Absolutely not! I turned off all updates a couple of months ago to prevent "accidental" upgrades. I just want to know if anyone has any experience with the accessibility of Windows 10, does it offer anything not already in the NVDA screen reader program. If not, no "upgrade" - which is why "upgrade" is in quotes in the original post.
The only mention of Visual Studio was in the block of text added by the editors. However, to answer your question, not all visually handicapped people are 100% blind, but it can be a real PITA to try to use a screen all the time, no matter how large it is, to the point that most of the time it would be easier to just use a screen reader.
And then sometimes you want to show things to someone or they want to show you something, and they can't use the computer without seeing what they're doing.
I wonder how much battery life can be extended without a screen? And how much weight without the cover holding it... a high-end computer should go for a lot less used if someone is looking at having to replace a 4k laptop screen.
The link to Paul Thurrott doesn't really answer the question - it's just a copy of the generic new feature list in the anniversary update, with no information about what parts need the Internet to work, or whether Edge has now been fixed to work with other screen readers.
NVDA has had the "new" features like speech "up to double the words per minute" for quite a while, and there's no indication that Edge will work with screen narrators other than Microsoft's. (sigh)
Copyright for a limited time encourages further creativity, since you can't count on revenue from previous work for the rest of your life.
Excessive copyright wastes time and resources on copyright fights that could be applied to better uses. If Mickey Mouse was now in the public domain, there'd more likely be more derivative products than there are today
Just look at Paramount squishing fan fiction videos that are no threat to the franchise (crappy story lines and excessive lens flair, on the other hand...)
Yes, I saw both videos. And how the f*ck do you expect them to take it from his pocket when he's resisting arrest? I hope you're being purposefully stupid, because the alternative...
My original one was before I transitioned, so my old name didn't really suit. I've been using this one since I forgot the password I used with the replacement one because I couldn't see well enough to use a computer for quite a while. I've been using this one for quite some time. It's not a "new account", moron.
They knew that the guy was armed. Watch the video - they immediately took it from his pocket after shooting him. Tazing didn't work. Physical force didn't work, and they knew he had a gun.
Also, your comment is VERY sexist, disqualifying almost all women from police work. This isn't the 19th, or even the 20th, century any more.
First, I never said that there was no racism in the US. Racism is endemic - you just have to look at both the overwhelmingly disproportionate number of blacks in US jails. Or the number of blacks shot by cops.
However, not all shootings are racially motivated. Otherwise, more than half of police shootings wouldn't end up with a white person dead.
Racism is built into the US culture, has been since before the country's founding. Only a fool would say otherwise, and I'm no fool, nor a racist.
Look at the video - the police knew he was armed. Otherwise they would have had to search him to find out if he had a gun instead of immediately after shooting taking it off him.
But if you think it's okay for police to ignore a gun-waving asshole threatening a homeless man at half-past midnight, you are part of the violence problem.
He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, they forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you. Self-defense is a reason for death.
Of course he was getting yelled at. They weren't going to whisper "stop struggling and let me get the cuffs on you" into his ear. Did YOU watch the video. They KNEW he was armed. They didn't have to search him to find the gun, they knew exactly where it was.
Try "self defense." He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, the cops forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you.
Talking to HR is the worst possible thing to do - all you're doing is giving them ammunition to screw you over. HR works for the employer, not you - especially when you're quitting.
He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, they forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you. Self-defense is a reason for death.
They are trained to use necessary force. Usually it doesn't go beyond a tazer. This guy didn't stop after being tazed. They were fully aware he was armed. Look at the video - they knew exactly where his gun was because they didn't have to search to find it.
At that point, what were they supposed to do - just get up and let the guy shoot them?
The police knew he was armed, stupid. The video shows that they didn't have to search him when they took the gun from him - they knew exactly where it was.
So yes, someone who is an immediate threat to the police while trying and failing to get him under control (tazer didn't work, he was armed and they couldn't get him under control), at that point the shooting is self defense. What do you think Sterling would have done if they had said "gee, tazer didn't work - have a nice day?" Just walked away? In your dreams.
Waving around a gun and threatening a homeless man, refusing to cooperate with the police, tazing doesn't work, you can't get the cuffs on him and you are certain he has the gun in his pocket (see how they immediately removed the gun from him without having to search to see if he had a gun - they knew he was armed).
That's not "summary execution." At that point it's self-defense.
Look at the video. There was no question he was armed - the cops went right for the gun in his pocket immediately after the shooting, no frisking required. This was a good shoot. Someone who has been waving a gun around making threats, refuses to cooperate, tazing doesn't affect them, tackling him and not being able to get the cuffs on him - what were they supposed to do - let him get up and walk away, or maybe start shooting?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely not! I turned off all updates a couple of months ago to prevent "accidental" upgrades. I just want to know if anyone has any experience with the accessibility of Windows 10, does it offer anything not already in the NVDA screen reader program. If not, no "upgrade" - which is why "upgrade" is in quotes in the original post.
The only mention of Visual Studio was in the block of text added by the editors. However, to answer your question, not all visually handicapped people are 100% blind, but it can be a real PITA to try to use a screen all the time, no matter how large it is, to the point that most of the time it would be easier to just use a screen reader.
And then sometimes you want to show things to someone or they want to show you something, and they can't use the computer without seeing what they're doing.
I wonder how much battery life can be extended without a screen? And how much weight without the cover holding it ... a high-end computer should go for a lot less used if someone is looking at having to replace a 4k laptop screen.
If NVDA worked under linux or bsd, I'd use one of them.
The link to Paul Thurrott doesn't really answer the question - it's just a copy of the generic new feature list in the anniversary update, with no information about what parts need the Internet to work, or whether Edge has now been fixed to work with other screen readers.
NVDA has had the "new" features like speech "up to double the words per minute" for quite a while, and there's no indication that Edge will work with screen narrators other than Microsoft's. (sigh)
Copyright for a limited time encourages further creativity, since you can't count on revenue from previous work for the rest of your life.
Excessive copyright wastes time and resources on copyright fights that could be applied to better uses. If Mickey Mouse was now in the public domain, there'd more likely be more derivative products than there are today
Just look at Paramount squishing fan fiction videos that are no threat to the franchise (crappy story lines and excessive lens flair, on the other hand ...)
They say it threatens innovation. Maybe they need to be more innovative instead of complaining?
Yes, I saw both videos. And how the f*ck do you expect them to take it from his pocket when he's resisting arrest? I hope you're being purposefully stupid, because the alternative ...
The store owner's own testimony in the video interview is self-contradictory.
My original one was before I transitioned, so my old name didn't really suit. I've been using this one since I forgot the password I used with the replacement one because I couldn't see well enough to use a computer for quite a while. I've been using this one for quite some time. It's not a "new account", moron.
You don't complain to HR. You complain to upper management or their legal department, or the board of directors.
They knew that the guy was armed. Watch the video - they immediately took it from his pocket after shooting him. Tazing didn't work. Physical force didn't work, and they knew he had a gun.
Also, your comment is VERY sexist, disqualifying almost all women from police work. This isn't the 19th, or even the 20th, century any more.
You've been using that smartphone while on the toilet, nobody wants to touch it.
Everyone uses their phone while on the throne. Why do you think so many of them have water damage?
First, I never said that there was no racism in the US. Racism is endemic - you just have to look at both the overwhelmingly disproportionate number of blacks in US jails. Or the number of blacks shot by cops.
However, not all shootings are racially motivated. Otherwise, more than half of police shootings wouldn't end up with a white person dead.
Racism is built into the US culture, has been since before the country's founding. Only a fool would say otherwise, and I'm no fool, nor a racist.
Look at the video - the police knew he was armed. Otherwise they would have had to search him to find out if he had a gun instead of immediately after shooting taking it off him.
But if you think it's okay for police to ignore a gun-waving asshole threatening a homeless man at half-past midnight, you are part of the violence problem.
He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, they forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you. Self-defense is a reason for death.
No need to know his record to justify the shoot.
Of course he was getting yelled at. They weren't going to whisper "stop struggling and let me get the cuffs on you" into his ear. Did YOU watch the video. They KNEW he was armed. They didn't have to search him to find the gun, they knew exactly where it was.
Try "self defense." He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, the cops forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you.
Talking to HR is the worst possible thing to do - all you're doing is giving them ammunition to screw you over. HR works for the employer, not you - especially when you're quitting.
Not this shooting. Not all shootings are racially motivated. Just most of them.
He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, they forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you. Self-defense is a reason for death.
Use the cursor keys to move around the screen. Shift key and cursor keys to select. What's so hard about that?
I'm about as far left as you can get
the hell you are.
Of course. Heaven is very right-wing. Just a bunch of religious people doing their thing.
They are trained to use necessary force. Usually it doesn't go beyond a tazer. This guy didn't stop after being tazed. They were fully aware he was armed. Look at the video - they knew exactly where his gun was because they didn't have to search to find it.
At that point, what were they supposed to do - just get up and let the guy shoot them?
The police knew he was armed, stupid. The video shows that they didn't have to search him when they took the gun from him - they knew exactly where it was.
So yes, someone who is an immediate threat to the police while trying and failing to get him under control (tazer didn't work, he was armed and they couldn't get him under control), at that point the shooting is self defense. What do you think Sterling would have done if they had said "gee, tazer didn't work - have a nice day?" Just walked away? In your dreams.
Waving around a gun and threatening a homeless man, refusing to cooperate with the police, tazing doesn't work, you can't get the cuffs on him and you are certain he has the gun in his pocket (see how they immediately removed the gun from him without having to search to see if he had a gun - they knew he was armed).
That's not "summary execution." At that point it's self-defense.
Look at the video. There was no question he was armed - the cops went right for the gun in his pocket immediately after the shooting, no frisking required. This was a good shoot. Someone who has been waving a gun around making threats, refuses to cooperate, tazing doesn't affect them, tackling him and not being able to get the cuffs on him - what were they supposed to do - let him get up and walk away, or maybe start shooting?