset the thousands in sales taxes they pay during registration. It's your usual sales tax on the entire purchase price (at least in NY).
But then you wonder how this compares to our ban on assisted suicide for the terminally ill and of chronic disease. One group can decide to make a fairly perilous trip, and another cannot choose to end theirs.
You know people use TVs to play stuff they download.