Killing off their phone business. Making Windows 10 a free upgrade. Making it a rolling update system. Requiring people to update it. Moving their business model to focus on business rather than consumer income.
That's off the top of my head, and of course I said things to win me over, not things to win over the ACs on Slashdot.
Microsoft could really change some minds and win some hearts. They've done a lot of good things, and Satya Nadella has done a lot to win me over. I wanted to love Edge, and I've tried over and over, but never succeeded. If Microsoft is really willing to change their course, this could be a huge step in winning me, and people like me back.
Unfortunately I can't forget the past. Twenty years of pain and suffering from their decisions has made me reluctant to trust them. I can't help but remember all the things they've done to abuse their customers. I was a Linux at home guy for decades thanks to Microsoft failing to provide a system I could really make do what I wanted or needed. I've been on Windows 10 at home for nearly a year now and thanks to WSL and Chrome, I almost don't miss it. Give me bash and Chrome and they're getting close. An abused dog takes a long time to learn to trust. We've all been the abused dog by Microsoft, we want to love and hope, we want to believe. This time, we hope it will be different, but we don't trust easily.
Not that you're generally wrong, but I would like to contest a minor point.
Chrome is built for the end user consumer market.
I think the better description would be to say Chrome is marketed to consumers. It's a subtle difference, but I think it leaves the clarity to say specifically that Chrome is built to further Google's goals. One of Google's main goals is to get consumers to use their system.
We've all seen people go to google.com to search for facebook rather than going to facebook.com directly. That's a win for Google. Google would really win if people forgot URLs exist. Then the only way to get to any website would be by having Google search for it, at least for most people. How could that happen? In small steps where first the http or https is hidden since most people don't know or care why it exists. Then after people get used to that, the next step is to hide other parts of the URL that people don't care to understand. Subdomains mean nothing to most people, TLDs are next. Really, what's the difference for most people? That's where Chrome is headed and what it is built for.
The real tragedy is that most people will be happier with it.
The courts have the authority to compel people to testify and the authority to come into a place of business and gather evidence. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to force a company to allow government employees to alter code. That could happen and it should be something that is argued strenuously in the courts.
This kind of compulsion goes far beyond any reasonable argument. It's one thing to say the government can gather evidence or even take action in a private company. It's a whole different thing to try to compel a private citizen, or company who employs private citizens, to write software that goes against their best interest. It's really just tyranny, and lazy tyranny at that.
I know, I know, ha ha. [best nerd voice] But akctualllly...
I love that I can use WSL [most inaccurate name ever] to manage files. I couldn't count how many times I've edited files from bash in Windows because I can do it faster and easier from the shell than from any standard Windows programs. For me, that one thing justifies every nuisance that has come with Windows 10 since I tried it in beta.
I know, Microsoft wants me to think "Powershell" instead of bash... and I'm learning Powershell as fast as I can, but I've been using bash for nearly two decades so it's still easier and faster for me to use bash than Powershell.
Sets sounds like the next thing I'm really going to appreciate. You can get Groupy now from Stardock and get the same functionality (albeit better than MS is doing) and I have to admit I'm tempted. It's not unusual for me to accumulate 30 or 40 windows during my workday to try to handle all the tasks I need to work on. Having the ones related to each other bound together would go a long way toward making my workflow more efficient.
Finally, to your point, for years and years I've been frustrated, nay angry, that there is not a Microsoft equivalent to apt, get, yum, ports, or any decent package manager. I love the idea of the MS store. So far, the implementation has sucked. It's sucked big time. Yet I have to hope that it gets better and I hope MS keeps pushing to make it viable. My ideal Windows looks a lot like my typical Linux distribution. The store is getting them a tiny bit closer.
There seems to be a common misunderstanding that WSL is running a Linux kernel. It isn't. WSL is still running on the Windows kernel. People think of popular Linux distributions as being Linux, but they're only Linux because of the kernel, not because of the tools they're bundling to create a distribution. When you switch to a BSD or Mach kernel using the same tools, you're no longer using Linux, regardless of the programs you're running. That's what WSL is too. It's a distribution's bundled tools running on a different kernel, in this case the Windows kernel.
It'd make more sense to call it Ubuntu on Windows. Really though, it makes more sense for MS to call it "Linux" because that's what people think of when they hear the word. Otherwise you'd have "GNU on Windows" and spend all your time explaining you're talking about running a Linux distribution on Windows without using actual Linux. It's like insisting people use the original meaning of the word "hacker." If you use the word to mean what it really means, then people won't understand what you mean.
I know this post is pretty much off topic, but a lot of people still seem misled by the term and I hope at to help clear up the misconceptions for a couple people.
WSL is not a virtual machine running Linux, in fact it's not Linux at all. Linux is a kernel. People think of distributions built around the Linux kernel as being Linux, but you can run other kernels with the same tools. Depending on your objectives and kernel choice, you can get very different or practically identical functionality while still not technically running Linux. That's all WSL is; it is a bundle of tools associated with Linux distributions but running on the Microsoft Windows kernel instead.
Your concerns about Windows accessing the Linux RAM don't make any sense in regards to WSL because it isn't a separate or hosted OS. Of course Windows has access to WSL memory; WSL is an integrated part of Windows. The point of WSL is to give Windows users less motivation to switch to a different OS, which it does fairly well. Most of the things I want to do in Windows but would normally have to switch to Linux to do are easy to do with WSL, meaning no switch is necessary. Most of the work I get paid to do needs to be done in a Microsoft OS (not always Windows) but it is easier and sometimes massively faster to do some things with the tools that were previously only supported by dual booting or running a VM. WSL makes my job simpler in that respect.
All that said, your concerns make sense in regard to Hyper-V. I think you're wrong about MS's goals there too, but at least it is a debatable topic.
I've had plenty of paychecks signed by people who probably had abandoned any traces of morality. I've been on phone calls with customers who hated me and any concept I might have been associated with, but whose business supported my paycheck.
You're telling me that investing in a cryptocurrency might support some government I don't like? I couldn't care less. It might go against some hairy muppet in office? I actually could care less... if it goes against that moron's desires, it moves my give-a-damn-a-meter slightly towards inclined. Not enough to do anything significant, but enough to post on slashdot.
Here's the chance for you anti-Trump people to jump on a bandwagon. If you really want to make a statement, you need to invest in whatever he's against. Just give me a minute to click a couple buttons first.. okay, now.
Just kidding, I don't expect any rational response. I don't even trust the public to have a completely irrational response at this point.
Yes. They take VISA, aka you can spend Bitcoin there.
I got a card from Coinbase. Anywhere I can use a VISA, I can spend my cryptocurrency. My card by itself would be accepted most places in Singapore, and I could withdraw local currency as needed.
As for me personally? I actually couldn't pay for it with Bitcoin because I liquidated all my Bitcoin at a value maybe ten percent below it's current value, but I could pay for stuff with Bitcoin Cash... not that what I have left would go very far.
I invested in Mt. Gox when it was still going strong, and lost all my investments in it when it crashed. I lost nearly seven dollars! I was mailed information about joining a class action lawsuit, but my cynicism in investing along with my laziness kept me from pursuing any compensation.
That's why I switched to Coinbase actually. I figured that I'd spend a fraction of my entertainment money playing in that system and trusted them more since they're governed by US law. As soon as I had the option to put my "investment" in an offline system, I went for it. When mainstream news started to talk about Bitcoin, I cashed out. I did well. $50,000 less than I would have made if I'd had two different decisions, but hey, when it's a two thousand percent gain or a near total loss, I feel like that was a good call. Honestly I wish I hadn't paid any attention at all and just stuck with the HODL approach, but as soon as my "investments" were worth more than dinner and a movie, I didn't have the risk tolerance real gamblers do.
That's my real takeaway from my experience. If you're lucky, and don't mind gambling real money, you can have a lot of fun with cryptocurrency. If you're not really a gambler (like me) then it's entertainment. If you're a real gambler... well you might make inconceivable fortunes if you're lucky, but you have to be willing to lose actual significant money and that's hard for me to empathize with.
It comes from trust that it will be worth something when you go to spend it.
You can spend it on taxes. That's the real value. Sure the government backs it up with guns and tanks and such, but they only have so much ability to make people agree on how much goods and services are worth.
OTOH cryptocurrencies have exactly zero validity unless people agree to place value on them. I'm not sure which I trust more, governments or people.
The president is supposed to have some control over the enforcement of laws. That makes sense because the president has the authority to determine how the budget is spent (or not spent) and to pardon people who have been convicted of breaking the law. In theory, the president could pardon everyone convicted of breaking a law that he/she disagreed with.
When the president says "we order this" what it should always mean is that the law either supports his/her desire and he/she is deciding to spend budget money on it, or the law is against his/her desire and he/she is deciding to not spend budget money on it or is granting a pardon to anyone who breaks said law.
This seems to be a case of the president saying a law should be enforced that most citizens wouldn't have known was even in existence. I have some doubts as to how effective an attempt to enforce it will be, but thanks to/., I am better informed about the laws supporting it than I would have been otherwise.
Sidenote: I'm trying to be open minded with the "he/she" bit, but it's a nuisance to type. Nothing else works, so I'm about to go back to just typing "he" for convenience despite recognizing the possibility that it could apply to a "she" just as well in the future.
Stupid executive orders are good for the long term goal of freedom. Stupid executive orders get challenged in court, overturned and as a result, they create a sort of self regulating system. More stupid executive orders getting made means more of them getting overturned by the courts. The result is that fewer stupid executive orders will happen in the future.
I hope.
The cynic in me has to note that stupid people get power and stupid people support it. It's hard to trust that stupidity will limit itself.
Update: Trump denies any ties with campaign contributors who made a killing investing in a fake currency nobody had heard of before he talked about it and it's value doubled overnight.
The planet is fine. No matter what we do, the planet is likely to be here for millions, probably billions of years. (Approximately 7.5 billion to be inexact.) I know that's not what you meant, but maybe be a little more exact with your language.
Actually I agree with the ideas you're presenting, but I have trouble imagining all the ways we can get from where we are a species to where we survive as a species in a thousand years. Changing people is hard. Changing technology, well that seems to happen daily. Those are the reasons I don't feel stress about our future. People will continue to act like people, but the technology affecting them is going to continue changing day to day. People are going to die, billions, practically guaranteed, but I think some will survive. That belief makes me happy. I do hope it is with minimal suffering, and I do hope many people like you are trying to minimize it, and are successful.
Come on! Don't be posting the secret plan on a public forum! At least when it was a Penthouse story, they made it so that men could imagine themselves as one of the select lucky few.
It actually reminds me of the form used to explain why nobody's plan to fix spam email would work. I don't know where to find a copy to satirize, but it feels like a very similar situation. There are a hundred reasons why population control won't ever be a viable solution, just as technical solutions to email spam were never going to work. Nonetheless, as economies develop, people start having smaller families and as email systems have developed, the incidence of spam that I see have dropped.
People propose solutions that aren't going to work to solve the problems they observe. Yet, somehow, solutions still get closer and closer to being completely effective. In New York, with a very high population density, the average family size is less than three. It isn't the result of some secret plan or law, but it is still happening.
Nerds, for some values of "nerd" actually do change population growth trends. There is a direct correlation between smaller families and economic growth. There are plenty of examples, but a quick search led me to this: https://www.livescience.com/43...
According to most census estimates, an American woman had on average seven to eight children in 1800. By 1900 the number dropped to about 3.5. That has fallen to slightly more than two today.
It is also worth considering that technology allows people to live in higher density. If the entire population of the world were to live in one area at the same density as people do in New York, then the entire world population could live in a space the size of Texas. https://www.treehugger.com/sus...
Thank you for taking this position and explaining it. When these threads come up, they quickly fill up with comments heavy on the word "impossible." While there are some rational uses of that word, I believe anytime it is used in the context of security there is a huge burden of proof. Proof I rarely see attempted by the majority of posters here.
Building something to deliberately circumvent consumer privacy into a device, when your company has built its reputation on protecting privacy is, at best, a questionable strategic move for a company. If Apple and Google decide to do that, I'll be disappointed, but not angry. By contrast, a government that legally mandates such a change has crossed a line I can only view as crossing into tyranny. That would make me angry.
What bothers me most is how few people actually understand what I view as the real issues here. The question in my mind isn't whether it could be done, but rather if it should be done. Instead of a debate on that issue, what I see is a vast majority feeling apathy and the few who do care are represented here... using the word "impossible" inaccurately.
You're right. If I had mod points, I'd give you a bump. Your insight that the blessing here outweighs the cost is one I haven't seen given enough attention. Fresh eyes will be looking at how the process should work to prevent mistakes and that's a good thing. Likely they'll find other areas that need improvement.
Using a system intended for conveniently notifying the public with information to instead notify the public of an emergency is a dangerous mistake, one of which they're now aware. Finding out that the public doesn't know how to respond is priceless information that they have now. The guy who clicked the wrong menu option may not deserve a medal, but put him on the committee determining how to fix the system and plan responses. Redemption is a strong motivator.
Now the public knows that they need a response plan for such an emergency. Having public pressure to get prepared is perhaps the greatest thing that could happen. People trying to get the public prepared would have been frustrated before this, but now they'll have the public on their side. That's the kind of thing that makes budgets happen.
I wonder if was created by a group of people working for the NSA. The kind of people who would be able to come up with something like bitcoin and successfully spread the idea overlap pretty heavily with the kind of people recruited by the three letter agencies. Its not hard to imagine a think tank deciding to come up with something that could be used for illegal activity in order to track that activity.
Slashdot Mirror
Killing off their phone business. Making Windows 10 a free upgrade. Making it a rolling update system. Requiring people to update it. Moving their business model to focus on business rather than consumer income.
That's off the top of my head, and of course I said things to win me over, not things to win over the ACs on Slashdot.
Microsoft could really change some minds and win some hearts. They've done a lot of good things, and Satya Nadella has done a lot to win me over. I wanted to love Edge, and I've tried over and over, but never succeeded. If Microsoft is really willing to change their course, this could be a huge step in winning me, and people like me back.
Unfortunately I can't forget the past. Twenty years of pain and suffering from their decisions has made me reluctant to trust them. I can't help but remember all the things they've done to abuse their customers. I was a Linux at home guy for decades thanks to Microsoft failing to provide a system I could really make do what I wanted or needed. I've been on Windows 10 at home for nearly a year now and thanks to WSL and Chrome, I almost don't miss it. Give me bash and Chrome and they're getting close. An abused dog takes a long time to learn to trust. We've all been the abused dog by Microsoft, we want to love and hope, we want to believe. This time, we hope it will be different, but we don't trust easily.
Not that you're generally wrong, but I would like to contest a minor point.
Chrome is built for the end user consumer market.
I think the better description would be to say Chrome is marketed to consumers. It's a subtle difference, but I think it leaves the clarity to say specifically that Chrome is built to further Google's goals. One of Google's main goals is to get consumers to use their system.
We've all seen people go to google.com to search for facebook rather than going to facebook.com directly. That's a win for Google. Google would really win if people forgot URLs exist. Then the only way to get to any website would be by having Google search for it, at least for most people. How could that happen? In small steps where first the http or https is hidden since most people don't know or care why it exists. Then after people get used to that, the next step is to hide other parts of the URL that people don't care to understand. Subdomains mean nothing to most people, TLDs are next. Really, what's the difference for most people? That's where Chrome is headed and what it is built for.
The real tragedy is that most people will be happier with it.
The courts have the authority to compel people to testify and the authority to come into a place of business and gather evidence. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to force a company to allow government employees to alter code. That could happen and it should be something that is argued strenuously in the courts.
This kind of compulsion goes far beyond any reasonable argument. It's one thing to say the government can gather evidence or even take action in a private company. It's a whole different thing to try to compel a private citizen, or company who employs private citizens, to write software that goes against their best interest. It's really just tyranny, and lazy tyranny at that.
I know, I know, ha ha. [best nerd voice] But akctualllly...
I love that I can use WSL [most inaccurate name ever] to manage files. I couldn't count how many times I've edited files from bash in Windows because I can do it faster and easier from the shell than from any standard Windows programs. For me, that one thing justifies every nuisance that has come with Windows 10 since I tried it in beta.
I know, Microsoft wants me to think "Powershell" instead of bash... and I'm learning Powershell as fast as I can, but I've been using bash for nearly two decades so it's still easier and faster for me to use bash than Powershell.
Sets sounds like the next thing I'm really going to appreciate. You can get Groupy now from Stardock and get the same functionality (albeit better than MS is doing) and I have to admit I'm tempted. It's not unusual for me to accumulate 30 or 40 windows during my workday to try to handle all the tasks I need to work on. Having the ones related to each other bound together would go a long way toward making my workflow more efficient.
Finally, to your point, for years and years I've been frustrated, nay angry, that there is not a Microsoft equivalent to apt, get, yum, ports, or any decent package manager. I love the idea of the MS store. So far, the implementation has sucked. It's sucked big time. Yet I have to hope that it gets better and I hope MS keeps pushing to make it viable. My ideal Windows looks a lot like my typical Linux distribution. The store is getting them a tiny bit closer.
There seems to be a common misunderstanding that WSL is running a Linux kernel. It isn't. WSL is still running on the Windows kernel. People think of popular Linux distributions as being Linux, but they're only Linux because of the kernel, not because of the tools they're bundling to create a distribution. When you switch to a BSD or Mach kernel using the same tools, you're no longer using Linux, regardless of the programs you're running. That's what WSL is too. It's a distribution's bundled tools running on a different kernel, in this case the Windows kernel.
It'd make more sense to call it Ubuntu on Windows. Really though, it makes more sense for MS to call it "Linux" because that's what people think of when they hear the word. Otherwise you'd have "GNU on Windows" and spend all your time explaining you're talking about running a Linux distribution on Windows without using actual Linux. It's like insisting people use the original meaning of the word "hacker." If you use the word to mean what it really means, then people won't understand what you mean.
I know this post is pretty much off topic, but a lot of people still seem misled by the term and I hope at to help clear up the misconceptions for a couple people.
WSL is not a virtual machine running Linux, in fact it's not Linux at all. Linux is a kernel. People think of distributions built around the Linux kernel as being Linux, but you can run other kernels with the same tools. Depending on your objectives and kernel choice, you can get very different or practically identical functionality while still not technically running Linux. That's all WSL is; it is a bundle of tools associated with Linux distributions but running on the Microsoft Windows kernel instead.
Your concerns about Windows accessing the Linux RAM don't make any sense in regards to WSL because it isn't a separate or hosted OS. Of course Windows has access to WSL memory; WSL is an integrated part of Windows. The point of WSL is to give Windows users less motivation to switch to a different OS, which it does fairly well. Most of the things I want to do in Windows but would normally have to switch to Linux to do are easy to do with WSL, meaning no switch is necessary. Most of the work I get paid to do needs to be done in a Microsoft OS (not always Windows) but it is easier and sometimes massively faster to do some things with the tools that were previously only supported by dual booting or running a VM. WSL makes my job simpler in that respect.
All that said, your concerns make sense in regard to Hyper-V. I think you're wrong about MS's goals there too, but at least it is a debatable topic.
Really?
I've had plenty of paychecks signed by people who probably had abandoned any traces of morality. I've been on phone calls with customers who hated me and any concept I might have been associated with, but whose business supported my paycheck.
You're telling me that investing in a cryptocurrency might support some government I don't like? I couldn't care less. It might go against some hairy muppet in office? I actually could care less... if it goes against that moron's desires, it moves my give-a-damn-a-meter slightly towards inclined. Not enough to do anything significant, but enough to post on slashdot.
Here's the chance for you anti-Trump people to jump on a bandwagon. If you really want to make a statement, you need to invest in whatever he's against. Just give me a minute to click a couple buttons first.. okay, now.
Just kidding, I don't expect any rational response. I don't even trust the public to have a completely irrational response at this point.
Yes. They take VISA, aka you can spend Bitcoin there.
I got a card from Coinbase. Anywhere I can use a VISA, I can spend my cryptocurrency. My card by itself would be accepted most places in Singapore, and I could withdraw local currency as needed.
As for me personally? I actually couldn't pay for it with Bitcoin because I liquidated all my Bitcoin at a value maybe ten percent below it's current value, but I could pay for stuff with Bitcoin Cash ... not that what I have left would go very far.
I invested in Mt. Gox when it was still going strong, and lost all my investments in it when it crashed. I lost nearly seven dollars! I was mailed information about joining a class action lawsuit, but my cynicism in investing along with my laziness kept me from pursuing any compensation.
That's why I switched to Coinbase actually. I figured that I'd spend a fraction of my entertainment money playing in that system and trusted them more since they're governed by US law. As soon as I had the option to put my "investment" in an offline system, I went for it. When mainstream news started to talk about Bitcoin, I cashed out. I did well. $50,000 less than I would have made if I'd had two different decisions, but hey, when it's a two thousand percent gain or a near total loss, I feel like that was a good call. Honestly I wish I hadn't paid any attention at all and just stuck with the HODL approach, but as soon as my "investments" were worth more than dinner and a movie, I didn't have the risk tolerance real gamblers do.
That's my real takeaway from my experience. If you're lucky, and don't mind gambling real money, you can have a lot of fun with cryptocurrency. If you're not really a gambler (like me) then it's entertainment. If you're a real gambler... well you might make inconceivable fortunes if you're lucky, but you have to be willing to lose actual significant money and that's hard for me to empathize with.
It comes from trust that it will be worth something when you go to spend it.
You can spend it on taxes. That's the real value. Sure the government backs it up with guns and tanks and such, but they only have so much ability to make people agree on how much goods and services are worth.
OTOH cryptocurrencies have exactly zero validity unless people agree to place value on them. I'm not sure which I trust more, governments or people.
Ideally you'd invest in it right before POTUS brings it to everyone's attention then dump it right after.
The president is supposed to have some control over the enforcement of laws. That makes sense because the president has the authority to determine how the budget is spent (or not spent) and to pardon people who have been convicted of breaking the law. In theory, the president could pardon everyone convicted of breaking a law that he/she disagreed with.
When the president says "we order this" what it should always mean is that the law either supports his/her desire and he/she is deciding to spend budget money on it, or the law is against his/her desire and he/she is deciding to not spend budget money on it or is granting a pardon to anyone who breaks said law.
This seems to be a case of the president saying a law should be enforced that most citizens wouldn't have known was even in existence. I have some doubts as to how effective an attempt to enforce it will be, but thanks to /., I am better informed about the laws supporting it than I would have been otherwise.
Sidenote: I'm trying to be open minded with the "he/she" bit, but it's a nuisance to type. Nothing else works, so I'm about to go back to just typing "he" for convenience despite recognizing the possibility that it could apply to a "she" just as well in the future.
Stupid executive orders are good for the long term goal of freedom. Stupid executive orders get challenged in court, overturned and as a result, they create a sort of self regulating system. More stupid executive orders getting made means more of them getting overturned by the courts. The result is that fewer stupid executive orders will happen in the future.
I hope.
The cynic in me has to note that stupid people get power and stupid people support it. It's hard to trust that stupidity will limit itself.
Breaking News, Trump bans fake currency that nobody uses. Declairs success.
Update: Trump denies any ties with campaign contributors who made a killing investing in a fake currency nobody had heard of before he talked about it and it's value doubled overnight.
The planet is fine. No matter what we do, the planet is likely to be here for millions, probably billions of years. (Approximately 7.5 billion to be inexact.) I know that's not what you meant, but maybe be a little more exact with your language.
Actually I agree with the ideas you're presenting, but I have trouble imagining all the ways we can get from where we are a species to where we survive as a species in a thousand years. Changing people is hard. Changing technology, well that seems to happen daily. Those are the reasons I don't feel stress about our future. People will continue to act like people, but the technology affecting them is going to continue changing day to day. People are going to die, billions, practically guaranteed, but I think some will survive. That belief makes me happy. I do hope it is with minimal suffering, and I do hope many people like you are trying to minimize it, and are successful.
Thank you for sharing your story. I wanna be like you when I grow up... if I grow up, I mean.
Come on! Don't be posting the secret plan on a public forum! At least when it was a Penthouse story, they made it so that men could imagine themselves as one of the select lucky few.
It actually reminds me of the form used to explain why nobody's plan to fix spam email would work. I don't know where to find a copy to satirize, but it feels like a very similar situation. There are a hundred reasons why population control won't ever be a viable solution, just as technical solutions to email spam were never going to work. Nonetheless, as economies develop, people start having smaller families and as email systems have developed, the incidence of spam that I see have dropped.
People propose solutions that aren't going to work to solve the problems they observe. Yet, somehow, solutions still get closer and closer to being completely effective. In New York, with a very high population density, the average family size is less than three. It isn't the result of some secret plan or law, but it is still happening.
Nerds, for some values of "nerd" actually do change population growth trends. There is a direct correlation between smaller families and economic growth. There are plenty of examples, but a quick search led me to this: https://www.livescience.com/43...
According to most census estimates, an American woman had on average seven to eight children in 1800. By 1900 the number dropped to about 3.5. That has fallen to slightly more than two today.
It is also worth considering that technology allows people to live in higher density. If the entire population of the world were to live in one area at the same density as people do in New York, then the entire world population could live in a space the size of Texas. https://www.treehugger.com/sus...
I am shocked... https://youtu.be/NUV54XBidzU
Thank you for taking this position and explaining it. When these threads come up, they quickly fill up with comments heavy on the word "impossible." While there are some rational uses of that word, I believe anytime it is used in the context of security there is a huge burden of proof. Proof I rarely see attempted by the majority of posters here.
Building something to deliberately circumvent consumer privacy into a device, when your company has built its reputation on protecting privacy is, at best, a questionable strategic move for a company. If Apple and Google decide to do that, I'll be disappointed, but not angry. By contrast, a government that legally mandates such a change has crossed a line I can only view as crossing into tyranny. That would make me angry.
What bothers me most is how few people actually understand what I view as the real issues here. The question in my mind isn't whether it could be done, but rather if it should be done. Instead of a debate on that issue, what I see is a vast majority feeling apathy and the few who do care are represented here... using the word "impossible" inaccurately.
Parent should have been the description in the /. story.
Yup.
Reminds me of a quote:
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
You're right. If I had mod points, I'd give you a bump. Your insight that the blessing here outweighs the cost is one I haven't seen given enough attention. Fresh eyes will be looking at how the process should work to prevent mistakes and that's a good thing. Likely they'll find other areas that need improvement.
Using a system intended for conveniently notifying the public with information to instead notify the public of an emergency is a dangerous mistake, one of which they're now aware. Finding out that the public doesn't know how to respond is priceless information that they have now. The guy who clicked the wrong menu option may not deserve a medal, but put him on the committee determining how to fix the system and plan responses. Redemption is a strong motivator.
Now the public knows that they need a response plan for such an emergency. Having public pressure to get prepared is perhaps the greatest thing that could happen. People trying to get the public prepared would have been frustrated before this, but now they'll have the public on their side. That's the kind of thing that makes budgets happen.
I wonder if was created by a group of people working for the NSA. The kind of people who would be able to come up with something like bitcoin and successfully spread the idea overlap pretty heavily with the kind of people recruited by the three letter agencies. Its not hard to imagine a think tank deciding to come up with something that could be used for illegal activity in order to track that activity.
At moments, I almost thought I could understand part of it.