Then I tried Windows 8.1, and was pretty much even more lost. I added the start menu add-on program, and it got a little better, but still, a lot of basic things like closing programs, switching windows, etc. was just impossible.
Ok, so in Windows 8.1 all programs have the familiar X in the top right corner to close, both in desktop and metro mode (you can also swipe them down from top, and shouldn't really be concerned with "closing a program" to begin with when it is handled properly by the OS, but lets forget about this newfangled stuff). Same with minimize. And switching programs is the same old Alt-Tab as it has always been. Or if you want, mouse to top left corner to get a list (one of just a couple of things shown to you at Win8 install/upgrade). And if you like direct access to power user stuff Win-X (or mouse right click left corner) is a better friend than anything Win7 had to offer. But hey, if we don't want to we don't want to.
This - so much this. For popular journeys, mass transit is going to be considerably more efficient.
But keep the bubblecars for trips to rural/remote locations, and the elderly and disabled who need door to door service.
Perhaps a shuttle-type tram/train with 'pod docks' would be the ideal combination, maximising takeup, reducing stop frequency and offering end-to-end service for those who needed it.
IE won the browser war, but failed to meet the objectives.
During the 1990's that big browser war between IE and Firefox, Millions of dollars pushed to a free (as in beer) web browser, so they can obtain dominance, and use this dominance to push their standards, to keep people locked in.
Microsoft won the war... However they never got a food hold on pushing the standards, the Web Standards seemed to move around them, not threw them.
Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had became a major security problem, thus only used by poorly designed intranet apps. Then when AJAX+CSS 2 became popular and implemented for all other browsers it came to a point where you are better off not using IE, for your experience.
During the 1990s the big browser war was between Netscape and IE, and by version 3 and 4 IE became the better browser of the two (yes, hard as that is to believe today), and Netscape was even worse in pushing their own standards.
ActiveX was a killer feature for developers of the day, that is why it was adopted so much, which later bit everyone in the ass -- and there is a learning here for today's developers that can't wait to implement non-standardized vendor specific prefix functions in production sites because of the nice functionality they offer..
I agree with you that IE then really fell behind other browsers in the age of modern AJAX and CSS web sites, which is quite ironic given that Microsoft actually invented the basis for AJAX (with XMLHttpRequest). But not very surprising, as they actually disbanded their IE team. They are catching up quite nicely now from IE11 and onward though, which is a good thing for the web and web developers.
unless they are blinded, and then that ability magically goes away.
Properly conducted double blind ABX tests are incredible insights into how perceptions influence our experiences. People who are just absolutely no questions about it convinced they have no problem whatsoever tasting or hearing a difference shockingly often lose that ability when they really don't know what they are tasting/listening to.
Sadly, it's a shame that people put much faith in AV programs given their effectiveness (http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/antivurus-pioneer-symantec-declares-av-dead-and-doomed-to-failure/). I think author R.R. Martin has it right (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5REM-3nWHg), keep separate machine for different purposes - one for serious work and one for messing around with. It doesn't feel like a good idea to use one machine for everything.
Symantec is mixing up stuff here to try to position themselves for the new hot profitable APT market. For one; the context of this quote about AV being dead was a WSJ interview with the CEO where he said it in the context if Symantec being able to increase their profit, as AV has become quite cheap and APT is getting all the nice profit margin - it was not said in a context of user need, but in a context of Symantec profit need.
Then they mix up some statistics about targeted advanced hacker attacks (APT), which of course isn't stopped by AV, but it doesn't make the treat from traditional malware any less. All reports and research show that regardless of APT, the threat from standard malware is increasing, not decreasing (just as those hit by Cryptolocker..).
Yes, AV is not 100%. There will be APT type attack that bypass it, and there will be time periods with brand new malware that bypass it. But that last point is often overblown. Well over 90% of actual real world infections are from known malware that would be stopped by a good AV program. Even a condom isn't 100% safe, that doesn't mean that it is meaningless to use a condom.
For the same reason new viruses will always defeat anti-virus software: Each virus is tested against existing anti-virus programs and only released into the wild when it has defeated all of them.
Not all of them. Malware writers go for the biggest targets for the least effort, and often just test against (and even have active intervention against) the best known/most used free AV programs (Microsoft, Avast, AVG, etc.), since a major volume of users use free solutions, and the major commercial (Symantec, Trend, Kaspersky, F-Secure, McAffee, etc.). It is actually a good bet that if you go with a lesser known commercial AV product you gain a significant protection advantage.
Right. I continue to be baffled by people that will buy crappy headphones with some random musicians name on them and think they'll in any way sound good.
In speakers, size matters. Yes, you can get big crappy sounding speakers. But the one thing you'll never get small good sounding speakers. Laws of physics and all. This is also why Bose sucks and have been conning guys that watch infomercials for decades.
If you want affordable, good sounding speakers, you have to build them yourself. Get one of versions of these:
https://sites.google.com/site/...
They don't have a huge amount of bass, but I'm betting they will be the best speaker most slashdotters have ever heard. And you can put them together with wood glue, scotch tape and a soldering iron.
There is a lot of variation within this rule of size that often invalidates it. These babies for instance, will play better than much bigger speakers from well known and respected brands.
$50K a year can be a bargain compared to development and maintenance in-house.
Don't forget that what is "outsourced" for you is "in-house" for the outsourcer. If you can't beat him on price and assuming similar labor costs, it means you have poor/too much management overhead.
Or, the commercial $50K a year solution has the advantage of scale by spreading its cost on multiple customers. If the commercial provider has 1000 customers paying $50K a year, the economy of that is hard to beat by being lean on management overhead.
Yeah plenty of competition in the social media space is important but I can't get much use out of G+. It comes across as a clumsy answer to a question nobody was really asking.
Oh, it was an attempt at answering a question Google most certainly was asking - how can we get some of those Facebook ad billions and additional user tracking info.
Gloat? About what? This only provides proof of the benefits of open source - a significant flaw was discovered, which is exactly the claimed advantage - the more eyes, the better.
But it wasn't found by eyes, in the source. It was found by automated testing tool that would have just as easily found it in closed source.
In the self-mythology of FOSS, bugs like Heartbleed aren't supposed to happen when the source code is freely available and being worked with daily.
False. Bugs can and do happen. However, what can also happen with open source software is that entities other than the group working on the project can find bugs. In this case, Google found the bug. If the source were not open, maybe it would have never been officially recognized and fixed.
The Hartbleed bug was found using automated testing by two researches from Codenomicon and one from Google, and they disclosed it with enough detail to replicate. Closed or open source wouldn't have made a difference in how this was discovered or reported. It might have made a difference in how it was responded to, but that is hard to prove.
Why is this modded as "troll"? The points raised are valid. How many accounts have you lot created on the billion sites and how many are actually used?
I don't think he deserved troll at all, but I do think he is mistaken. Not about the dead accounts, they obviously exists in great volume, but the assumption that these are counted in quoted user numbers. Almost all large online services, and third party statistic sites like Comscore, use "logged in at least once last month" as the metric for their user count. Where there is inflation in user numbers are when multi-service companies are making sure that users that intended to go to one service also "visits" another (looking at you Google+).
I see dozens of computers a year running modern operating systems with up-to-date anti-virus software and firewalls installed that are full of viruses and other malware. User behaviour is the major problem here and his paranoia and your wisdom are probably what protect you the most, not the version of Windows you do or do not run.
Still, most research show that as much as 90% of real world infections are happening through already patched vulnerabilities, eg. could have easily been avoided without changing user behaviour - except the update or not behaviour (not only Windows, but Adobe, Java, browser, office, etc.). There are good cross-vendor patch & remediation solutions for business that solves this for you, I'm surprised this is not offered as a managed solution to consumers as well (or perhaps it is? I have not seen it).
I really don't understand what you are trying to say or accomplish. This is not about any side being "morally or ethically pure". You, like a lot of similar anti-science sentiments (evolution, homeopathy, moon landing, what have you), are trying to debate the scientific principle, without any support from actual scientists.
You really don't know much about science do you? Most scientists throughout history are known for loving the situation you describe. The love to poke holes in other scientists theories. To prove fellow scientists wrong. To be right, in face of opposition and disbelief. You are dismissing one of the primary driving forces of science throughout the history of science.
Forgive my cynicism but I doubt you are actually curious. I suspect you're fishing for something to attack me with... but I'll play along.
There are two points there... trillions and control of industry to unelected international authorities.
1. Trillions: I can get citations if you'd like, but the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol was trillions of dollars. And those were optimistic projections.
2. Most of the "plans" for dealing with global warming involve giving directorship of the program to the UN or some body of the UN which will hand down judgments. No better is when the EPA or its equivalent in the EU does the same thing. These bodies often act without legislative authority or public mandate. They are given broad powers that are open to the interpretation of the people that work for them. These people are not elected by the people and their actions are largely unresponsive to public redress or even legislative pressure. They often become petty tyrants that do what they want when they want and none short of the high level executive authority can check them.
Its a problem.
Listen... I'm okay with spending trillions if I must to survive. Its money well spent. But if you ask for that kind of money you're going to get audited and you have no right to refuse the debate. If you demand trillions and then say the science is settled... You get a fight.
You really can't expect otherwise.
You know, I actually agree with you on your last point. But since none of the fight is coming from scientists, that is my answer.
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things.
Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change. And very similar arguments against (it is to complex, data keep changing, this doesn't make sense to me, there is a conspiracy by the government).
And it is a world wide scheme and not a UN scheme, since all scientists across the world are saying the same, independently of UN and US actors in the debate. Close to all of the scientists in this field are repeatedly refuting what you claim. Do you want me to refute intelligent design, homeopathy, vaccine skeptics, fake moon landing? Same answer.
So, the money argument is the argument I understand the least of all. On one side you have the big oil industry, the Koch brothers and all their documented well funded think tanks repeating the tobacco industry playbook - on the other side you have the money grabbing scientists.. Yeah, I can see on which side the money interest is playing.. .
And even if this were the case in the US, the world is more than the US, all the scientists in all countries agree on this. This conspiracy is happening everywhere? I don't see any scientists or climate change "supporters" getting rich where I live, they still say the same.
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill.
That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes.
>> VGA cable + Audio Patch Cable + Capture Card = rip almost anything.
>
> Yeah that'll look great on your 70" 1080P television.
It's Netflix. It's not going to look that great on your 70" TV anyways. '-p
Every glitch in the stream caused by network congestion or rogue garden gnomes is going to show up in the end result. You will get to snicker at Netflix, your ISP, and the FCC every time you watch it again.
Is this how you really experience Netflix or just assuming? For me it looks much better than DVD on my 1080p 50" media center/TV, and extremely seldom glitch/stutter/buffer.
Word processing was a solved problem in 1997, but Microsoft still has to continuously "upgrade" their software to be able to sell it again. They are out of good ideas, so they end up implementing bad ideas like adding system access to a simple protocol.
For me, one of the absolutely most useful aspects of a word processor is to let multiple people (across teams, partners, consultants, customers, etc.) edit and comment the same document, propose changes -- with author-specific version history tracking, sidebar comments, approve/reject functionality, etc. This has improved greatly not only since 1997 but over the last few generations of Word IMHO. Problem with the "people only need and use 20% of the features of modern Office" reasoning, is that different people use different 20% and tend to make assumptions based on their own anecdotal experience.
Bit coin is reliable. The shitty exchanges are not.
If you have someone access to your paper wallet then the effect would be the same.
Why compare to paper? If I have bitcoin stealing malware on my computer (and there is like 150 variants of that in the wild) it will get the bitcoin even if I keep my wallet offline and encrypted, because I have to access it sometime. But, it won't get my online banking money, because they use a challenge-response protocol. Very different.
I use a country switcher browser plugin, so the international part don't bother me, even though I travel a lot. But I do like Spotify's solution to this better. As for the other scenarios - yes, Netflix could still learn from Spotify, which has the perfect solution to offline and cached playing. Spotify is proving that it is possible for a streaming service to deliver all of this. Except for the remove part, that is not Netflix/Spotify's fault, but the content owners being dicks.
The issue was that UltraViolet is buggy. It provides downloads in theory. I think there was some region restriction also with the service.
Oh, how I hate those streaming services and the assumption that such delivery is convenient for the user.
It's hard to find a downloadable movie trailer nowdays (and you'd think this is something movie studios WANT me to have, because it is an advert for their product).
Personally, I find Netflix damn convenient for the user. Just auto-continue to next episode is worth the fee vs Piratebay episode download hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I tried Windows 8.1, and was pretty much even more lost. I added the start menu add-on program, and it got a little better, but still, a lot of basic things like closing programs, switching windows, etc. was just impossible.
Ok, so in Windows 8.1 all programs have the familiar X in the top right corner to close, both in desktop and metro mode (you can also swipe them down from top, and shouldn't really be concerned with "closing a program" to begin with when it is handled properly by the OS, but lets forget about this newfangled stuff). Same with minimize. And switching programs is the same old Alt-Tab as it has always been. Or if you want, mouse to top left corner to get a list (one of just a couple of things shown to you at Win8 install/upgrade). And if you like direct access to power user stuff Win-X (or mouse right click left corner) is a better friend than anything Win7 had to offer. But hey, if we don't want to we don't want to.
This - so much this. For popular journeys, mass transit is going to be considerably more efficient.
But keep the bubblecars for trips to rural/remote locations, and the elderly and disabled who need door to door service.
Perhaps a shuttle-type tram/train with 'pod docks' would be the ideal combination, maximising takeup, reducing stop frequency and offering end-to-end service for those who needed it.
Something like this adopted for pod cars too.
IE won the browser war, but failed to meet the objectives.
During the 1990's that big browser war between IE and Firefox, Millions of dollars pushed to a free (as in beer) web browser, so they can obtain dominance, and use this dominance to push their standards, to keep people locked in.
Microsoft won the war... However they never got a food hold on pushing the standards, the Web Standards seemed to move around them, not threw them. Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had became a major security problem, thus only used by poorly designed intranet apps. Then when AJAX+CSS 2 became popular and implemented for all other browsers it came to a point where you are better off not using IE, for your experience.
During the 1990s the big browser war was between Netscape and IE, and by version 3 and 4 IE became the better browser of the two (yes, hard as that is to believe today), and Netscape was even worse in pushing their own standards.
ActiveX was a killer feature for developers of the day, that is why it was adopted so much, which later bit everyone in the ass -- and there is a learning here for today's developers that can't wait to implement non-standardized vendor specific prefix functions in production sites because of the nice functionality they offer..
I agree with you that IE then really fell behind other browsers in the age of modern AJAX and CSS web sites, which is quite ironic given that Microsoft actually invented the basis for AJAX (with XMLHttpRequest). But not very surprising, as they actually disbanded their IE team. They are catching up quite nicely now from IE11 and onward though, which is a good thing for the web and web developers.
unless they are blinded, and then that ability magically goes away.
Properly conducted double blind ABX tests are incredible insights into how perceptions influence our experiences. People who are just absolutely no questions about it convinced they have no problem whatsoever tasting or hearing a difference shockingly often lose that ability when they really don't know what they are tasting/listening to.
Sadly, it's a shame that people put much faith in AV programs given their effectiveness (http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/antivurus-pioneer-symantec-declares-av-dead-and-doomed-to-failure/). I think author R.R. Martin has it right (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5REM-3nWHg), keep separate machine for different purposes - one for serious work and one for messing around with. It doesn't feel like a good idea to use one machine for everything.
Symantec is mixing up stuff here to try to position themselves for the new hot profitable APT market. For one; the context of this quote about AV being dead was a WSJ interview with the CEO where he said it in the context if Symantec being able to increase their profit, as AV has become quite cheap and APT is getting all the nice profit margin - it was not said in a context of user need, but in a context of Symantec profit need.
Then they mix up some statistics about targeted advanced hacker attacks (APT), which of course isn't stopped by AV, but it doesn't make the treat from traditional malware any less. All reports and research show that regardless of APT, the threat from standard malware is increasing, not decreasing (just as those hit by Cryptolocker..).
Yes, AV is not 100%. There will be APT type attack that bypass it, and there will be time periods with brand new malware that bypass it. But that last point is often overblown. Well over 90% of actual real world infections are from known malware that would be stopped by a good AV program. Even a condom isn't 100% safe, that doesn't mean that it is meaningless to use a condom.
For the same reason new viruses will always defeat anti-virus software: Each virus is tested against existing anti-virus programs and only released into the wild when it has defeated all of them.
Not all of them. Malware writers go for the biggest targets for the least effort, and often just test against (and even have active intervention against) the best known/most used free AV programs (Microsoft, Avast, AVG, etc.), since a major volume of users use free solutions, and the major commercial (Symantec, Trend, Kaspersky, F-Secure, McAffee, etc.). It is actually a good bet that if you go with a lesser known commercial AV product you gain a significant protection advantage.
Right. I continue to be baffled by people that will buy crappy headphones with some random musicians name on them and think they'll in any way sound good.
In speakers, size matters. Yes, you can get big crappy sounding speakers. But the one thing you'll never get small good sounding speakers. Laws of physics and all. This is also why Bose sucks and have been conning guys that watch infomercials for decades.
If you want affordable, good sounding speakers, you have to build them yourself. Get one of versions of these: https://sites.google.com/site/...
They don't have a huge amount of bass, but I'm betting they will be the best speaker most slashdotters have ever heard. And you can put them together with wood glue, scotch tape and a soldering iron.
There is a lot of variation within this rule of size that often invalidates it. These babies for instance, will play better than much bigger speakers from well known and respected brands.
Don't forget that what is "outsourced" for you is "in-house" for the outsourcer. If you can't beat him on price and assuming similar labor costs, it means you have poor/too much management overhead.
Or, the commercial $50K a year solution has the advantage of scale by spreading its cost on multiple customers. If the commercial provider has 1000 customers paying $50K a year, the economy of that is hard to beat by being lean on management overhead.
Yeah plenty of competition in the social media space is important but I can't get much use out of G+. It comes across as a clumsy answer to a question nobody was really asking.
Oh, it was an attempt at answering a question Google most certainly was asking - how can we get some of those Facebook ad billions and additional user tracking info.
Gloat? About what? This only provides proof of the benefits of open source - a significant flaw was discovered, which is exactly the claimed advantage - the more eyes, the better.
But it wasn't found by eyes, in the source. It was found by automated testing tool that would have just as easily found it in closed source.
In the self-mythology of FOSS, bugs like Heartbleed aren't supposed to happen when the source code is freely available and being worked with daily.
False. Bugs can and do happen. However, what can also happen with open source software is that entities other than the group working on the project can find bugs. In this case, Google found the bug. If the source were not open, maybe it would have never been officially recognized and fixed.
The Hartbleed bug was found using automated testing by two researches from Codenomicon and one from Google, and they disclosed it with enough detail to replicate. Closed or open source wouldn't have made a difference in how this was discovered or reported. It might have made a difference in how it was responded to, but that is hard to prove.
Why is this modded as "troll"? The points raised are valid. How many accounts have you lot created on the billion sites and how many are actually used?
I don't think he deserved troll at all, but I do think he is mistaken. Not about the dead accounts, they obviously exists in great volume, but the assumption that these are counted in quoted user numbers. Almost all large online services, and third party statistic sites like Comscore, use "logged in at least once last month" as the metric for their user count. Where there is inflation in user numbers are when multi-service companies are making sure that users that intended to go to one service also "visits" another (looking at you Google+).
I see dozens of computers a year running modern operating systems with up-to-date anti-virus software and firewalls installed that are full of viruses and other malware. User behaviour is the major problem here and his paranoia and your wisdom are probably what protect you the most, not the version of Windows you do or do not run.
Still, most research show that as much as 90% of real world infections are happening through already patched vulnerabilities, eg. could have easily been avoided without changing user behaviour - except the update or not behaviour (not only Windows, but Adobe, Java, browser, office, etc.). There are good cross-vendor patch & remediation solutions for business that solves this for you, I'm surprised this is not offered as a managed solution to consumers as well (or perhaps it is? I have not seen it).
I really don't understand what you are trying to say or accomplish. This is not about any side being "morally or ethically pure". You, like a lot of similar anti-science sentiments (evolution, homeopathy, moon landing, what have you), are trying to debate the scientific principle, without any support from actual scientists.
You really don't know much about science do you? Most scientists throughout history are known for loving the situation you describe. The love to poke holes in other scientists theories. To prove fellow scientists wrong. To be right, in face of opposition and disbelief. You are dismissing one of the primary driving forces of science throughout the history of science.
Forgive my cynicism but I doubt you are actually curious. I suspect you're fishing for something to attack me with... but I'll play along.
There are two points there... trillions and control of industry to unelected international authorities.
1. Trillions: I can get citations if you'd like, but the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol was trillions of dollars. And those were optimistic projections.
2. Most of the "plans" for dealing with global warming involve giving directorship of the program to the UN or some body of the UN which will hand down judgments. No better is when the EPA or its equivalent in the EU does the same thing. These bodies often act without legislative authority or public mandate. They are given broad powers that are open to the interpretation of the people that work for them. These people are not elected by the people and their actions are largely unresponsive to public redress or even legislative pressure. They often become petty tyrants that do what they want when they want and none short of the high level executive authority can check them.
Its a problem.
Listen... I'm okay with spending trillions if I must to survive. Its money well spent. But if you ask for that kind of money you're going to get audited and you have no right to refuse the debate. If you demand trillions and then say the science is settled... You get a fight.
You really can't expect otherwise.
You know, I actually agree with you on your last point. But since none of the fight is coming from scientists, that is my answer.
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things. Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change. And very similar arguments against (it is to complex, data keep changing, this doesn't make sense to me, there is a conspiracy by the government).
And it is a world wide scheme and not a UN scheme, since all scientists across the world are saying the same, independently of UN and US actors in the debate. Close to all of the scientists in this field are repeatedly refuting what you claim. Do you want me to refute intelligent design, homeopathy, vaccine skeptics, fake moon landing? Same answer.
.
And even if this were the case in the US, the world is more than the US, all the scientists in all countries agree on this. This conspiracy is happening everywhere? I don't see any scientists or climate change "supporters" getting rich where I live, they still say the same.
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill. That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes.
>> VGA cable + Audio Patch Cable + Capture Card = rip almost anything. > > Yeah that'll look great on your 70" 1080P television.
It's Netflix. It's not going to look that great on your 70" TV anyways. '-p
Every glitch in the stream caused by network congestion or rogue garden gnomes is going to show up in the end result. You will get to snicker at Netflix, your ISP, and the FCC every time you watch it again.
Is this how you really experience Netflix or just assuming? For me it looks much better than DVD on my 1080p 50" media center/TV, and extremely seldom glitch/stutter/buffer.
Word processing was a solved problem in 1997, but Microsoft still has to continuously "upgrade" their software to be able to sell it again. They are out of good ideas, so they end up implementing bad ideas like adding system access to a simple protocol.
For me, one of the absolutely most useful aspects of a word processor is to let multiple people (across teams, partners, consultants, customers, etc.) edit and comment the same document, propose changes -- with author-specific version history tracking, sidebar comments, approve/reject functionality, etc. This has improved greatly not only since 1997 but over the last few generations of Word IMHO. Problem with the "people only need and use 20% of the features of modern Office" reasoning, is that different people use different 20% and tend to make assumptions based on their own anecdotal experience.
It's Window 8 only, right?
It is more likely for Windows 9 (not a joke).
Bit coin is reliable. The shitty exchanges are not. If you have someone access to your paper wallet then the effect would be the same.
Why compare to paper? If I have bitcoin stealing malware on my computer (and there is like 150 variants of that in the wild) it will get the bitcoin even if I keep my wallet offline and encrypted, because I have to access it sometime. But, it won't get my online banking money, because they use a challenge-response protocol. Very different.
I use a country switcher browser plugin, so the international part don't bother me, even though I travel a lot. But I do like Spotify's solution to this better. As for the other scenarios - yes, Netflix could still learn from Spotify, which has the perfect solution to offline and cached playing. Spotify is proving that it is possible for a streaming service to deliver all of this. Except for the remove part, that is not Netflix/Spotify's fault, but the content owners being dicks.
The issue was that UltraViolet is buggy. It provides downloads in theory. I think there was some region restriction also with the service.
Oh, how I hate those streaming services and the assumption that such delivery is convenient for the user.
It's hard to find a downloadable movie trailer nowdays (and you'd think this is something movie studios WANT me to have, because it is an advert for their product).
Personally, I find Netflix damn convenient for the user. Just auto-continue to next episode is worth the fee vs Piratebay episode download hunting.