You hit the key point, but ran right over it and kept going. "Or didn't depending on how you got it". Microsoft isn't a non-profit, and nothing in life is free. You can pay extra for the Pro or Enterprise versions, of you can see some ads.
I don't like it either, but I can't expect them to decide to stop making money.
Users wanted Windows, but didn't want to keep having to pay for it. Microsoft used the same solution TV, Radio and the internet use.
Users didn't want to see errors or crashes, they got telemetry. Users didn't want to have to keep things up-to-date but did want the benefits and security, they got forced automatic updates.
I never see ads in Windows 10, but I use Pro and Enterprise versions, where you can turn all that off.
I guess the lesson is TANSTAAFL, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." You want Windows for free (or extra cheap I guess), you're going to have to see ads. You want to not see ads? Buy the Professional version.
Does that suck? Absolutely. Is it worth complaining about? No more than the TV commercials that pay for your favorite shows.
Netflix and the Win10 version of Minecraft. That's what I use the Store for. Plus I open it after insider updates to see if my AppX permissions were broken.
Way too soon to make a call like that. Y'all are going to look like fools in two years when the next "Trial of the Century" begins.
Here's a list from Wikipedia of supposed trials of the century. Obviously, 1901 was too early to start making that claim. (lazy formatting)
Trial of Leon Czolgosz for the assassination of United States President William McKinley (1901) [2]
Trial of Harry Thaw for the murder of Stanford White (1906)[2]
Trial of Bill Haywood for murder (1907)[2]
Sacco and Vanzetti murder trial (1920–1927) [3]
Leopold and Loeb murder trial (1924)[4]
Scopes Trial (1925)[5]
Gloria Vanderbilt custody trial (1934)[6]
Lindbergh kidnapping trial (1935)[7][8]
Nuremberg trials (1945–1946) [9][10]
Adolf Eichmann trial (1961)[10]
Charles Manson and Manson "family" for Tate/LaBianca murders (1970)[11]
Claus von Bülow trials (1982–1985)
Klaus Barbie trial (1987)[10]
Trial of Nicolae and Elena Ceauescu (1989)[10]
Vizconde massacre (1991)[12]
O. J. Simpson murder case trial (1995)[5]
Trial of Yolanda Saldívar (1995)[5]
There can't possibly be more than one "Trial of the Century", dumbasses.
If you live somewhere where the average monthly wage is a few hundred dollars, you're lucky to have something that can stream or download content at all. Paying what could easily be several days' wage is right out.
So, they pirate for the same reason I used to - they can't afford to get content legally. (since then I've bought much of what I pirated. If it was any good.)
EMR in the UHF and SHF spectra has no demonstrable effect on us, nor is there a theoretical mechanism for it to do so. How would it matter if there is more of it? Say there's 100x more than there was in 1950. If the effect is null, then that's 100*0 = 0.
You can take every cellphone and wireless device you, your friends and neighbors have plus one bedside lamp with a 40 watt bulb. Surround yourself with them and turn everything on. The lamp will transfer more energy to you than all the rest combined, and none of it will be ionizing. The 5Ghz band has one ten-thousandth of the energy of the visible spectrum. And that's the highest frequency of commonly used RF, above the cell bands.
It doesn't matter what the technology is. It could be cell, wifi, ham radio, or TV, it's still the same old UHF we've been filling the air with since at least the 1930's. Non-ionizing, non-penetrating radiation without enough energy to cause appreciable heating - less than visible light, less than infrared.
And while it is not logically possible to prove the absence of harm, not one of the many valid studies has ever demonstrated even a chance of harm. Nor is there a reasonable mechanism that would allow for harm.
Price isn't relevant. The ADA requires that educational material be accessible to people with disabilities. What you're suggesting would be akin to telling non-profits that they don't have to be wheelchair accessible.
There is no legal requirement that the University make content available online. There is a requirement that if they do, it must comply with ADA accessibility rules. The DOJ is enforcing a law meant to protect people with disabilities, UCB is dropping online content to avoid having to pay the compliance costs.
The ADA requires online course material be accessible for disabled persons. Doesn't matter if it's free or not, doesn't matter where it's being accessed from or by who, that isn't pertinent to the legislation. If it's educational material, it has to comply with ADA accessibility rules. The reasons for which should be obvious and reasonable.
Look at it like this - if you provide a service at a location, even if you're a non-profit charity, it has to be wheelchair accessible. Berkeley is basically saying that ramps are too expensive, so they're just not going to let people in wheelchairs on campus.
Those are reasons to fix it, not how to do so. There's only one fix, and it is for Congress to strike the provision of the ADA that requires online college materials to comply. That won't fly. There will be members of congress screaming about how it's a cruel move to deny the disabled access to online educational content.
So the literal meaning of the law is irrelevant? You do realize that will result in a situation where the law means whatever somebody wants it to, no matter what it actually says? Our entire legal system would collapse, followed immediately by society. There's a reason laws are written down. People need to know what they are. If you say the law means something other than it says, how the hell is anyone else supposed to know that? They only have the written word to go by.
Wait, so not only are they complaining about the cost of complying with the regulations that require them to make content accessible, they're also mad at 3rd parties that make it accessible at no cost to the University?
If they don't want a 3rd party to profit off the work of their professors, how about contracting them to make University content accessible. I bet a company specializing in accessibility can do it for less than the University could.
If it's a Republican victory, it's because the most liberal campus in the nation is complaining about the costs of complying with government regulations. So now the GOP can say, "See? This is what we've been talking about. Now you know how it feels to get burdened with well intentioned but exorbitantly expensive regulations. Maybe keep that in mind next time you get a bug up your asses about regulating something."
This is Ultra Liberal UC Berkeley being utterly hypocritical on one hand, while making a common complaint of the Right on the other. UCB cares so much about everybody and their rights, but here they are saying, "screw the disabled". Why? Because the cost of complying with government regulation is too high.
In the military, were you dealing with radar systems? The amount of power they pump is enough to melt candy bars - that's where microwave ovens came from. Cellphones are nothing in comparison. There's not enough power to warm an ant.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like it either, but I can't expect them to decide to stop making money.
If users want no ads and no telemetry, they can totally have it. In exchange for money.
Users didn't want to see errors or crashes, they got telemetry. Users didn't want to have to keep things up-to-date but did want the benefits and security, they got forced automatic updates.
Microsoft can be greedy dicks, but so can users.
I guess the lesson is TANSTAAFL, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." You want Windows for free (or extra cheap I guess), you're going to have to see ads. You want to not see ads? Buy the Professional version.
Does that suck? Absolutely. Is it worth complaining about? No more than the TV commercials that pay for your favorite shows.
Netflix and the Win10 version of Minecraft. That's what I use the Store for. Plus I open it after insider updates to see if my AppX permissions were broken.
Oh, forgot to point out that nobody is aware of or remembers most of those trials, even if they were alive when they happened.
Trial of Leon Czolgosz for the assassination of United States President William McKinley (1901) [2]
Trial of Harry Thaw for the murder of Stanford White (1906)[2]
Trial of Bill Haywood for murder (1907)[2]
Sacco and Vanzetti murder trial (1920–1927) [3]
Leopold and Loeb murder trial (1924)[4]
Scopes Trial (1925)[5]
Gloria Vanderbilt custody trial (1934)[6]
Lindbergh kidnapping trial (1935)[7][8]
Nuremberg trials (1945–1946) [9][10]
Adolf Eichmann trial (1961)[10]
Charles Manson and Manson "family" for Tate/LaBianca murders (1970)[11]
Claus von Bülow trials (1982–1985)
Klaus Barbie trial (1987)[10]
Trial of Nicolae and Elena Ceauescu (1989)[10]
Vizconde massacre (1991)[12]
O. J. Simpson murder case trial (1995)[5]
Trial of Yolanda Saldívar (1995)[5]
There can't possibly be more than one "Trial of the Century", dumbasses.
Or it's not even available through Netflix DVD, only on "not your region" DVD for an exorbitant price.
So, they pirate for the same reason I used to - they can't afford to get content legally. (since then I've bought much of what I pirated. If it was any good.)
You can take every cellphone and wireless device you, your friends and neighbors have plus one bedside lamp with a 40 watt bulb. Surround yourself with them and turn everything on. The lamp will transfer more energy to you than all the rest combined, and none of it will be ionizing. The 5Ghz band has one ten-thousandth of the energy of the visible spectrum. And that's the highest frequency of commonly used RF, above the cell bands.
And while it is not logically possible to prove the absence of harm, not one of the many valid studies has ever demonstrated even a chance of harm. Nor is there a reasonable mechanism that would allow for harm.
Problem solved.
So long as the combined effect doesn't result in very high energy, high density, EMF it doesn't' matter. We're swimming in it all the time.
Price isn't relevant. The ADA requires that educational material be accessible to people with disabilities. What you're suggesting would be akin to telling non-profits that they don't have to be wheelchair accessible.
There is no legal requirement that the University make content available online. There is a requirement that if they do, it must comply with ADA accessibility rules. The DOJ is enforcing a law meant to protect people with disabilities, UCB is dropping online content to avoid having to pay the compliance costs.
The Americans with Disabilities Act? That fascist, right-wing nonsense about ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities? Oh, how horrible!
Look at it like this - if you provide a service at a location, even if you're a non-profit charity, it has to be wheelchair accessible. Berkeley is basically saying that ramps are too expensive, so they're just not going to let people in wheelchairs on campus.
Those are reasons to fix it, not how to do so. There's only one fix, and it is for Congress to strike the provision of the ADA that requires online college materials to comply. That won't fly. There will be members of congress screaming about how it's a cruel move to deny the disabled access to online educational content.
Did you miss the part where this began in 2015, long before the current administration became the administration?
So the literal meaning of the law is irrelevant? You do realize that will result in a situation where the law means whatever somebody wants it to, no matter what it actually says? Our entire legal system would collapse, followed immediately by society. There's a reason laws are written down. People need to know what they are. If you say the law means something other than it says, how the hell is anyone else supposed to know that? They only have the written word to go by.
If they don't want a 3rd party to profit off the work of their professors, how about contracting them to make University content accessible. I bet a company specializing in accessibility can do it for less than the University could.
If it's a Republican victory, it's because the most liberal campus in the nation is complaining about the costs of complying with government regulations. So now the GOP can say, "See? This is what we've been talking about. Now you know how it feels to get burdened with well intentioned but exorbitantly expensive regulations. Maybe keep that in mind next time you get a bug up your asses about regulating something."
This is Ultra Liberal UC Berkeley being utterly hypocritical on one hand, while making a common complaint of the Right on the other. UCB cares so much about everybody and their rights, but here they are saying, "screw the disabled". Why? Because the cost of complying with government regulation is too high.
Sick of oily, pimply skin? Well thanks to, of all places, New Jersey, there's a solution! This foam, in makeup-sponge sizes.
In the military, were you dealing with radar systems? The amount of power they pump is enough to melt candy bars - that's where microwave ovens came from. Cellphones are nothing in comparison. There's not enough power to warm an ant.