I already did that, dumbass. Taking it off the taskbar is not the same as disabling it altogether, just as taking Edge off the taskbar does not remove it from the system. I know, it's complicated, isn't it?
Woosh... you utterly missed the point... but lets play along for a minute and ignore the fact I said "Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic".
Yes, because the rules don't cover cable TV. Cable TV is not "internet traffic". It is irrelevant that there may be a cap on Internet traffic but no cap on how much cable TV you watch. That's the point. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Let me say that again. While NN supporters were pushing against things like 'fast lanes', NN created, in the case of Comcast 3 distinct lanes on their network:
No. Cable TV is NOT A "LANE" ON THE NETWORK. It is a different service using a different protocol, it just happens to come on the same wire.
But that's ok, it's a 'private' network, you seem to be suggesting.
NO. I didn't say that. It isn't the internet. Cable TV is cable TV. It uses a different technology.
Isn't one of the aims of NN not only to prevent an ISP from deliberately slowing down XYZ's traffic because ZYX paid them..
Explain exactly how you think that watching cable TV slows down anyone's internet. Go ahead. I'll wait.
When you opt to watch some VOD program... the DOCSIS part of the box kicks in. Lets imagine you and your neighbor sit down to watch the same VOD program at the same time in different houses, there is a doubling of cost upon the network. Don't believe me?
No, I don't believe you. First of all, the "DOCSIS" doesn't "kick in". onDemand is carried ON THE TV SERVICE. I have seen this first hand, before Comcast started encrypting the onDemand service. It was fun, getting the clearQAM tuner to rescan the cable looking for undocumented channels and then tuning in to watch along. I've seen people actually rewind the video a dozen times to watch the racy bits. That's how I know it's not just an itinerant feed of something.
So no, when your neighbor plays the same thing you are watching onDemand, the "cost" to the network does not double. It has a miniscule fractional increase using an unused TV channel. That has NO effect on your internet. None at all.
Your streaming it via X1 does not count against your cap... while you streaming it from a service you also pay for does.
Of course watching onDemand does not count against your cap, because IT IS NOT USING THE INTERNET. Nothing you watch on cable TV counts against your internet cap BECAUSE IT ISN'T INTERNET.
Here, maybe a simpler system will make the point. You get DSL on your phone line, ok? Do you think that making a voice call on your voice telephone will count against your DSL internet cap? OF COURSE NOT. Do you get charged long distance for making "DSL" calls to a foreign country? OF COURSE NOT. Two different systems, but they use the same wire. I know, it sounds like magic, but it isn't. One is internet, one is not.
Well, we know they scan the FCC amateur radio database. I got my first AARP mail when I was 25 and got my tech license. It's an old man hobby, they're looking for a target rich environment for almost and already retired folks.
Both platforms need OS-level toggles for camera/mic, similar to the one for location.
Why care if an app tracks your location when Google themselves are constantly doing so? You can turn off "location" at the "OS" level, but that doesn't stop the location service from running all the time.
Enable and then turn on "developer options". Then "running services." It is fascinating. Accuweather has four continuously running services. The stock "file manager" runs one. The United Airlines app has a "Beacon Service". The Nook app has four. Firefox has a service it runs.
The most egregious are "google", which has upwards of a dozen system services. You can try killing "location manager" and it will almost instantly come back, even if you have location services off. Very curious. Many other apps have "search" or "index" services, which are obviously scanning your device so they can radio back info on what you have installed.
There's no "Exit" feature
But you can kill services and the apps they connect to.
No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.
I recall a plethora of names on the ballot.
If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.
"Your voice" is the voice expressing which candidate you want elected. Whether they do what you want them to do is something else, and is still showing the problem that you think they should do what you want and if they don't they aren't hearing your voice. There are other people involved in the political process, and they have the right to have their voices heard, too. If there are more of them with their opinion than you and those who agree with you, it isn't "my voice isn't heard", it's "their voice was louder".
It's like the toddler who whines "you aren't listening to me", to which the parent responds "we heard you, but you still aren't getting ice cream for breakfast." The parent listened and was unconvinced. The election process listened but was unconvinced by your vote.
In your example, a player that knows to look for Cinavia (or some other hypothetical watermark) would detect the watermark, the lack of key accompanying it, and interfere with playback.
Uhhh, I've got a Blu-ray of some video I want to include in my film. It's a legal Blu-ray, bought from a store and viewable using any Blu-ray player. There is no missing watermark or key. It plays fine.
I point my camera at the scene with the TV playing the Blu-ray video. It records the entire scene. I create a film including this scene. It may or may not be published in Blu-ray, but if it is, there will be a watermark and key for my film, and it, too, will play on any Blu-ray system.
So how does this "watermark" "authorization" stop me from doing this, and force me to rip any Blu-rays? Why do I need it to be legal to rip a Blu-ray when I have done what I need without it? And if I get the copyright holder's permission to use this in my film in the first place (which I will just to protect my profits) why can't I rip the Blu-ray anyway? It's with his permission.
In your example, I would expect most players to play back the format-shifted movie just fine,
What "format-shifted movie"? The original disk is not "format-shifted", and my Blu-ray product is not "format-shifted".
although it will look and sound like a bootleg.
"Oh look, Martha, that TV in Obfuscant's movie is playing a bootleg copy of someone's Blu-ray video!" What?
one exits to the public internet, the other remains on a private network.
One is an internet service, one is not. Sorry, but I have Comcast, and their video services are broadcast on the same old channels that the analog TV signals were carried on. I've got ATSC tuners on that cable and they can still pull off the few unencrypted channels there, while showing me the existence all of the encrypted ones. I can't watch them, but I can get the channel and stream numbers and names for them all. My Homerun devices can even tell me the frequencies for the channels.
But in any case, what you've just said means that Comcast does not sum up your bandwidth on their private network that you pay for in one lump on your cable TV bill, but does sum up the bandwidth that goes across the public internet and through their border gateways where it costs them money to expand. I'm not surprised at that, and find little reason to be excited either way. They can't charge or cap your TV service -- they can tell what you are watching through the STB backchannel (but not for a DTA that has none) and the data is there 24/7 whether you watch it or not.
your use of Comcast's services is essentially 'free',
Excuse me? Shall I show you my cable bill and the list of channels I am paying to get, all with a monthly charge? You don't get nothin' from Comcast for free, essentially or not. You pay quite a bit for the availability of certain channels 24/7, and your use of them does not change the signals on the wire in any way.
while you only have a limited capacity for the external providers.
Which exists for all "external providers" irrespective of source. That's net neutral. Yes, you can compare two different delivery systems for two different sources of data, but that's apples and oranges. The "private network" of cable TV is not slowing down the public network of Netflix; there is no prioritization of one over the other. There is no relation between the two.
I'm saying that a political party which would pass tax legislation without carefully considering what kind of behavior it'd encourage and discourage will run the economy into the ground.
I think his point was that much of current taxation is being driven by creating or controlling behaviors, not by legal justifications and then thought of what behaviors it would create. For example, EV tax rebates (or whatever they are called) are created not based on tax concerns, but the desire to socially engineer the use of EVs. The tax on people who didn't buy health insurance wasn't based on a desire to fund some legitimate government service, it was intended to force people to buy health insurance when they didn't want to. Every time increasing cigarette taxes becomes a topic, it isn't a side-effect of a need for more taxes, it's a need to control the behavior and then a "need" for the tax is created to justify it.
Gas taxes, ditto. Our fair state has been threatening to change the gas tax structure to a per-mile/where driven formula requiring a GPS tracker in every vehicle (which they deny can be used to create a database of who is where and when). This is not based on a desire to find funding for road maintenance (because the gas tax is already used for other things), but to convince people to drive different roads or at off-peak times so current congestion is reduced. The state wants to change driver behavior, and this tax is how to do that. What it pays for is irrelevant.
Because every tax legislation has side effects that encourage or discourage specific behaviors.
Of course. But that's different than admitting that a government wants to play social engineer by managing behaviors so they create a tax for that purpose.
"Something told me to do some crazy artificial thing." That's a red, red flag. If some one is talking like that they have lost their grip on reality.
The reality is, something did tell them to do this. The state. They run advertisements telling me how much fun this is and I should give them as gifts, even. Don't blame the people who see the ads, blame the ones who run the ads.
come 2019 it will go to a subscription model. Pay up or they brick your computer...
I am seven days away from Cisco bricking a gigabit switch I thought I bought but apparently only rented, because I am not going to pay a surprise maintenance fee to keep it working. "That's some nice PoE switch you've got there, t'd be a terrible thing if somethin' happened to it..." After a year of no mention of a maintenance fee, suddenly I get a "pay up or we turn it off" demand, every few days for the last two months.
The maintenance fee is large enough that I can buy 8 Netgear switches that do the same thing. My Netgear switch can fail seven times over the next three years and I'll come out even, and Netgear has never threatened to brick something I bought from them because I won't pay them more.
Proudly windows free for 5 years.
In seven days or less I will be proudly Cisco free.
"Something told me...." this is how gambling addictions start.
Gambling addictions start because some people are susceptible and sources of gambling seek every method of fostering that susceptibility. This is why slot machines make lots of noises when you win. This is why the lights are where they are in casinos, and the music, and the carpet pattern, and everything else about the environment. This is why you don't have to leave the table to get dinner in a poker room, or to get a drink. This is also why you don't get paid every time you play, you get intermittent rewards.
It's why casino buffets are underpriced. Get someone in the door, they may drop a coin in a slot. Make the slot complicated to understand so people will be enticed to figure out how it works -- by spending money in it.
That's why the ads from the casinos telling us that they want us all to be responsible and play within our limits and give us a number to call for help if we can't is just fluff and PR. They're doing everything they can to create a problem and then telling us they don't want us to have that problem after all.
Pretty much all lottery have an user agreement that if there is an error, they are not forced to honour anything whatsoever.
This "agreement" appears on the back of the ticket, which you don't get to read until after you have bought the ticket.
Kind of like the shrink-wrap EULAs we all believe are perfectly reasonable and legally enforceable and entirely tilted to the benefit of the seller or manufacturer.
The state has no legal or moral obligation to pay,
The state made an offer, the customer accepted, goods were paid for, money exchanged hands. At the point it came time for the state to fulfill its offer, it said "no". I think there is a moral, if not legal, obligation created by that contract.
As to the justification for not paying winners because "paying out these wins takes money from schools or roads" or whatever exactly it was, I'll just point out that that excuse would justify never paying a winning ticket because every winning ticket takes money away from schools and roads. That's using the modern "taking away" definition that assumes that the money belongs to the schools or roads to begin with and it's just polite for the government to let the citizens have a bit of it back.
Also, the English language is defined by common usage
No, I'm sorry, but a bunch of ignorant people using the wrong word doesn't suddenly make it right. It only makes confusion. Why have a language if none of the words have a truly correct meaning?
and the singular they has been in common usage for 500+ years.
I haven't been alive that long, but I remember when "they" became the "socially correct" replacement for "he" in the late 70's or early 80's. That's hardly 500+ years. (Doest thee protest, thy anger is great!) Now even that abuse is not enough, we're getting "zee" and "zey" thrown into the mix. Apparently "they" doesn't mean what you think, since "they" just wasn't unsexist enough.
We need a system where there are repercussions for our voice being heard or not.
You make the common mistake of thinking because your preferred candidate lost that your voice was not heard. Your preferred candidate was obviously the better choice, so if he did not win then there is obviously something wrong with the process. It could not possibly be that enough other people disagreed with you so that their preference won.
Some devices will refuse to play the resulting video if they detect a watermark and the video doesn't come from a reliable source.
The player is playing a reliable source. The video camera is recording what it sees, and when the filmmaker uses that video in his product, it will be a "reliable source" and play just as well.
Filmmakers are being dishonest about their reasons for this. They don't need a law allowing them to rip a DVD to get video for use in their products, they just ask the copyright holder for approval and then it's ok. And in the short term, if they need to have something playing on a TV in a scene they're filming, they just play it on a TV in the scene they're filming. No ripping required.
Singular 'they' has been used for centuries and is perfectly correct.
There is no singular "they", but there is a genderless, singular "he". The fact that some people choose to abuse the language by using the wrong pronoun doesn't mean it is suddenly the best choice for clear language.
'Their' was already correct and didnâ(TM)t need fixing.
"Their" is plural. Unless every computer is owned by two or more people, "his" is the correct pronoun. "Their" is the half-assed attempt at political correctness, or is it "social correctness", that results from ignorance of one meaning of "his" as "gender unknown third person pronoun". Can't say "his" because ignorant people will attack you for being sexist, "hers" is completely incorrect, so let's use the incorrect "their" and show how socially correct but illiterate we are.
I'm really not looking forward to having to reset all my manual settings.
I installed a new win 10 machine, disabled the windows update service, unpinned all of the useless ugly abusive crap from my start page, installed iTunes to auto-download my podcasts (the main reason for this system in the first place now that my XP system won't download most of them.) Also installed Calibre for regular newspaper downloads. Left the VNC client connected (the system is headless.)
A week later I noticed the pods had not updated for a couple of days. The VNC client complained the network connection had broken. I fire it back up and bingo! The new system was sitting at a "Welcome to the Fall Update" page and had not bothered to start the programs I had configured it to. It had reset the sharing so I could no longer access the pods remotely, and put everything back on the start page, including a bunch of new, useless crap. (Not just useless, but actively running and phoning home as active content on my start page, without my permission and despite being removed once.) Also Edge was back on the taskbar, plus some crap about "people" wanting to access my contacts so MS can find out who I know.
Once I thanked Microsoft profusely for abusing my system and giving me a lot of new crap, the two things I wanted to run started up. And I once again disabled the update service, removed everything from the start page, removed Edge, but was only able to "remove from taskbar" the nosey "people" thing.
I'm supposed to be able to downgrade a 10 system to 7, but of course without an OS disk and key I cannot. Daily I pray that NK tests it's next nuclear missile on the east side of Seattle. Sorry all the people I like in Seattle, you chose to live close to ground zero.
Slashdot Mirror
Disable People on the taskbar?
I already did that, dumbass. Taking it off the taskbar is not the same as disabling it altogether, just as taking Edge off the taskbar does not remove it from the system. I know, it's complicated, isn't it?
Woosh... you utterly missed the point... but lets play along for a minute and ignore the fact I said "Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic".
Yes, because the rules don't cover cable TV. Cable TV is not "internet traffic". It is irrelevant that there may be a cap on Internet traffic but no cap on how much cable TV you watch. That's the point. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Let me say that again. While NN supporters were pushing against things like 'fast lanes', NN created, in the case of Comcast 3 distinct lanes on their network:
No. Cable TV is NOT A "LANE" ON THE NETWORK. It is a different service using a different protocol, it just happens to come on the same wire.
But that's ok, it's a 'private' network, you seem to be suggesting.
NO. I didn't say that. It isn't the internet. Cable TV is cable TV. It uses a different technology.
Isn't one of the aims of NN not only to prevent an ISP from deliberately slowing down XYZ's traffic because ZYX paid them..
Explain exactly how you think that watching cable TV slows down anyone's internet. Go ahead. I'll wait.
When you opt to watch some VOD program... the DOCSIS part of the box kicks in. Lets imagine you and your neighbor sit down to watch the same VOD program at the same time in different houses, there is a doubling of cost upon the network. Don't believe me?
No, I don't believe you. First of all, the "DOCSIS" doesn't "kick in". onDemand is carried ON THE TV SERVICE. I have seen this first hand, before Comcast started encrypting the onDemand service. It was fun, getting the clearQAM tuner to rescan the cable looking for undocumented channels and then tuning in to watch along. I've seen people actually rewind the video a dozen times to watch the racy bits. That's how I know it's not just an itinerant feed of something.
So no, when your neighbor plays the same thing you are watching onDemand, the "cost" to the network does not double. It has a miniscule fractional increase using an unused TV channel. That has NO effect on your internet. None at all.
Your streaming it via X1 does not count against your cap... while you streaming it from a service you also pay for does.
Of course watching onDemand does not count against your cap, because IT IS NOT USING THE INTERNET. Nothing you watch on cable TV counts against your internet cap BECAUSE IT ISN'T INTERNET.
Here, maybe a simpler system will make the point. You get DSL on your phone line, ok? Do you think that making a voice call on your voice telephone will count against your DSL internet cap? OF COURSE NOT. Do you get charged long distance for making "DSL" calls to a foreign country? OF COURSE NOT. Two different systems, but they use the same wire. I know, it sounds like magic, but it isn't. One is internet, one is not.
Well, we know they scan the FCC amateur radio database. I got my first AARP mail when I was 25 and got my tech license. It's an old man hobby, they're looking for a target rich environment for almost and already retired folks.
Both platforms need OS-level toggles for camera/mic, similar to the one for location.
Why care if an app tracks your location when Google themselves are constantly doing so? You can turn off "location" at the "OS" level, but that doesn't stop the location service from running all the time.
How would you know if an app is active or not?
Enable and then turn on "developer options". Then "running services." It is fascinating. Accuweather has four continuously running services. The stock "file manager" runs one. The United Airlines app has a "Beacon Service". The Nook app has four. Firefox has a service it runs.
The most egregious are "google", which has upwards of a dozen system services. You can try killing "location manager" and it will almost instantly come back, even if you have location services off. Very curious. Many other apps have "search" or "index" services, which are obviously scanning your device so they can radio back info on what you have installed.
There's no "Exit" feature
But you can kill services and the apps they connect to.
No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.
I recall a plethora of names on the ballot.
If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.
"Your voice" is the voice expressing which candidate you want elected. Whether they do what you want them to do is something else, and is still showing the problem that you think they should do what you want and if they don't they aren't hearing your voice. There are other people involved in the political process, and they have the right to have their voices heard, too. If there are more of them with their opinion than you and those who agree with you, it isn't "my voice isn't heard", it's "their voice was louder".
It's like the toddler who whines "you aren't listening to me", to which the parent responds "we heard you, but you still aren't getting ice cream for breakfast." The parent listened and was unconvinced. The election process listened but was unconvinced by your vote.
In your example, a player that knows to look for Cinavia (or some other hypothetical watermark) would detect the watermark, the lack of key accompanying it, and interfere with playback.
Uhhh, I've got a Blu-ray of some video I want to include in my film. It's a legal Blu-ray, bought from a store and viewable using any Blu-ray player. There is no missing watermark or key. It plays fine.
I point my camera at the scene with the TV playing the Blu-ray video. It records the entire scene. I create a film including this scene. It may or may not be published in Blu-ray, but if it is, there will be a watermark and key for my film, and it, too, will play on any Blu-ray system.
So how does this "watermark" "authorization" stop me from doing this, and force me to rip any Blu-rays? Why do I need it to be legal to rip a Blu-ray when I have done what I need without it? And if I get the copyright holder's permission to use this in my film in the first place (which I will just to protect my profits) why can't I rip the Blu-ray anyway? It's with his permission.
In your example, I would expect most players to play back the format-shifted movie just fine,
What "format-shifted movie"? The original disk is not "format-shifted", and my Blu-ray product is not "format-shifted".
although it will look and sound like a bootleg.
"Oh look, Martha, that TV in Obfuscant's movie is playing a bootleg copy of someone's Blu-ray video!" What?
one exits to the public internet, the other remains on a private network.
One is an internet service, one is not. Sorry, but I have Comcast, and their video services are broadcast on the same old channels that the analog TV signals were carried on. I've got ATSC tuners on that cable and they can still pull off the few unencrypted channels there, while showing me the existence all of the encrypted ones. I can't watch them, but I can get the channel and stream numbers and names for them all. My Homerun devices can even tell me the frequencies for the channels.
But in any case, what you've just said means that Comcast does not sum up your bandwidth on their private network that you pay for in one lump on your cable TV bill, but does sum up the bandwidth that goes across the public internet and through their border gateways where it costs them money to expand. I'm not surprised at that, and find little reason to be excited either way. They can't charge or cap your TV service -- they can tell what you are watching through the STB backchannel (but not for a DTA that has none) and the data is there 24/7 whether you watch it or not.
your use of Comcast's services is essentially 'free',
Excuse me? Shall I show you my cable bill and the list of channels I am paying to get, all with a monthly charge? You don't get nothin' from Comcast for free, essentially or not. You pay quite a bit for the availability of certain channels 24/7, and your use of them does not change the signals on the wire in any way.
while you only have a limited capacity for the external providers.
Which exists for all "external providers" irrespective of source. That's net neutral. Yes, you can compare two different delivery systems for two different sources of data, but that's apples and oranges. The "private network" of cable TV is not slowing down the public network of Netflix; there is no prioritization of one over the other. There is no relation between the two.
I'm saying that a political party which would pass tax legislation without carefully considering what kind of behavior it'd encourage and discourage will run the economy into the ground.
I think his point was that much of current taxation is being driven by creating or controlling behaviors, not by legal justifications and then thought of what behaviors it would create. For example, EV tax rebates (or whatever they are called) are created not based on tax concerns, but the desire to socially engineer the use of EVs. The tax on people who didn't buy health insurance wasn't based on a desire to fund some legitimate government service, it was intended to force people to buy health insurance when they didn't want to. Every time increasing cigarette taxes becomes a topic, it isn't a side-effect of a need for more taxes, it's a need to control the behavior and then a "need" for the tax is created to justify it.
Gas taxes, ditto. Our fair state has been threatening to change the gas tax structure to a per-mile/where driven formula requiring a GPS tracker in every vehicle (which they deny can be used to create a database of who is where and when). This is not based on a desire to find funding for road maintenance (because the gas tax is already used for other things), but to convince people to drive different roads or at off-peak times so current congestion is reduced. The state wants to change driver behavior, and this tax is how to do that. What it pays for is irrelevant.
Because every tax legislation has side effects that encourage or discourage specific behaviors.
Of course. But that's different than admitting that a government wants to play social engineer by managing behaviors so they create a tax for that purpose.
"Something told me to do some crazy artificial thing." That's a red, red flag. If some one is talking like that they have lost their grip on reality.
The reality is, something did tell them to do this. The state. They run advertisements telling me how much fun this is and I should give them as gifts, even. Don't blame the people who see the ads, blame the ones who run the ads.
come 2019 it will go to a subscription model. Pay up or they brick your computer...
I am seven days away from Cisco bricking a gigabit switch I thought I bought but apparently only rented, because I am not going to pay a surprise maintenance fee to keep it working. "That's some nice PoE switch you've got there, t'd be a terrible thing if somethin' happened to it..." After a year of no mention of a maintenance fee, suddenly I get a "pay up or we turn it off" demand, every few days for the last two months.
The maintenance fee is large enough that I can buy 8 Netgear switches that do the same thing. My Netgear switch can fail seven times over the next three years and I'll come out even, and Netgear has never threatened to brick something I bought from them because I won't pay them more.
Proudly windows free for 5 years.
In seven days or less I will be proudly Cisco free.
When you cannot prove your point, namecall.
"Something told me...." this is how gambling addictions start.
Gambling addictions start because some people are susceptible and sources of gambling seek every method of fostering that susceptibility. This is why slot machines make lots of noises when you win. This is why the lights are where they are in casinos, and the music, and the carpet pattern, and everything else about the environment. This is why you don't have to leave the table to get dinner in a poker room, or to get a drink. This is also why you don't get paid every time you play, you get intermittent rewards.
It's why casino buffets are underpriced. Get someone in the door, they may drop a coin in a slot. Make the slot complicated to understand so people will be enticed to figure out how it works -- by spending money in it.
That's why the ads from the casinos telling us that they want us all to be responsible and play within our limits and give us a number to call for help if we can't is just fluff and PR. They're doing everything they can to create a problem and then telling us they don't want us to have that problem after all.
Pretty much all lottery have an user agreement that if there is an error, they are not forced to honour anything whatsoever.
This "agreement" appears on the back of the ticket, which you don't get to read until after you have bought the ticket. Kind of like the shrink-wrap EULAs we all believe are perfectly reasonable and legally enforceable and entirely tilted to the benefit of the seller or manufacturer.
The state has no legal or moral obligation to pay,
The state made an offer, the customer accepted, goods were paid for, money exchanged hands. At the point it came time for the state to fulfill its offer, it said "no". I think there is a moral, if not legal, obligation created by that contract.
As to the justification for not paying winners because "paying out these wins takes money from schools or roads" or whatever exactly it was, I'll just point out that that excuse would justify never paying a winning ticket because every winning ticket takes money away from schools and roads. That's using the modern "taking away" definition that assumes that the money belongs to the schools or roads to begin with and it's just polite for the government to let the citizens have a bit of it back.
No problem. I'll have that certificate printed in no time.
Da! Russia print all certificate you want. Nice with bow and wax seal, even.
We advertise service on Facebook. Please like!
Shifting the goalposts now.
Yes, I noticed you did that.
Also, the English language is defined by common usage
No, I'm sorry, but a bunch of ignorant people using the wrong word doesn't suddenly make it right. It only makes confusion. Why have a language if none of the words have a truly correct meaning?
and the singular they has been in common usage for 500+ years.
I haven't been alive that long, but I remember when "they" became the "socially correct" replacement for "he" in the late 70's or early 80's. That's hardly 500+ years. (Doest thee protest, thy anger is great!) Now even that abuse is not enough, we're getting "zee" and "zey" thrown into the mix. Apparently "they" doesn't mean what you think, since "they" just wasn't unsexist enough.
We need a system where there are repercussions for our voice being heard or not.
You make the common mistake of thinking because your preferred candidate lost that your voice was not heard. Your preferred candidate was obviously the better choice, so if he did not win then there is obviously something wrong with the process. It could not possibly be that enough other people disagreed with you so that their preference won.
Since "they" has the plural meaning, "he" is still the correct, clearer choice. No, I don't, and did not here.
Some devices will refuse to play the resulting video if they detect a watermark and the video doesn't come from a reliable source.
The player is playing a reliable source. The video camera is recording what it sees, and when the filmmaker uses that video in his product, it will be a "reliable source" and play just as well.
Filmmakers are being dishonest about their reasons for this. They don't need a law allowing them to rip a DVD to get video for use in their products, they just ask the copyright holder for approval and then it's ok. And in the short term, if they need to have something playing on a TV in a scene they're filming, they just play it on a TV in the scene they're filming. No ripping required.
Documenting common usage is not documenting correct usage.
Singular 'they' has been used for centuries and is perfectly correct.
There is no singular "they", but there is a genderless, singular "he". The fact that some people choose to abuse the language by using the wrong pronoun doesn't mean it is suddenly the best choice for clear language.
'Their' was already correct and didnâ(TM)t need fixing.
"Their" is plural. Unless every computer is owned by two or more people, "his" is the correct pronoun. "Their" is the half-assed attempt at political correctness, or is it "social correctness", that results from ignorance of one meaning of "his" as "gender unknown third person pronoun". Can't say "his" because ignorant people will attack you for being sexist, "hers" is completely incorrect, so let's use the incorrect "their" and show how socially correct but illiterate we are.
Just disable Windows Update service.
Been there, done that, got the Fall Update shoved down my throat anyway.
I'm really not looking forward to having to reset all my manual settings.
I installed a new win 10 machine, disabled the windows update service, unpinned all of the useless ugly abusive crap from my start page, installed iTunes to auto-download my podcasts (the main reason for this system in the first place now that my XP system won't download most of them.) Also installed Calibre for regular newspaper downloads. Left the VNC client connected (the system is headless.)
A week later I noticed the pods had not updated for a couple of days. The VNC client complained the network connection had broken. I fire it back up and bingo! The new system was sitting at a "Welcome to the Fall Update" page and had not bothered to start the programs I had configured it to. It had reset the sharing so I could no longer access the pods remotely, and put everything back on the start page, including a bunch of new, useless crap. (Not just useless, but actively running and phoning home as active content on my start page, without my permission and despite being removed once.) Also Edge was back on the taskbar, plus some crap about "people" wanting to access my contacts so MS can find out who I know.
Once I thanked Microsoft profusely for abusing my system and giving me a lot of new crap, the two things I wanted to run started up. And I once again disabled the update service, removed everything from the start page, removed Edge, but was only able to "remove from taskbar" the nosey "people" thing.
I'm supposed to be able to downgrade a 10 system to 7, but of course without an OS disk and key I cannot. Daily I pray that NK tests it's next nuclear missile on the east side of Seattle. Sorry all the people I like in Seattle, you chose to live close to ground zero.