Actually you don't even need to get that far. I personally know somebody who for some godawful reason decided to move to the Hollywood area, and she even agreed with their politics. The problem however was that her mother was more conservative, which her connections (crappy as they were) found out via facebook. Needless to say, this created a drama situation that worsened her career chances, and those connections essentially told her to never talk with her mother again, because apparently having those viewpoints is some kind of deadly sin there.
The higher ups failed from an infosec perspective, but not even related to passwords.
Put simply: The guy was fucking help desk. How the fuck did he get domain admin permissions to begin with? Because that's what he would have needed to do all of this. You don't even give help desk people the ability to reset passwords or unlock accounts, rather you delegate that to a few people in a given department so that they can authenticate the user by e.g. speaking with them face to face, and even then they can only do that for people within their own department; certainly not IT staff.
Help desk people shouldn't have access to anything except for the ability to remote in to a user's PC and do things for them, and even then only if the user explicitly permits it. If help desk can't resolve an issue that way, then that should be escalated to tier-2, aka desktop support, who should have higher permissions but even then still shouldn't be domain admins.
This is starting to get silly...I'm beginning to think that the next leak is going to include evidence that the CIA plants dime sized listening devices in people's houses.
The CIA is and always has been a spy organization, and they've always spied on foreign targets. I'm still waiting for evidence that any of this was used on US citizens.
Yes, the NSA spying was bad, and Snowden was right to leak it, because they were in fact spying on US citizens. The CIA isn't though; the CIA is merely doing what they've always done, so I don't see why the fact that it involves computers and IoT devices changes anything. (Especially IoT...honestly you have to have your head in the sand if you i.e. still have a smart TV connected to the internet. Many, MANY hacking groups have broken into these so many times that no reasonable person should consider them secure enough to trust. Same with older smartphones that are no longer patched.)
That depends on the terrorist. Some of them very much do. Al-Qaeda and ISIS, given the chance, would kill you simply for not converting to Islam in most cases. In the few cases where they don't, then they'd let you get by if you paid a jizya and obeyed sharia law.
Either way, that is hating your freedom to not being subject to their religion. You can argue all you want about America did this or America did that, but they give the exact same treatment to non-Americans as well, so it's an entirely moot point.
You're making a big HUGE assumption that people will not find a comfort zone in what they get for free and then just stay with that. I know many people on SSI who do exactly this. Hell, forget SSI, I know several who have a comfort zone making nothing and just spend their days playing World of Warcraft.
People finding a minimalist way to simply exist and never growing beyond that simply because they don't have to is actually a well documented issue, and you're sitting here telling me that this actually doesn't exist at all, therefore UBI is a good idea.
Like GP said, this is batshit crazy. It's as if people who support UBI think that money alone can solve just any problem you can name. But it can't. Money is just a medium of exchange; it is NOT a means to an end.
And yet nowhere do you refute my argument that there is no right to anonymous, consequence-free speech. What a fucktard - read your constitution and try to find it.
Didn't you read the EFF page I linked? It shows pretty clearly that SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that anonymous speech is protected by the constitution. That is as good as saying it's constitutional without needing it to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution (like many, many other things.)
You lose, go fuck yourself (on second thought...I guess you can't really do that without genitals.)
You can get the Windows 10 ISO [microsoft.com] from Microsoft and just select the version you want (only three) and the ISO only comes with Windows 10 without additional crapware.
Not quite true.
It used to be that bare windows didn't have any crapware, but Windows 10 ISO definitely does these days. Among others (I can't recall all of them off of the top of my head) are freemium apps like Candy Crush, Angry birds, and obviously paid social media apps like Twitter and Facebook, and some apps are useless without paying, like the paid hotspot app.
And then of course, many of Microsoft's first party apps are now adware and/or trialware. For example, solitaire now has ads in it unless you pay a monthly fee, onedrive costs money, and there's a "get office" app that is just an ad for office. That's not getting into the 12+ ads that Microsoft has now built into Windows: (some of which overlap with what I've listed here)
The truth is that overall the major media outlets (sorry, MSM is a conspiracy community term) do a pretty good job. They don't always get it right, and they can also be misled, but that is not the same thing as fake news.
We've absolutely seen fake news from major media outlets (as you put it.) A great example is the Killian memo, which to this date no credible document examiner has ever authenticated. Meanwhile, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes both say that even though they have no proof whatsoever, the story is true. Rather and Mapes have both since been disgraced and their careers are finished, so at least there's that.
We have this thing called freedom of speech here. That means your desperate whiny little Gestapo tactics don't work here even if you did know my real identity. I'd say "go practice being a little Nazi asshole to one of your neighbors instead" but I honestly feel bad for them already. I've lived next to a narcissist before, and it's annoying having to put up with their constant attention seeking. I can only imagine having to put up with a fat narcissist that pretends to be a woman, and it must be terrible for them.
*sigh* It's like I'm talking to a wall. Ok let's put this in elementary school terms:
Your arguments all assume that the economy is a zero-sum game, but it's just not. In other words, the global economy isn't analogous to a pie that each person on this planet gets a slice of. A better analogy would be a pie that is always getting bigger and bigger, so each proverbial slice also grows bigger, no matter what percentage it makes up. However if you suddenly put a cap on just how rich the richest people can be, then this pie stops growing while the population continues to grow. This inevitably means that everybody gets poorer, not just the rich.
I hope that makes sense to you, because if it doesn't then honestly no amount of explaining will.
Actually, I do believe that anonymous speech is the last resort of cowards.
Because you're an uneducated paranoid nazi. Whistleblowers often work anonymously because if they don't they'll likely face undue hardship. Otherwise you'd be arguing that people like Mark Felt are cowards. Oh, and your hero Bradley Manning tried to remain anonymous as well.
Say what you mean, and stand behind it, and damn the consequences. You have freedom of speech, but neither freedom from the consequences of that speech nor the right to be anonymous. Check your constitution - you'll see that neither anonymity nor lack of consequences are rights.
Or are you going to claim that the people who wrote the constitution were nazis as well?
They actually understood the value of it quite well. In fact, the revolution wouldn't have ever happened without it, because the British crown would have come down on the speakers like a ton of bricks. The pamphlet 'Common Sense' was very important to the revolution, and its author Thomas Paine was in fact anonymous at first, so you bet your ass that the authors of the constitution wanted to protect anonymous speech. Likewise, time and time again SCOTUS has upheld anonymous speech as being protected by the first amendment, so it's not going away anytime soon just to please little nazi assholes like yourself.
It's a good thing that, unlike you, I know history.
Nonetheless, the reason you hate anonymous speech is because all of your skin is pure velum, and you have no tolerance for anybody who is even remotely critical of you (a classic trait of narcissism.) You're every bit as insecure and paranoid as Hitler himself. I'll bet that everybody who knows you IRL can't fucking stand you, but they put up with you anyways lest you cry discrimination. That, combined with the fact that you crave attention like the little narcissist that you really are is why you got a sex change, only it didn't give you the attention you demand so you go around subtly asking ACs for sex on slashdot.
I'm not hiding behind anything, if I was I would go fully anonymous. There's a difference between hiding and privacy. I know you don't believe in privacy because you're a dickface nazi, but that's your problem.
In fact, because you hate privacy so much, you should wear a shirt that says in big letters "ban anonymous speech now", put the same on a big sign in front of your house, and every weekend go downtown and shout it out with a megaphone. That's exactly what you've called for in the past and you fundamentally believe in, so why not broadcast it to everybody? I'm sure other people will start calling you a dickface nazi as well if you don't keep that opinion to yourself when you're in public.
With all the shit you believe in, I'd wager more than one person has said this about you:
Again, barbarian is an old derogatory term for an uncivilized, primitive person. You very often exhibit both descriptions (and narcisism.) So I agree, your name suits you quite well.
And no, my handle (which isn't my name) doesn't make any religious reference. When I was in the US Army, I was armored recon, aka cavalry, aka a dragoon. Dragoon comes from the French word for dragon.
Beyond that, this is simply a gamer tag I use that I also carry other places for psuedonymous (not anonymous) purposes, because it loosely describes my past in a way suitable for gaming.
Barbarian means uncivilized and/or primitive. I therefore understand why you chose the name you did, as it fits you better than Tom, your old biblical apostle name.
It seems that BarBar Huds is hard up about dating JarJar Binks. That would make for the world's most annoying couple. Anyways I don't think this is going to help your chances BarBar.
You might try a bath house like the one Butters found on South Park. Although I think most aren't interested in a skin pocket where genitals are supposed to be but were removed, but supposedly you'll find any fetishes over there.
Just go in there and say something like "Misa BarBar. Misa find a man who lika misa mangina." Shake your manly spare tire around a bit to emphasize the point. I do imagine it would increase your chances. But no matter what, arguing with ACs won't.
I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them.
And you have no reading comprehension, because I didn't say they were removing anything. Please read my post again.
What you fail to understand here is the Greed I wish to solve for is not Greed stemming from the average man. It is the particular flavor of Greed that is creating this clusterfuck. The humans who literally have billions and are still not satisfied and demand more.
What part about the words "hedonic treadmill" don't you understand? Go look up what that term means and then think about what you just said here. It perfectly explains what you're complaining about, and the hedonic treadmill applies to all people, from hobos to billionaires.
THAT is the Greed that we need to solve for, and for the benefit of all mankind.
No, it won't benefit anybody. All it will do is effectively cap economic growth and make people poorer, which is exactly what you end up with when you try to "fix" these things. Yes, it is true that the rich get richer, however the poor are also getting richer. Does the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest increase over time? Yes. However that does not in any way mean that the poor are getting poorer, and in fact the poor are not getting poorer, and in fact their quality of life is always improving, which is something that can actually be proven with hard numbers and statistics:
By the way, I'm willing to bet that you'd score worse than the chimpanzees in Hans Rosling's test.
As far as the average man, all it will take is a single generation of the global Welfare state in place for humans to be humbled enough to be content.
No, that won't actually work. UBI for example essentially just proposes adjusting the money supply, but it doesn't do anything at all to adjust the supply of finite resources. If anything, it would make it worse. The thing is, you're making a very flawed assumption that money is the endgame for wealth, but the reality is that ownership of material goods is wealth. Poor people today have more access to material goods than at any other point in history.
When governments make policy decisions based on this bad understanding, they tend to ruin their economy and end up making their population poor. Venezuela is a great example of this. France's Hollande also found out the hard way why your ideology doesn't work (his country started seeing massive tax revenue decreases when he decided to retaliate against the rich for earning so much.)
And that's exactly what's happening: All of the qualified people are doing something else. And as I mentioned to another poster, don't complain about a lack of timely responses to incidents if your local precinct is undermanned because you're holding officers to a standard that basically nobody can meet.
The only places where this isn't a problem is where the local populace aren't a bunch of assholes. Fortunately I live in a place with a low asshole population, so I don't have this problem, likewise I don't particularly care one way or another; I'm just telling it like it is.
That's fine with me, just don't complain when you don't get a timely response to incidents (or even no response at all) when your local precinct is undermanned.
And while we're at it, keep in mind that most of the time when the police are called, somebody is being belligerent, so as an officer you're inevitably going to develop the cynical mentality that the typical person is up to no good.
And why would they? There seems to be an expectation these days that no matter how much a citizen harasses an officer, the officer shouldn't ever respond in a way that a typical person likely would respond. Thus, it would make sense that a typical person wouldn't want to become a police officer.
There is only one equation the human race needs to figure out in order to survive.
Solve for Greed.
That's never going to happen. Greed is a fundamental feature of who you are. Even if you were given everything you ever wanted, you'll eventually want more, owing to the hedonic treadmill. Saying otherwise would be like saying you can stop a person from ever having desires (even repressed ones) to cheat on their spouse.
Every time somebody tries to solve greed, what results is a crappy system of government that makes the average person much worse off. UBI, if it were to ever become a thing, would just be yet another iteration of that.
It's more a symptom of Microsoft trying its hardest to be a more paranoid (read: locked down against competitor's applications) version of Apple. Really, they are trying to do exactly that. And the reason people want Microsoft to fail here is because these people don't want yet more locked down shit flooding the marketplace if Microsoft were to gain a sizable market share.
I think people would root for Sailfish or even WebOS, just not the crappier, more API limited version of iOS, aka Windows Phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you don't even need to get that far. I personally know somebody who for some godawful reason decided to move to the Hollywood area, and she even agreed with their politics. The problem however was that her mother was more conservative, which her connections (crappy as they were) found out via facebook. Needless to say, this created a drama situation that worsened her career chances, and those connections essentially told her to never talk with her mother again, because apparently having those viewpoints is some kind of deadly sin there.
The higher ups failed from an infosec perspective, but not even related to passwords.
Put simply: The guy was fucking help desk. How the fuck did he get domain admin permissions to begin with? Because that's what he would have needed to do all of this. You don't even give help desk people the ability to reset passwords or unlock accounts, rather you delegate that to a few people in a given department so that they can authenticate the user by e.g. speaking with them face to face, and even then they can only do that for people within their own department; certainly not IT staff.
Help desk people shouldn't have access to anything except for the ability to remote in to a user's PC and do things for them, and even then only if the user explicitly permits it. If help desk can't resolve an issue that way, then that should be escalated to tier-2, aka desktop support, who should have higher permissions but even then still shouldn't be domain admins.
This is starting to get silly...I'm beginning to think that the next leak is going to include evidence that the CIA plants dime sized listening devices in people's houses.
The CIA is and always has been a spy organization, and they've always spied on foreign targets. I'm still waiting for evidence that any of this was used on US citizens.
Yes, the NSA spying was bad, and Snowden was right to leak it, because they were in fact spying on US citizens. The CIA isn't though; the CIA is merely doing what they've always done, so I don't see why the fact that it involves computers and IoT devices changes anything. (Especially IoT...honestly you have to have your head in the sand if you i.e. still have a smart TV connected to the internet. Many, MANY hacking groups have broken into these so many times that no reasonable person should consider them secure enough to trust. Same with older smartphones that are no longer patched.)
Terrorists don't "hate us for our freedoms".
That depends on the terrorist. Some of them very much do. Al-Qaeda and ISIS, given the chance, would kill you simply for not converting to Islam in most cases. In the few cases where they don't, then they'd let you get by if you paid a jizya and obeyed sharia law.
Either way, that is hating your freedom to not being subject to their religion. You can argue all you want about America did this or America did that, but they give the exact same treatment to non-Americans as well, so it's an entirely moot point.
You're making a big HUGE assumption that people will not find a comfort zone in what they get for free and then just stay with that. I know many people on SSI who do exactly this. Hell, forget SSI, I know several who have a comfort zone making nothing and just spend their days playing World of Warcraft.
People finding a minimalist way to simply exist and never growing beyond that simply because they don't have to is actually a well documented issue, and you're sitting here telling me that this actually doesn't exist at all, therefore UBI is a good idea.
Like GP said, this is batshit crazy. It's as if people who support UBI think that money alone can solve just any problem you can name. But it can't. Money is just a medium of exchange; it is NOT a means to an end.
And yet nowhere do you refute my argument that there is no right to anonymous, consequence-free speech. What a fucktard - read your constitution and try to find it.
Didn't you read the EFF page I linked? It shows pretty clearly that SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that anonymous speech is protected by the constitution. That is as good as saying it's constitutional without needing it to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution (like many, many other things.)
You lose, go fuck yourself (on second thought...I guess you can't really do that without genitals.)
You can get the Windows 10 ISO [microsoft.com] from Microsoft and just select the version you want (only three) and the ISO only comes with Windows 10 without additional crapware.
Not quite true.
It used to be that bare windows didn't have any crapware, but Windows 10 ISO definitely does these days. Among others (I can't recall all of them off of the top of my head) are freemium apps like Candy Crush, Angry birds, and obviously paid social media apps like Twitter and Facebook, and some apps are useless without paying, like the paid hotspot app.
And then of course, many of Microsoft's first party apps are now adware and/or trialware. For example, solitaire now has ads in it unless you pay a monthly fee, onedrive costs money, and there's a "get office" app that is just an ad for office. That's not getting into the 12+ ads that Microsoft has now built into Windows: (some of which overlap with what I've listed here)
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The truth is that overall the major media outlets (sorry, MSM is a conspiracy community term) do a pretty good job. They don't always get it right, and they can also be misled, but that is not the same thing as fake news.
We've absolutely seen fake news from major media outlets (as you put it.) A great example is the Killian memo, which to this date no credible document examiner has ever authenticated. Meanwhile, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes both say that even though they have no proof whatsoever, the story is true. Rather and Mapes have both since been disgraced and their careers are finished, so at least there's that.
LOL that's funny!
We have this thing called freedom of speech here. That means your desperate whiny little Gestapo tactics don't work here even if you did know my real identity. I'd say "go practice being a little Nazi asshole to one of your neighbors instead" but I honestly feel bad for them already. I've lived next to a narcissist before, and it's annoying having to put up with their constant attention seeking. I can only imagine having to put up with a fat narcissist that pretends to be a woman, and it must be terrible for them.
*sigh* It's like I'm talking to a wall. Ok let's put this in elementary school terms:
Your arguments all assume that the economy is a zero-sum game, but it's just not. In other words, the global economy isn't analogous to a pie that each person on this planet gets a slice of. A better analogy would be a pie that is always getting bigger and bigger, so each proverbial slice also grows bigger, no matter what percentage it makes up. However if you suddenly put a cap on just how rich the richest people can be, then this pie stops growing while the population continues to grow. This inevitably means that everybody gets poorer, not just the rich.
I hope that makes sense to you, because if it doesn't then honestly no amount of explaining will.
Yes the Republicans have been pushing for this since SOPA,
What? SOPA was mostly democrats.
Actually, I do believe that anonymous speech is the last resort of cowards.
Because you're an uneducated paranoid nazi. Whistleblowers often work anonymously because if they don't they'll likely face undue hardship. Otherwise you'd be arguing that people like Mark Felt are cowards. Oh, and your hero Bradley Manning tried to remain anonymous as well.
Say what you mean, and stand behind it, and damn the consequences. You have freedom of speech, but neither freedom from the consequences of that speech nor the right to be anonymous. Check your constitution - you'll see that neither anonymity nor lack of consequences are rights.
Nope, in fact EFF describes this in good detail:
https://www.eff.org/issues/ano...
Or are you going to claim that the people who wrote the constitution were nazis as well?
They actually understood the value of it quite well. In fact, the revolution wouldn't have ever happened without it, because the British crown would have come down on the speakers like a ton of bricks. The pamphlet 'Common Sense' was very important to the revolution, and its author Thomas Paine was in fact anonymous at first, so you bet your ass that the authors of the constitution wanted to protect anonymous speech. Likewise, time and time again SCOTUS has upheld anonymous speech as being protected by the first amendment, so it's not going away anytime soon just to please little nazi assholes like yourself.
It's a good thing that, unlike you, I know history.
Nonetheless, the reason you hate anonymous speech is because all of your skin is pure velum, and you have no tolerance for anybody who is even remotely critical of you (a classic trait of narcissism.) You're every bit as insecure and paranoid as Hitler himself. I'll bet that everybody who knows you IRL can't fucking stand you, but they put up with you anyways lest you cry discrimination. That, combined with the fact that you crave attention like the little narcissist that you really are is why you got a sex change, only it didn't give you the attention you demand so you go around subtly asking ACs for sex on slashdot.
I'm not hiding behind anything, if I was I would go fully anonymous. There's a difference between hiding and privacy. I know you don't believe in privacy because you're a dickface nazi, but that's your problem.
In fact, because you hate privacy so much, you should wear a shirt that says in big letters "ban anonymous speech now", put the same on a big sign in front of your house, and every weekend go downtown and shout it out with a megaphone. That's exactly what you've called for in the past and you fundamentally believe in, so why not broadcast it to everybody? I'm sure other people will start calling you a dickface nazi as well if you don't keep that opinion to yourself when you're in public.
With all the shit you believe in, I'd wager more than one person has said this about you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Again, barbarian is an old derogatory term for an uncivilized, primitive person. You very often exhibit both descriptions (and narcisism.) So I agree, your name suits you quite well.
And no, my handle (which isn't my name) doesn't make any religious reference. When I was in the US Army, I was armored recon, aka cavalry, aka a dragoon. Dragoon comes from the French word for dragon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Beyond that, this is simply a gamer tag I use that I also carry other places for psuedonymous (not anonymous) purposes, because it loosely describes my past in a way suitable for gaming.
Anyways, have fun sir BarBar Huds.
Oh and FWIW, Barbara means barbarian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Barbarian means uncivilized and/or primitive. I therefore understand why you chose the name you did, as it fits you better than Tom, your old biblical apostle name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And now you're stuck with that name, because if you change it, you'll have let the trolls win. And BarBar Huds hates defeat.
It seems that BarBar Huds is hard up about dating JarJar Binks. That would make for the world's most annoying couple. Anyways I don't think this is going to help your chances BarBar.
You might try a bath house like the one Butters found on South Park. Although I think most aren't interested in a skin pocket where genitals are supposed to be but were removed, but supposedly you'll find any fetishes over there.
Just go in there and say something like "Misa BarBar. Misa find a man who lika misa mangina." Shake your manly spare tire around a bit to emphasize the point. I do imagine it would increase your chances. But no matter what, arguing with ACs won't.
No shit.
I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them.
And you have no reading comprehension, because I didn't say they were removing anything. Please read my post again.
What you fail to understand here is the Greed I wish to solve for is not Greed stemming from the average man. It is the particular flavor of Greed that is creating this clusterfuck. The humans who literally have billions and are still not satisfied and demand more.
What part about the words "hedonic treadmill" don't you understand? Go look up what that term means and then think about what you just said here. It perfectly explains what you're complaining about, and the hedonic treadmill applies to all people, from hobos to billionaires.
THAT is the Greed that we need to solve for, and for the benefit of all mankind.
No, it won't benefit anybody. All it will do is effectively cap economic growth and make people poorer, which is exactly what you end up with when you try to "fix" these things. Yes, it is true that the rich get richer, however the poor are also getting richer. Does the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest increase over time? Yes. However that does not in any way mean that the poor are getting poorer, and in fact the poor are not getting poorer, and in fact their quality of life is always improving, which is something that can actually be proven with hard numbers and statistics:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
By the way, I'm willing to bet that you'd score worse than the chimpanzees in Hans Rosling's test.
As far as the average man, all it will take is a single generation of the global Welfare state in place for humans to be humbled enough to be content.
No, that won't actually work. UBI for example essentially just proposes adjusting the money supply, but it doesn't do anything at all to adjust the supply of finite resources. If anything, it would make it worse. The thing is, you're making a very flawed assumption that money is the endgame for wealth, but the reality is that ownership of material goods is wealth. Poor people today have more access to material goods than at any other point in history.
When governments make policy decisions based on this bad understanding, they tend to ruin their economy and end up making their population poor. Venezuela is a great example of this. France's Hollande also found out the hard way why your ideology doesn't work (his country started seeing massive tax revenue decreases when he decided to retaliate against the rich for earning so much.)
And that's exactly what's happening: All of the qualified people are doing something else. And as I mentioned to another poster, don't complain about a lack of timely responses to incidents if your local precinct is undermanned because you're holding officers to a standard that basically nobody can meet.
The only places where this isn't a problem is where the local populace aren't a bunch of assholes. Fortunately I live in a place with a low asshole population, so I don't have this problem, likewise I don't particularly care one way or another; I'm just telling it like it is.
That's fine with me, just don't complain when you don't get a timely response to incidents (or even no response at all) when your local precinct is undermanned.
And while we're at it, keep in mind that most of the time when the police are called, somebody is being belligerent, so as an officer you're inevitably going to develop the cynical mentality that the typical person is up to no good.
No, he was taking about Andy Grammer.
They would be sued for certain. But the Govt would pick up the tab, and business would go on as usual.
Officers inevitably get fired, and increasingly nobody wants to take their place.
https://www.abqjournal.com/783...
And why would they? There seems to be an expectation these days that no matter how much a citizen harasses an officer, the officer shouldn't ever respond in a way that a typical person likely would respond. Thus, it would make sense that a typical person wouldn't want to become a police officer.
There is only one equation the human race needs to figure out in order to survive.
Solve for Greed.
That's never going to happen. Greed is a fundamental feature of who you are. Even if you were given everything you ever wanted, you'll eventually want more, owing to the hedonic treadmill. Saying otherwise would be like saying you can stop a person from ever having desires (even repressed ones) to cheat on their spouse.
Every time somebody tries to solve greed, what results is a crappy system of government that makes the average person much worse off. UBI, if it were to ever become a thing, would just be yet another iteration of that.
It's more a symptom of Microsoft trying its hardest to be a more paranoid (read: locked down against competitor's applications) version of Apple. Really, they are trying to do exactly that. And the reason people want Microsoft to fail here is because these people don't want yet more locked down shit flooding the marketplace if Microsoft were to gain a sizable market share.
I think people would root for Sailfish or even WebOS, just not the crappier, more API limited version of iOS, aka Windows Phone.