This is probably the US is the sole remaining superpower
No, that's because the US is large and populous. The rest of the first world is not populous enough but can be richer (Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, to name a few). Russia is both large and populous but is way too poor and lost its super power status because of that.
Split the US into 50 countries and none of them would be a super power either. It would be like the EU.
Even if you include only the first world (which doesn't include any communist state), the US dems are still on the right side of the political spectrum.
But regarding the world scale, it also include many right-wing fundamentalist religious freak countries (Saudi Arabia, Vatican being the most extreme examples) as well as a few libertarian "paradises" (countries where there is little to no government intervention such as Somalia).
You'd know if you actually read the discussion. The OP called that guy a leftist. I merely pointed out that supporting the US democratic party don't make you a leftist, at least on a world scale.
On a world scale, the US democratic party is on the right of the center of the political spectrum. Despite being in power for years, they still didn't implement basic social net such as free health care that are considered standard everywhere else in the developed world. Even right-wing political parties support the idea in most places.
I know Windows is still a near monopoly so market forces don't apply here. But otherwise the answer to your question would be to please users and sell more copies. And also to break less things during OS updates.
But if they shouldn't bother maintaining them separately, which according to you seem to imply a lot of work, then they should also include many other applications starting with Office and many from the Windows store. Why should you have the option to upgrade Office to a new version when you can update your OS instead?
What you don't seem to get is that it is not a technical decision but a marketing one. Microsoft knew it's Paint 3D application had no chance of success unless they they force it down our throat. Same thing for Edge.
Bundled crapware exist for a reason. And it's not a technical one.
there are applications distributed through the windows store. Why can't Paint 3D be distributed through that channel? By your logic, shouldn't all applications from the store be included in Windows and be updated only with large OS updates?
Why can't they just update individual apps like Notepad (to add unix line ending support) without having to update the entire OS and set back Edge as the default browser and scrap my firewall settings?
It doesn't mean the human eye can tell the difference between a 576 megapixels image and a 9 megapixels one. Even less than there is a benefit to have such a high resolution.
The difference for text is much more obvious since there are clear cuts. So of course your 4K monitor is better. But for a movie you need to be closer. At 15' on a 60 inch TV 4K isn't worth it. You may perceive a difference (non-geeks won't) but it's not worth it as you need 4x the number of pixels to get an image barely better. 1080p has reached a point it's good enough for this TV size class and there is no benefit (at least for movies/TV shows/pictures) to increase the resolution. 8K will be a joke, of course.
I know you can no longer get a decent 60" 1080p TV, so you have no choice to get 4K when purchasing new, but I am not upgrading my TV to 4K as long as it lasts. It's a useless gimmick. I may get a 4K monitor however. Those 40" 4K TV might be ridiculous as TVs but could probably make great monitors.
Even if I were to get a new TV, if I could chose between a $1500 4K TV or a $1400 otherwise identical 1080p TV, I'd pocket the savings.
Yeah sure, on a static image with text, if you analyze it for a minute, you can tell the difference. But I bet you can't during a movie. Except of course if the 1080p movie is over-compressed.
They would need to show that it is MORE likely you than someone else.
If there are two adults in the household, isn't it equally likely that it is any of them? Or are they going to look at the content and be sexist and say that show XYZ must have been downloaded by a man?
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably the US is the sole remaining superpower
No, that's because the US is large and populous. The rest of the first world is not populous enough but can be richer (Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, to name a few).
Russia is both large and populous but is way too poor and lost its super power status because of that.
Split the US into 50 countries and none of them would be a super power either. It would be like the EU.
Even if you include only the first world (which doesn't include any communist state), the US dems are still on the right side of the political spectrum.
But regarding the world scale, it also include many right-wing fundamentalist religious freak countries (Saudi Arabia, Vatican being the most extreme examples) as well as a few libertarian "paradises" (countries where there is little to no government intervention such as Somalia).
And we should care about this exactly WHY...??
You'd know if you actually read the discussion. The OP called that guy a leftist. I merely pointed out that supporting the US democratic party don't make you a leftist, at least on a world scale.
On a world scale, the US democratic party is on the right of the center of the political spectrum. Despite being in power for years, they still didn't implement basic social net such as free health care that are considered standard everywhere else in the developed world. Even right-wing political parties support the idea in most places.
Samsung phones are even IP68 which better than IP67 which means the water resistance should be better.
Are you not getting the speed you are paying for?
Well he was talking about foreign production. The USA is as foreign to me as South Korea as I live in either.
But unlike China, South Korea actually has decent wages, which I thought was the point.
At least many Samsung phones are made in South Korea
The problem here is that people accept these jobs in part because they know they can rely on the government to compensate.
As you said there's also marketing at play.
Marketing seems to be the only consideration here. Certainly not user satisfaction.
I know Windows is still a near monopoly so market forces don't apply here. But otherwise the answer to your question would be to please users and sell more copies. And also to break less things during OS updates.
But if they shouldn't bother maintaining them separately, which according to you seem to imply a lot of work, then they should also include many other applications starting with Office and many from the Windows store.
Why should you have the option to upgrade Office to a new version when you can update your OS instead?
Then buy a single share. But still, I agree it would be better if the price was around, say, $40
What you don't seem to get is that it is not a technical decision but a marketing one. Microsoft knew it's Paint 3D application had no chance of success unless they they force it down our throat. Same thing for Edge.
Bundled crapware exist for a reason. And it's not a technical one.
there are applications distributed through the windows store. Why can't Paint 3D be distributed through that channel? By your logic, shouldn't all applications from the store be included in Windows and be updated only with large OS updates?
because this way I could chose to install say, the new notepad and security fixes without having to install Paint 3D and other useless craps.
I agree. That's why I discourage from learning an Apple specific language like Swift. And yes I know in theory it can be used on other platforms.
Actually most people couldn't solve end of high school level math problems. So they suck at math.
Why can't they just update individual apps like Notepad (to add unix line ending support) without having to update the entire OS and set back Edge as the default browser and scrap my firewall settings?
It doesn't mean the human eye can tell the difference between a 576 megapixels image and a 9 megapixels one. Even less than there is a benefit to have such a high resolution.
text needs more resolution than TV shows / movies
The difference for text is much more obvious since there are clear cuts. So of course your 4K monitor is better. But for a movie you need to be closer.
At 15' on a 60 inch TV 4K isn't worth it. You may perceive a difference (non-geeks won't) but it's not worth it as you need 4x the number of pixels to get an image barely better. 1080p has reached a point it's good enough for this TV size class and there is no benefit (at least for movies/TV shows/pictures) to increase the resolution. 8K will be a joke, of course.
I know you can no longer get a decent 60" 1080p TV, so you have no choice to get 4K when purchasing new, but I am not upgrading my TV to 4K as long as it lasts. It's a useless gimmick. I may get a 4K monitor however. Those 40" 4K TV might be ridiculous as TVs but could probably make great monitors.
Even if I were to get a new TV, if I could chose between a $1500 4K TV or a $1400 otherwise identical 1080p TV, I'd pocket the savings.
http://i.rtings.com/images/opt...
At 3 meters on a 55 inch, you barely benefit from having 1080p over 720p. 4k is a waste.
Yeah sure, on a static image with text, if you analyze it for a minute, you can tell the difference.
But I bet you can't during a movie. Except of course if the 1080p movie is over-compressed.
Even to see the difference between 1080p and 4k, you need a 100+ inches TV and move your couch forward a lot.
They would need to show that it is MORE likely you than someone else.
If there are two adults in the household, isn't it equally likely that it is any of them? Or are they going to look at the content and be sexist and say that show XYZ must have been downloaded by a man?