Ah, yes, Item #23 on the progressive party program: "We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press." You really do your political party justice.
Some wild assumptions there. I figured logic wasn't your strong suit based on the crazy ideological talk about free speech. Thanks for the confirmation.
Wish there were more push-back on the move from transnational to subscription services.
Subscription is a response to what corporates want. If you buy something it's an asset (capex), if you subscribe it's opex. From an accounting POV opex is easier to deal with and looks better on the balance sheet, so MS have just responded to their market. Home users don't like the subscription model, but that is not MS's primary revenue stream.
If we judge by results, Russian trolls are a failure. US foreign actions are quite hostile to Russian interests.
Russia's strategy for the last 70 years has been to disrupt and divide the US, and based on the latest election results I'd say they've hit the jackpot.
Disregard the small stuff. America is imploding and Russia and China know it's only a matter of time before they take over.
The system made a lot of sense when implemented (and still makes some sense when you remember that every state is a separate entity and deserves some say in the outcome, not just Florida/California/Texas/New York).
You think this makes sense?
In principle it makes sense, but the implementation currently used in the US is broken. Campaign finaincing/lobbying, gerrymandering, voter ineligibility rules etc I wonder how much different a result would look if all that stuff got fixed?
- it was to weaken the US by stoking more hatred amongst Americans. They're encouraging the far left & right and suppressing the middle group. They've actually succeeded in making you all believe that your "side" winning is more important than working together. Divided you fall.
To be fair, Trump is making this so much easier for them. He is the great divider, he uses almost every rant to insult or put some group down, and only serves to split the country further. I struggle to understand how any American can find this behaviour acceptable. Every country has a left and a right, but most respect the opposition. Trump leaves no possible space to for people to unite for anything. America will only get weaker under his tenure.
If the Russians are so amazingly brilliant and persuasive that they can swing an election with nothing but a comparatively infinitesimal amount of facebook ads, maybe they *should* be running the world.
I think it says more about how gullible a lot of people are that they bought into it. If you consider yourself part 'us' and a political enemy who are 'them' (sex/race/religion/political party) then it's quite likely you are one of these people. It appears that the Russians merely sprinkled some fuel and let Rome burn.
We've all got to learn to be smarter than to let ourselves be so easily divided.
That's an internal party matter; there is no applicable criminal law.
If you experience and don't like it, you can demand new leadership or leave the party. Or push for a law, if you really think it's necessary.
Personally, I think that a party should be free to mismanage itself out of office.
Or free to be as corrupt as all hell so that when they finally get back in office they can corrupt the entire country? (and this goes for all parties not just one). Sorry I think we need laws to protect us from this. I'm not American but where I am we have those laws and it works ok. Any political party has to follow guidelines around disclosure and fair process to ensure other party members and voters have reasonable transparency about an organisation that could someday rule the country.
I don't have this button? The Firefox help says it only shows up if the webpage is reader view compatible, which I'm assuming none are because they want you to see their ads.
No matter, though, Microsoft Teams is replacing Skype for Business, which itself "replaced" Lync, which itself replaced Microsoft Communicator.
S4B is just a rebranding of Lync (ie still the same product). Teams is just a wrapper of existing O365 products under one interface (ie the IM/conf part will still be Lync underneath)
I'm always surprised at work when people decide to use Skype for meetings. It's so much easier to use something like Zoom instead - it's a lot more straightforward to use, and there's a lot less hassle involved.
The easiest thing is what the other person also uses, and in the case of any business it'll be whatever the business decides is the standard.
I don't know what their major malfunction is; but MS has a singular "talent" for taking wildly successful Products and turning them into useless piles of shit.
I don't disagree, but they are still making tonnes of cash so they're doing something right
S4B compares poorly with pretty much all of its business oriented competitors.
Does it? Our business uses it (20k+ users) and I've never noticed a problem with it. I was even part of a review panel to look at alternatives, and while the Cisco products seemed technical superior, they were also a shitload more expensive. S4B is effectively free since we already have licensing for O365, so it's a no-brainer.
FWIW, most techy people here use Slack instead, but S4B works for its intended purpose (communicating outside the ICT teams)
I can see this being useful anywhere an executive used to use a secretary in the old days.
I'm not sure sure how many 'executives' you've met, but a lot of the ones I've dealt with use their PA to deal with technology for them because shit like that is a distraction. They do this because a good PA has a zero error rate so allows them to focus on on their job/life/pleasure. As good as the robots are, it'll be a while before they are that perfect.
A robocaller would politely say "I'm sorry Sir, I'm not sure I understand your question...",
Google's robot sounds and responds more like a human than any of the Indian/Filipino customer service people I've spoken to in the last 10 years. Seriously their training makes them act exactly like a 1970's version of a robot.
Yet you thought it ok to make equally stupid claims. Do you see that now?
What he was talking about was the fact that by treaty NATO members are required to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense.
Nope. He had no idea how NATO worked and made that explicitly clear on numerous occasions, just as he does with just about everything that comes out of his mouth. It's either wrong or a deliberate lie and everyone else in the world knows it except the Trump fanboys.
Hear hear! I also support taking rights away from people that arent me.
There's more to the argument than that, but keep living in black and white land if that helps you sleep better...
Holy shit, they must have it really bad then... oh wait http://www.nationmaster.com/co...
If the US put as much effort into improving quality of life as pursuing this misconstrued perception of freedom, then maybe you'd actually have a higher quality of life.
Aussies have a very long history of losing their freedom. In fact, it might be one of the defining characteristics of their country.
But Australia has a higher quality of life, lower mortality rate, higher life expectancy etc than the US. So I'm not sure Freedom is all it's cracked up to be...
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
Because it's one more way to get caught. Just because some things are already illegal doesn't mean we should stop trying new ways of catching criminals.
The government needs to decide whether cash is still a legal currency or not and then either stop trying to fuck with it or completely eliminate it from the economy.
Why does it have to be only two options? I find using cash for small things and electronic for large to be quite a feasible option. The majority of people with large ($10k) wads of cash are drug dealers so I'm fine with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, Item #23 on the progressive party program: "We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press." You really do your political party justice.
Some wild assumptions there. I figured logic wasn't your strong suit based on the crazy ideological talk about free speech. Thanks for the confirmation.
Wish there were more push-back on the move from transnational to subscription services.
Subscription is a response to what corporates want. If you buy something it's an asset (capex), if you subscribe it's opex. From an accounting POV opex is easier to deal with and looks better on the balance sheet, so MS have just responded to their market. Home users don't like the subscription model, but that is not MS's primary revenue stream.
If we judge by results, Russian trolls are a failure. US foreign actions are quite hostile to Russian interests.
Russia's strategy for the last 70 years has been to disrupt and divide the US, and based on the latest election results I'd say they've hit the jackpot.
Disregard the small stuff. America is imploding and Russia and China know it's only a matter of time before they take over.
The system made a lot of sense when implemented (and still makes some sense when you remember that every state is a separate entity and deserves some say in the outcome, not just Florida/California/Texas/New York).
You think this makes sense?
In principle it makes sense, but the implementation currently used in the US is broken. Campaign finaincing/lobbying, gerrymandering, voter ineligibility rules etc I wonder how much different a result would look if all that stuff got fixed?
And that's a principle we should continue to stand by.
Free speech is a myth, stop pretending otherwise.
- it was to weaken the US by stoking more hatred amongst Americans. They're encouraging the far left & right and suppressing the middle group. They've actually succeeded in making you all believe that your "side" winning is more important than working together. Divided you fall.
To be fair, Trump is making this so much easier for them. He is the great divider, he uses almost every rant to insult or put some group down, and only serves to split the country further. I struggle to understand how any American can find this behaviour acceptable. Every country has a left and a right, but most respect the opposition. Trump leaves no possible space to for people to unite for anything. America will only get weaker under his tenure.
If the Russians are so amazingly brilliant and persuasive that they can swing an election with nothing but a comparatively infinitesimal amount of facebook ads, maybe they *should* be running the world.
I think it says more about how gullible a lot of people are that they bought into it. If you consider yourself part 'us' and a political enemy who are 'them' (sex/race/religion/political party) then it's quite likely you are one of these people. It appears that the Russians merely sprinkled some fuel and let Rome burn.
We've all got to learn to be smarter than to let ourselves be so easily divided.
That's an internal party matter; there is no applicable criminal law.
If you experience and don't like it, you can demand new leadership or leave the party. Or push for a law, if you really think it's necessary.
Personally, I think that a party should be free to mismanage itself out of office.
Or free to be as corrupt as all hell so that when they finally get back in office they can corrupt the entire country? (and this goes for all parties not just one). Sorry I think we need laws to protect us from this. I'm not American but where I am we have those laws and it works ok. Any political party has to follow guidelines around disclosure and fair process to ensure other party members and voters have reasonable transparency about an organisation that could someday rule the country.
I don't have this button? The Firefox help says it only shows up if the webpage is reader view compatible, which I'm assuming none are because they want you to see their ads.
No matter, though, Microsoft Teams is replacing Skype for Business, which itself "replaced" Lync, which itself replaced Microsoft Communicator.
S4B is just a rebranding of Lync (ie still the same product). Teams is just a wrapper of existing O365 products under one interface (ie the IM/conf part will still be Lync underneath)
I'm always surprised at work when people decide to use Skype for meetings. It's so much easier to use something like Zoom instead - it's a lot more straightforward to use, and there's a lot less hassle involved.
The easiest thing is what the other person also uses, and in the case of any business it'll be whatever the business decides is the standard.
Incessant and unnecessary updates.
To be fair that is how most software is developed these days (CI/CD etc)
It should not for ANY reason use ports 80 or 443 by default (which it does)
Is this a typo? Every web service should use 443 by default.
I don't know what their major malfunction is; but MS has a singular "talent" for taking wildly successful Products and turning them into useless piles of shit.
I don't disagree, but they are still making tonnes of cash so they're doing something right
S4B compares poorly with pretty much all of its business oriented competitors.
Does it? Our business uses it (20k+ users) and I've never noticed a problem with it. I was even part of a review panel to look at alternatives, and while the Cisco products seemed technical superior, they were also a shitload more expensive. S4B is effectively free since we already have licensing for O365, so it's a no-brainer.
FWIW, most techy people here use Slack instead, but S4B works for its intended purpose (communicating outside the ICT teams)
I can see this being useful anywhere an executive used to use a secretary in the old days.
I'm not sure sure how many 'executives' you've met, but a lot of the ones I've dealt with use their PA to deal with technology for them because shit like that is a distraction. They do this because a good PA has a zero error rate so allows them to focus on on their job/life/pleasure. As good as the robots are, it'll be a while before they are that perfect.
A robocaller would politely say "I'm sorry Sir, I'm not sure I understand your question...",
Google's robot sounds and responds more like a human than any of the Indian/Filipino customer service people I've spoken to in the last 10 years. Seriously their training makes them act exactly like a 1970's version of a robot.
Well how do I know that...
Yet you thought it ok to make equally stupid claims. Do you see that now?
What he was talking about was the fact that by treaty NATO members are required to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense.
Nope. He had no idea how NATO worked and made that explicitly clear on numerous occasions, just as he does with just about everything that comes out of his mouth. It's either wrong or a deliberate lie and everyone else in the world knows it except the Trump fanboys.
Wikipedia has plenty of editors and has been shown to be about as accurate as conventional encyclopedias
Yeah you missed the point. There's probably no point continuing - you say potato, I say potato etc...
Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to get through the day.
Ironic.
But it's not me saying it, it's called metrics They come in handy for comparing things.
Hear hear! I also support taking rights away from people that arent me. There's more to the argument than that, but keep living in black and white land if that helps you sleep better...
No need to take free speech... They don't have that now.. https://www.lifehacker.com.au/...
Holy shit, they must have it really bad then... oh wait http://www.nationmaster.com/co...
If the US put as much effort into improving quality of life as pursuing this misconstrued perception of freedom, then maybe you'd actually have a higher quality of life.
Aussies have a very long history of losing their freedom. In fact, it might be one of the defining characteristics of their country.
But Australia has a higher quality of life, lower mortality rate, higher life expectancy etc than the US. So I'm not sure Freedom is all it's cracked up to be...
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
Because it's one more way to get caught. Just because some things are already illegal doesn't mean we should stop trying new ways of catching criminals.
The government needs to decide whether cash is still a legal currency or not and then either stop trying to fuck with it or completely eliminate it from the economy.
Why does it have to be only two options? I find using cash for small things and electronic for large to be quite a feasible option. The majority of people with large ($10k) wads of cash are drug dealers so I'm fine with it.
You'd get a certified check (or equiv. for Australia) to pay them with.
Check? What is this 1987? Australia has had electronic banking for decades making the US banking system and your checks seem like the Flintstones.