Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?
Starting with WTF was your drone with a camera doing hovering over my backyard taking pictures of my daughters, and moving on to why in hell shouldn't I be punching you, and advancing to why the hell should you expect to come on my property without me shooting you...
Yes, absolutely the person operating the drone owes an explanation. Rather a lot, actually.
They took pictures in his backyard with no explanation, and now without explanation they want to come onto his property to discuss this.
Identify yourself, state your purpose, and explain to me why I'm not going to hurt you if you keep walking onto my property. You don't get to act indignant when your shit was hovering over my yard taking pictures. Not even a little.
If I found you in my fenced backyard with a camera, I'm also going to hurt you.
Because the world doesn't want every idiot who thinks he's made a better keyboard constantly mucking about with stuff for the sake of it.
Some of us have been typing for decades, and simply don't care that you think it's time to redesign the keyboard.
"It's time to make some changes to keyboards" -- No, that's your opinion, it isn't fact.
You want a custom keyboard, buy it or make it. But don't be such an arrogant ass as to assume we give a damn about you whining about it. We don't need some damned keyboard designed by a fucking committee.
"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"
ok that's very aggressive.
You know, I generally don't agree with open carry... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.
But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.
The drone pilot was being an ass, and about to trespass in an aggressive manner.
I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go. Because the drone hovering in your backyard isn't the kind of shit we should be accepting.
"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level."
why did he have to bring the tea party into this?
It is entirely possible to think the Tea Party are loons and also think this guy has a point.
There simply can't be a free for all in which anybody for any reason can be going around peering into peoples private yards and houses just because they want to.
And, I'm sorry, but hovering over someone's backyard with a camera falls in the category of "no bloody way". Not for private citizens, corporations, or law enforcement without a warrant.
The article says 40mm Glock - that is a damn big pistol
Which could only be a typo, or a gun carrier who doesn't understand bullet sizing. And I'm going to assume the guy from Kentucky doing open carry knew what he had, in which case, just blame the reporter.
A 40mm bullet would be just over 1.5" in diameter... that would be an enormous round, and probably not something you could fire from a man-portable weapon.
A frigging.50 cal is a half inch in diameter, so that would be 3x the size.
You have rather high expectations of the average consumer.
You know what, I don't... I have exceedingly low expectations of them. I simply don't give a crap any more if people buy this stuff and get hacked.
I tell people I know about the risks, the rest I stopped caring about.
It's not their fault, it's our fault. We need to make products that are secure by default
And for that, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of corporations for not giving a damn, and lawmakers for not holding them accountable.
Yes, I know, it probably makes me a bad person. But I'm afraid my "sympathy-for-the-hacked" is at an all time low, because in a week or so there will be another story just like this one.
Over time I've found the extra cores goes a long way to a better experience.
It means I can be using two browsers, ripping a CD to MP3, possibly streaming through my Apple TV, and still have a responsive system. This may not be 'normal' for most people (which has never been my goal), nor is running the several VMs I always have up with Linux and FreeBSD. But it is actually representative of how I use it.
I don't ever find myself taxing my video card since I'm not a gamer. In fact, I'm pretty sure my video card is a cheapo generic Nvidia with 1GB of RAM (which I'm old enough to be in awe of being cheap and generic), and I couldn't tell you the framerate of anything I've ever done.
But over the years I've found the extra cores means the system can stay more responsive under load without bogging down.
Even for my daily desktop, I find the 8 cores means I can do a bunch of things in parallel without needing to worry about it.
Hell, my wife's 4 year old HP laptop I think has at least 2 cores on it, and it wasn't exactly leading edge when we got it.
Unless you're the kind of person who launches a program, uses it, closes it, and then launches the next program (do people actually do that?) I've found that tons of CPU and RAM means the machine will be more usable for a lot longer than if you went with less. And it usually means your machine can be bloat proof for a lot longer without becoming horribly slow.
My machine is by no means blisteringly fast and I built it for chump change but I've got 500GB of SSD, 16GB of RAM and eight cores. I give a shit about bloat. In principle, I care very much. In practice, it is not really affecting me any more.
Obviously you are concerned about bloat... which is why you seem to have the same machine as I do. You future proof yourself against bloat by over-building it up front. Worked well for my last machine, which lasted me 5+ years.
Me, my machine is about 5 months old, running Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell installed and all the Metro crap, apps, and the Microsoft store disabled/shoved out of the way, and again with 8 cores and 16GB of RAM.
I have no intention of upgrading this machine to Windows 10 now, possibly not ever. But sure as hell not with that in-place update to what I consider an OS barely out of beta.
My trust in Microsoft to do an in-place upgrade without breaking things or removing functionality I've had to add back is precisely zero. And I've already had to uninstall and block the update which wanted to start nagging me to upgrade.
With 4 cores and 8GB of RAM I happily ran Vista for years (no, really:-), because with huge amounts of resources it was pretty damned good. I expect to do the same on my Windows 8.1 machine.
So far, I don't think a single "feature" Microsoft claims to have "innovated" is either compelling or something I haven't found a 3rd party app to do (like virtual desktops). The digital assistant and some of the other stuff? That gets a big giant "do not want".
Who knows, maybe next summer when Windows 10 has been beta tested and all of the warts fixed I'll consider upgrading while it's still free. But I'm sure as hell not being an early adopter.
The organization's entire reason to exist is to form patent pools to bring together disparate parties and avoid a fractured market where members' technologies don't get adopted due to overly-complex licensing terms or fears of patent suits.
Otherwise known as collusion by predatory trade groups presenting a barrier of entry to new players.
Just because a bunch of CEOs work out a deal to fuck us all over doesn't make it a good thing.
One set of greedy bastards vs another set of greedy bastards isn't good for anybody but greedy bastards. It sure as hell isn't a defense of terribly written and overly broad software patents.
I think that software patents could be a bit more palatable if they also had to provide source code that was proven to compile and work as describe in the patent.
The problem you should not be able to patent an algorithm, and software patents have nothing to do with source code.
Software patents often read as "a system and methodology for doing something we all learned about in school but applied to a specific problem and now you can't do it, suckers".
They're patents on an idea or a solution to a class of problem. They claim ownership of something stupid like "encrypting a bank transaction over an internet link" or some other stupid thing like that.
With software, if somebody patents the idea of compressing a video
See, this is where software patents become bullshit... you can't patent an idea, you can't patent an algorithm. I can't patent the idea of a flying car, I can patent the specifics of my novel invention.
Compression has existed since people first figured out what the Lev-Zimpel algorithm actually meant. Compression exists as a thing... making digital stuff smaller by identifying encodings to save space. It's like caching, where you keep copies closer to where you deliver it. It's a concept.
You can't subsequently claim to patent compression of a specific thing. You can patent your implementation, but if you are patenting the idea of compressing video, your patent should be null and void.
What you can't do is patent a "system and methodology for doing something we already do but applied to a specific class thing". Especially when your patent is taking 10 things everybody knows how to do, stringing them together, and simply saying "ta da, patent bitches".
That would be like a carpenter patenting the idea of a fucking table.
Pretty much every software patent I've ever seen falls into the category of claiming an entire idea based on vague notions and existing methods already string together in ways that if you said "I want to do this" any CS undergrad could tell you how to do it at a high level based on the tools which already exist.
"Market adoption of DASH technology standards has increased to the point where the market would benefit from the availability of a convenient nondiscriminatory, nonexclusive worldwide one-stop patent pool license."
Which roughly translates into "Wouldn't it be awesome if all you bitches had to keep paying us money?".
So many software patents are bloody terrible. They're stuff we all learned about in school, applied to a specific thing, and then made so generic as to claim ownership of pretty an entire class of computing.
This entity needs to stop existing, as they're really nothing but parasites pretending they invented anything.
Wow, you mean commercial products designed to connect to the internet have absolutely crap security?
Well, color me fucking surprised and shocked.
No, wait, the other one.. where I point out these companies are either incompetent or indifferent to security, have no penalties or liability, and have products rushed out the door by asshole CEOs and marketing people who don't give a damn about security.
This is precisely why I look at pretty much every damned product which wants to connect to the internet, or has an app for your smartphone and think "oh hell no".
Trusting this shit is idiotic, and quite frankly, I'm beyond the point of sympathy for people who buy this shit. It's insecure so that it can be convenient. Pretty much at least weekly we see an entire class of products has pretty much zero security. And we're a long way away from being able to trust them.
No, I'm saying companies are cheap and don't tend to make a lot of variations on models because it costs them more, unless they think it's worth it.
If they figure only 5-10% of the market would buy a phone with a physical keyboard, they might not be willing to chase that because it's not worth it. And if it poses a risk to make something until they know how many would be sold, they just might not do it.
Just because you want a feature doesn't mean the company making it gives a damn. If they did, they'd probably make it.
Read: he should point out our faults then just let us take whatever revenge we feel like.
Or more likely, hide what he has to say, tell him he'll go to prison for the rest of his life if he tells, and then do absolutely nothing differently.
So, he had the choice, be silenced and live in fear in the US... or not be silenced and live in fear somewhere else.
But there is no way in hell if he'd brought these concerns though "proper channels" a damned thing would changed.
They just got embarrassed when the truth came out. They only really care about the fact that people found out, not what they did.
There is no way he could have achieved a damned thing by doing anything other than release this stuff.
She is a total moron. How do such people ever get such responsible jobs?
The scary thing is there's lots of people willing to be fascists because they think it's OK. The justification is "I can do anything as long as I say I'm doing it to defend my country", even if they're undermining everything worth defending about their country.
The sad thing is, apparently a lot of Americans would agree, and believe security at any cost is an OK thing.
Oh, don't misunderstand me... I know people do need this stuff when it's fresh and steaming, and have no choice.
I'm saying that, in general, as a change management strategy, taking the first day release of a fix has been demonstrated to be a terrible idea. Over and over and over by pretty much every software vendor.
Many of us support production machines and mission critical things, which means there's no way in hell we'd apply these on the day they get released.
What really annoys me is Microsoft's increasing push to force people to take those updates on day one, and be stuck with the consequences of that.
So, imagine a world in which some poor schmuck is running the version of Windows 10 which doesn't let you defer updates. When Microsoft pushes this crap out, suddenly a huge amount of people have broken systems. Microsoft isn't going to pay to fix that. Microsoft isn't going to have to deal with the consequences of the outage.
So, the general advice of "if you don't absolutely need this on the day of release, wait" is the best strategy if you can't be on the bleeding edge every day Microsoft has a new fix.
Microsoft seems bent on taking that away. And that, in my opinion, is idiotic and dangerous.
If you need to be on the cutting edge, you should probably be taking your own steps to recover from that. Mine is let everyone else test first.;-)
Well, honestly, given that people make bluetooth keyboard cases this is fairly trivially solved if you care enough.
Maybe phone companies figure the accessories market can solve this problem?
I'm willing to bet it's a smaller amount of people who want a physical keyboard than those who don't. In which case, you're not a profitable enough segment for the companies who make phones, but an excellent niche market for people who make accessories.
It's not like you can't have what you want now, you just won't get it from the main companies selling phones.
There's a massive difference between knowing there are likely bugs in your software and believing that the day a fix or patch comes out it doesn't introduce new issues.
Microsoft, and pretty much every other software vendor I've ever seen have demonstrated time and time again that they're incapable of releasing updates without breaking something else.
So, we let the reckless and the silly be the beta testers, and wait until the dust settles. And, that's fine, because we can simply choose to wait to apply the fix for a while.
Microsoft wants to go to a "break first and fix it later" approach, and that's just asinine. Because it isn't their computers which will be broken in the meantime.
Sometimes you just have to ship the product.
Sure you do. But don't be surprised that your users refuse to be your beta testers and wait for more people to do that. Your QA is your problem, and I have no intention of making it mine.
The people who go "oh, boy, a brand new update" provide the valuable service to the rest of us of being test subjects. And they can live with the consequences.
The rest of us, well, after the first bunch of times we've learned our lesson.
So, be my guest. Run through the fresh steaming shit with reckless abandon. But I won't. Because I've seen Microsoft updates be broken upon release quite a few times, as I have from pretty much every other vendor.
You know, if Microsoft changes the library in place and breaks it... I don't blame professional developers at all.
I blame whatever idiot at Microsoft was responsible for not fucking breaking existing stuff.
This is just lousy QA.
I feel bad for anybody who is going to be the victim of Micrtosoft's idiotic policy of deciding it's their computer and they'll update it as they see fit. Because it is a certainty Microsoft will break a large amount of computers and leave that to be the problem of the people who own it.
And, I'm sorry, but if Microsoft is going to force updates and break machines, they should be charged under the computer fraud and abuse act, or whatever it is.
Because this is pretty much damaging other people's property, and shouldn't be legal just because some asshole at Microsoft updated an EULA which says they're allowed to do this.
So to your point, taking a.0 release from any vendor is risky but if you have to have it, you have to have it and learn to deal with the consequences.
Why, yes, I even said that
My experience says taking a day 1 anything from Microsoft is a recipe for disaster. In fact, taking a day 1 from anybody is.
I don't care who you are, I simply do not trust your fresh release of anything, I do not wish to fix your mistakes, and do not believe over time you'll be awesome at not breaking anything ever. In fact, I think that's impossible to do 100% of the time.
Not now, not ever. Because many many years of doing change management has told me that would be stupid and reckless, and I don't work in places which are willing to do that.
Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to be trying to go down the route of pretty much forcing as many people as possible to get the updates immediately.
Either because they're arrogant morons, or they figure it's just easier if everybody else does their beta testing.
There isn't a software vendor on the planet I would accept a first day release from. And I've seen far too many day 1 mistakes from Microsoft and other vendors to ever change that.
Why is the story of Slashdot being sold not on SLASHDOT!?!?!?
Well, ignoring the rest of your comment, this is actually worth highlighting.
The Company acquired Slashdot Media in 2012 both to provide the Dice business with broader reach into Slashdot's user community base and to extend the Dice business outside North America by engaging with SourceForge's significant international technology user community. The Company, however, has not successfully leveraged the Slashdot user base to further Dice's digital recruitment business; and with the acquisition of The IT Job Board and success of Open Web, the anticipated value to the Company of the SourceForge traffic outside North America has not materialized. The Company now plans to divest the business, as it does not fit within the Company's strategic initiatives and believes the Slashdot Media business will have the opportunity to improve its financial performance under different ownership.
Good riddance, dice.
Sorry we couldn't help you leverage your synergies.
Which is the problem with Microsoft trying to force people to use it, and deciding they're going to be forcing updates.
They're saying they're doing it for security, but time and time again Microsoft has demonstrated they're not trustworthy in their updates.
My experience says taking a day 1 anything from Microsoft is a recipe for disaster. In fact, taking a day 1 from anybody is.
Microsoft is basically breaking first and fixing later. The problem is it isn't Microsoft's stuff which ends up broken, and bad release engineering is costly to companies.
Sorry, but Microsoft hasn't demonstrated we should ever trust them with continuous releases. They've demonstrated the opposite, in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Starting with WTF was your drone with a camera doing hovering over my backyard taking pictures of my daughters, and moving on to why in hell shouldn't I be punching you, and advancing to why the hell should you expect to come on my property without me shooting you ...
Yes, absolutely the person operating the drone owes an explanation. Rather a lot, actually.
They took pictures in his backyard with no explanation, and now without explanation they want to come onto his property to discuss this.
Identify yourself, state your purpose, and explain to me why I'm not going to hurt you if you keep walking onto my property. You don't get to act indignant when your shit was hovering over my yard taking pictures. Not even a little.
If I found you in my fenced backyard with a camera, I'm also going to hurt you.
Rule 34.
Some things should not be googled. Ever.
Because the world doesn't want every idiot who thinks he's made a better keyboard constantly mucking about with stuff for the sake of it.
Some of us have been typing for decades, and simply don't care that you think it's time to redesign the keyboard.
"It's time to make some changes to keyboards" -- No, that's your opinion, it isn't fact.
You want a custom keyboard, buy it or make it. But don't be such an arrogant ass as to assume we give a damn about you whining about it. We don't need some damned keyboard designed by a fucking committee.
What a stupid article.
You know, I generally don't agree with open carry ... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.
But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.
The drone pilot was being an ass, and about to trespass in an aggressive manner.
I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go. Because the drone hovering in your backyard isn't the kind of shit we should be accepting.
It is entirely possible to think the Tea Party are loons and also think this guy has a point.
There simply can't be a free for all in which anybody for any reason can be going around peering into peoples private yards and houses just because they want to.
And, I'm sorry, but hovering over someone's backyard with a camera falls in the category of "no bloody way". Not for private citizens, corporations, or law enforcement without a warrant.
Which could only be a typo, or a gun carrier who doesn't understand bullet sizing. And I'm going to assume the guy from Kentucky doing open carry knew what he had, in which case, just blame the reporter.
A 40mm bullet would be just over 1.5" in diameter... that would be an enormous round, and probably not something you could fire from a man-portable weapon.
A frigging .50 cal is a half inch in diameter, so that would be 3x the size.
A 40mm bullet? No way.
Ignore the above, the Glock 40 is what he was open carrying, he did in fact use a shotgun on the drone.
If you read TFA, he was open-carrying a Glock 40, which if Google isn't lying to me is a .40 cal weapon.
A stray .40 caliber bullet isn't birdshot, it's a pretty heavy duty bullet.
This isn't pellets falling out of the sky harmlessly.
You know what, I don't ... I have exceedingly low expectations of them. I simply don't give a crap any more if people buy this stuff and get hacked.
I tell people I know about the risks, the rest I stopped caring about.
And for that, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of corporations for not giving a damn, and lawmakers for not holding them accountable.
Yes, I know, it probably makes me a bad person. But I'm afraid my "sympathy-for-the-hacked" is at an all time low, because in a week or so there will be another story just like this one.
Really? I'm surprised by that.
Over time I've found the extra cores goes a long way to a better experience.
It means I can be using two browsers, ripping a CD to MP3, possibly streaming through my Apple TV, and still have a responsive system. This may not be 'normal' for most people (which has never been my goal), nor is running the several VMs I always have up with Linux and FreeBSD. But it is actually representative of how I use it.
I don't ever find myself taxing my video card since I'm not a gamer. In fact, I'm pretty sure my video card is a cheapo generic Nvidia with 1GB of RAM (which I'm old enough to be in awe of being cheap and generic), and I couldn't tell you the framerate of anything I've ever done.
But over the years I've found the extra cores means the system can stay more responsive under load without bogging down.
Even for my daily desktop, I find the 8 cores means I can do a bunch of things in parallel without needing to worry about it.
Hell, my wife's 4 year old HP laptop I think has at least 2 cores on it, and it wasn't exactly leading edge when we got it.
Unless you're the kind of person who launches a program, uses it, closes it, and then launches the next program (do people actually do that?) I've found that tons of CPU and RAM means the machine will be more usable for a lot longer than if you went with less. And it usually means your machine can be bloat proof for a lot longer without becoming horribly slow.
If a human is in my backyard, I can say "what the hell are you doing in my backyard", and then tell them to get the hell out.
If a drone is hovering in my backyard, I have no such recourse and have to assume the worse.
This isn't like shooting people and asking questions later. Not even a little.
Not sure about the discharge of the firearm and where he was, but the drone had no business hovering over someone's yard.
Obviously you are concerned about bloat ... which is why you seem to have the same machine as I do. You future proof yourself against bloat by over-building it up front. Worked well for my last machine, which lasted me 5+ years.
Me, my machine is about 5 months old, running Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell installed and all the Metro crap, apps, and the Microsoft store disabled/shoved out of the way, and again with 8 cores and 16GB of RAM.
I have no intention of upgrading this machine to Windows 10 now, possibly not ever. But sure as hell not with that in-place update to what I consider an OS barely out of beta.
My trust in Microsoft to do an in-place upgrade without breaking things or removing functionality I've had to add back is precisely zero. And I've already had to uninstall and block the update which wanted to start nagging me to upgrade.
With 4 cores and 8GB of RAM I happily ran Vista for years (no, really :-), because with huge amounts of resources it was pretty damned good. I expect to do the same on my Windows 8.1 machine.
So far, I don't think a single "feature" Microsoft claims to have "innovated" is either compelling or something I haven't found a 3rd party app to do (like virtual desktops). The digital assistant and some of the other stuff? That gets a big giant "do not want".
Who knows, maybe next summer when Windows 10 has been beta tested and all of the warts fixed I'll consider upgrading while it's still free. But I'm sure as hell not being an early adopter.
Otherwise known as collusion by predatory trade groups presenting a barrier of entry to new players.
Just because a bunch of CEOs work out a deal to fuck us all over doesn't make it a good thing.
One set of greedy bastards vs another set of greedy bastards isn't good for anybody but greedy bastards. It sure as hell isn't a defense of terribly written and overly broad software patents.
The problem you should not be able to patent an algorithm, and software patents have nothing to do with source code.
Software patents often read as "a system and methodology for doing something we all learned about in school but applied to a specific problem and now you can't do it, suckers".
They're patents on an idea or a solution to a class of problem. They claim ownership of something stupid like "encrypting a bank transaction over an internet link" or some other stupid thing like that.
See, this is where software patents become bullshit ... you can't patent an idea, you can't patent an algorithm. I can't patent the idea of a flying car, I can patent the specifics of my novel invention.
Compression has existed since people first figured out what the Lev-Zimpel algorithm actually meant. Compression exists as a thing ... making digital stuff smaller by identifying encodings to save space. It's like caching, where you keep copies closer to where you deliver it. It's a concept.
You can't subsequently claim to patent compression of a specific thing. You can patent your implementation, but if you are patenting the idea of compressing video, your patent should be null and void.
What you can't do is patent a "system and methodology for doing something we already do but applied to a specific class thing". Especially when your patent is taking 10 things everybody knows how to do, stringing them together, and simply saying "ta da, patent bitches".
That would be like a carpenter patenting the idea of a fucking table.
Pretty much every software patent I've ever seen falls into the category of claiming an entire idea based on vague notions and existing methods already string together in ways that if you said "I want to do this" any CS undergrad could tell you how to do it at a high level based on the tools which already exist.
Which roughly translates into "Wouldn't it be awesome if all you bitches had to keep paying us money?".
So many software patents are bloody terrible. They're stuff we all learned about in school, applied to a specific thing, and then made so generic as to claim ownership of pretty an entire class of computing.
This entity needs to stop existing, as they're really nothing but parasites pretending they invented anything.
Assholes.
Wow, you mean commercial products designed to connect to the internet have absolutely crap security?
Well, color me fucking surprised and shocked.
No, wait, the other one .. where I point out these companies are either incompetent or indifferent to security, have no penalties or liability, and have products rushed out the door by asshole CEOs and marketing people who don't give a damn about security.
This is precisely why I look at pretty much every damned product which wants to connect to the internet, or has an app for your smartphone and think "oh hell no".
Trusting this shit is idiotic, and quite frankly, I'm beyond the point of sympathy for people who buy this shit. It's insecure so that it can be convenient. Pretty much at least weekly we see an entire class of products has pretty much zero security. And we're a long way away from being able to trust them.
Just stop buying this crap.
No, I'm saying companies are cheap and don't tend to make a lot of variations on models because it costs them more, unless they think it's worth it.
If they figure only 5-10% of the market would buy a phone with a physical keyboard, they might not be willing to chase that because it's not worth it. And if it poses a risk to make something until they know how many would be sold, they just might not do it.
Just because you want a feature doesn't mean the company making it gives a damn. If they did, they'd probably make it.
Or more likely, hide what he has to say, tell him he'll go to prison for the rest of his life if he tells, and then do absolutely nothing differently.
So, he had the choice, be silenced and live in fear in the US ... or not be silenced and live in fear somewhere else.
But there is no way in hell if he'd brought these concerns though "proper channels" a damned thing would changed.
They just got embarrassed when the truth came out. They only really care about the fact that people found out, not what they did.
There is no way he could have achieved a damned thing by doing anything other than release this stuff.
The scary thing is there's lots of people willing to be fascists because they think it's OK. The justification is "I can do anything as long as I say I'm doing it to defend my country", even if they're undermining everything worth defending about their country.
The sad thing is, apparently a lot of Americans would agree, and believe security at any cost is an OK thing.
Oh, don't misunderstand me ... I know people do need this stuff when it's fresh and steaming, and have no choice.
I'm saying that, in general, as a change management strategy, taking the first day release of a fix has been demonstrated to be a terrible idea. Over and over and over by pretty much every software vendor.
Many of us support production machines and mission critical things, which means there's no way in hell we'd apply these on the day they get released.
What really annoys me is Microsoft's increasing push to force people to take those updates on day one, and be stuck with the consequences of that.
So, imagine a world in which some poor schmuck is running the version of Windows 10 which doesn't let you defer updates. When Microsoft pushes this crap out, suddenly a huge amount of people have broken systems. Microsoft isn't going to pay to fix that. Microsoft isn't going to have to deal with the consequences of the outage.
So, the general advice of "if you don't absolutely need this on the day of release, wait" is the best strategy if you can't be on the bleeding edge every day Microsoft has a new fix.
Microsoft seems bent on taking that away. And that, in my opinion, is idiotic and dangerous.
If you need to be on the cutting edge, you should probably be taking your own steps to recover from that. Mine is let everyone else test first. ;-)
Well, honestly, given that people make bluetooth keyboard cases this is fairly trivially solved if you care enough.
Maybe phone companies figure the accessories market can solve this problem?
I'm willing to bet it's a smaller amount of people who want a physical keyboard than those who don't. In which case, you're not a profitable enough segment for the companies who make phones, but an excellent niche market for people who make accessories.
It's not like you can't have what you want now, you just won't get it from the main companies selling phones.
There's a massive difference between knowing there are likely bugs in your software and believing that the day a fix or patch comes out it doesn't introduce new issues.
Microsoft, and pretty much every other software vendor I've ever seen have demonstrated time and time again that they're incapable of releasing updates without breaking something else.
So, we let the reckless and the silly be the beta testers, and wait until the dust settles. And, that's fine, because we can simply choose to wait to apply the fix for a while.
Microsoft wants to go to a "break first and fix it later" approach, and that's just asinine. Because it isn't their computers which will be broken in the meantime.
Sure you do. But don't be surprised that your users refuse to be your beta testers and wait for more people to do that. Your QA is your problem, and I have no intention of making it mine.
The people who go "oh, boy, a brand new update" provide the valuable service to the rest of us of being test subjects. And they can live with the consequences.
The rest of us, well, after the first bunch of times we've learned our lesson.
So, be my guest. Run through the fresh steaming shit with reckless abandon. But I won't. Because I've seen Microsoft updates be broken upon release quite a few times, as I have from pretty much every other vendor.
You know, if Microsoft changes the library in place and breaks it ... I don't blame professional developers at all.
I blame whatever idiot at Microsoft was responsible for not fucking breaking existing stuff.
This is just lousy QA.
I feel bad for anybody who is going to be the victim of Micrtosoft's idiotic policy of deciding it's their computer and they'll update it as they see fit. Because it is a certainty Microsoft will break a large amount of computers and leave that to be the problem of the people who own it.
And, I'm sorry, but if Microsoft is going to force updates and break machines, they should be charged under the computer fraud and abuse act, or whatever it is.
Because this is pretty much damaging other people's property, and shouldn't be legal just because some asshole at Microsoft updated an EULA which says they're allowed to do this.
Why, yes, I even said that
I don't care who you are, I simply do not trust your fresh release of anything, I do not wish to fix your mistakes, and do not believe over time you'll be awesome at not breaking anything ever. In fact, I think that's impossible to do 100% of the time.
Not now, not ever. Because many many years of doing change management has told me that would be stupid and reckless, and I don't work in places which are willing to do that.
Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to be trying to go down the route of pretty much forcing as many people as possible to get the updates immediately.
Either because they're arrogant morons, or they figure it's just easier if everybody else does their beta testing.
There isn't a software vendor on the planet I would accept a first day release from. And I've seen far too many day 1 mistakes from Microsoft and other vendors to ever change that.
Well, ignoring the rest of your comment, this is actually worth highlighting.
Good riddance, dice.
Sorry we couldn't help you leverage your synergies.
Actually, we're not sorry at all.
Which is the problem with Microsoft trying to force people to use it, and deciding they're going to be forcing updates.
They're saying they're doing it for security, but time and time again Microsoft has demonstrated they're not trustworthy in their updates.
My experience says taking a day 1 anything from Microsoft is a recipe for disaster. In fact, taking a day 1 from anybody is.
Microsoft is basically breaking first and fixing later. The problem is it isn't Microsoft's stuff which ends up broken, and bad release engineering is costly to companies.
Sorry, but Microsoft hasn't demonstrated we should ever trust them with continuous releases. They've demonstrated the opposite, in fact.
But it would spare us the badly written original article.