Windows is so successful that Microsoft doesn't need to lock out the competitors. You really think Microsoft fears Linux with its 2% of the desktop market share? Not worth the loss in revenue.
There used to be Linux netbooks. Then Microsoft started offering Windows for free or very low cost to netbook manufacturers. You really think Microsoft feared Linux with its miniscule mobile PC market share?
Ah yes, lets ignore the fact that rootkits have become a problem and Microsoft wants to secure computers running Windows. No, it is obviously a plan to destroy competing operating systems like Linux.
You're right. Microsoft would never set out to lock down the PC platform so it could only run Windows. Why the very idea!
The game / app you want and secure boot can't be turned off on your dell?
You bend over and pay $1000 for a motherboard with a switch that lets you turn it off. This whole thing is about destroying the open PC architecture and replacing it with vendor lock-in so they can rake in the cash.
You must not have been paying much attention, but UEFI capable motherboards have been shipping for some time now. I don't hear anyone whining about not being able to run linux on them.
Duh. That's because they don't currently require 'Windows boot' to get a Windows 8 logo on the box.
As I look into my crystal skull through the mists of time I see Microsoft release a white paper saying that OEMs will get $10 off the cost of Windows if they don't allow users to turn off 'Windows boot'?
Seriously, I know what temperature I want the house, and the 'smart' thermostat can only guess. Given that we start and leave work at various different and largely random times during the week it has no chance in hell of getting its guesses right except by luck.
Why does everyone think we want to deal with hardware that does seemingly random things based on its conception of what I want it to do, rather than doing what I want it to do? This is even more of an abomination than Google's 'smart' searches which routinely give me everything it can find other than the words I actually asked it to search for.
Interestingly, I was watching an old movie from the 60s a few days ago where the crook convinces the bank staff that he's from their insurance company and come to the bank to check their security, then robs it.
Similar ideas seem to have been around for a long time.
Go read up on the problems British Airways has with the Unite union:)
From what I've read BA and Unite seemed able to reach agreements fairly easily, but the BA cabin crew union that's a part of Unite kept voting not to accept it. The end result is that their final agreement seemed to be significantly worse than the terms they were being offered before the strike.
Have you shopped for an airline ticket recently? I don't think price can be nailed down very easily either...
Indeed. Last time I flew the ticket was around $400 and then there was about a $600 'fuel surcharge'. It's as though I'm supposed to believe I can fly across the Atlantic and back without using any fuel.
Then, of course, there was the $25 for an overweight bag, the $50 for a second bag, etc, etc, etc.
So prices are very difficult to determine without going through the full booking process and checking the small print.
Exchange rates aren't always a good indicator of strength. For example, the Latvian lat is stronger than the euro, but Latvia's economy is in the doldrums.
Most Eurozone countries wish their economy was only in the doldrums.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument.
Meanwhile, in the real world, groups who can't get their preferred law passed compromise on a lesser version instead, knowing that it will soon slide down the slope far beyond their wildest dreams. Laws which don't follow the slippery slope are the rare exceptions, not the rule.
Don't forget, companies aren't there to look out for our rights. They're there to ensure that the laws are written in such a way that they favor them and help to ensure that the current big players continue to be the only players.
The funny part is that so many slashdot posters demand more laws to PUNISH THE EVIL CORPORATIONS and the corporations get to rewrite those laws to punish anyone new who tries to take over their market. If big government apologists didn't exist, big business would have to create them.
Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor.
No, that just results in everyone being poor, except for those who get to choose how to hand out the money. See the Soviet Union or any other communist nation, for example; the commie fat-cats get their Zil limos while the majority have to wait fifteen years to be allowed to buy a Trabant.
And then one would grow large enough to buy the others, and you'd be left with one or two behemoths controlling it all, doing what they can to maximize profits, and crushing or buying up start-ups.
Uh, no. That's what happens when you have regulations that prevent new competitors from entering a market by creating artificial barriers for new companies.
Big companies love regulation for that very reason; they can easily comply whereas small competitors can't. But useful idiots keep demanding that big goverment regulate big business and the big business keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
Is this implying there is a more powerful nuclear weapon or is this speaking in the tense that they have been disabled and no longer exist?
Western nukes have been shrinking for years; there just isn't much use for a really big nuke other than destroying cities. A small one with precision guidance is much more useful if you actually intend to fight a nuclear war.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows is so successful that Microsoft doesn't need to lock out the competitors. You really think Microsoft fears Linux with its 2% of the desktop market share? Not worth the loss in revenue.
There used to be Linux netbooks. Then Microsoft started offering Windows for free or very low cost to netbook manufacturers. You really think Microsoft feared Linux with its miniscule mobile PC market share?
Ah yes, lets ignore the fact that rootkits have become a problem and Microsoft wants to secure computers running Windows. No, it is obviously a plan to destroy competing operating systems like Linux.
You're right. Microsoft would never set out to lock down the PC platform so it could only run Windows. Why the very idea!
The game / app you want and secure boot can't be turned off on your dell?
You bend over and pay $1000 for a motherboard with a switch that lets you turn it off. This whole thing is about destroying the open PC architecture and replacing it with vendor lock-in so they can rake in the cash.
You must not have been paying much attention, but UEFI capable motherboards have been shipping for some time now. I don't hear anyone whining about not being able to run linux on them.
Duh. That's because they don't currently require 'Windows boot' to get a Windows 8 logo on the box.
Note that I didn't say anything about Linux in my post.
Every non-tech user I know who wants a PC that 'just works' bought a Mac.
The PC as appliance that just works is really is what "most" PC owners want.
So why do they run Windows?
As I look into my crystal skull through the mists of time I see Microsoft release a white paper saying that OEMs will get $10 off the cost of Windows if they don't allow users to turn off 'Windows boot'?
Seriously, I know what temperature I want the house, and the 'smart' thermostat can only guess. Given that we start and leave work at various different and largely random times during the week it has no chance in hell of getting its guesses right except by luck.
Why does everyone think we want to deal with hardware that does seemingly random things based on its conception of what I want it to do, rather than doing what I want it to do? This is even more of an abomination than Google's 'smart' searches which routinely give me everything it can find other than the words I actually asked it to search for.
I have heard that in Randomo shops they create variable names by closing their eyes and pulling tiles from a Scrabble set.
We stopped doing that after we realised that the variable names were spelling out messages from dead serial killers.
Interestingly, I was watching an old movie from the 60s a few days ago where the crook convinces the bank staff that he's from their insurance company and come to the bank to check their security, then robs it.
Similar ideas seem to have been around for a long time.
Go read up on the problems British Airways has with the Unite union :)
From what I've read BA and Unite seemed able to reach agreements fairly easily, but the BA cabin crew union that's a part of Unite kept voting not to accept it. The end result is that their final agreement seemed to be significantly worse than the terms they were being offered before the strike.
Have you shopped for an airline ticket recently? I don't think price can be nailed down very easily either...
Indeed. Last time I flew the ticket was around $400 and then there was about a $600 'fuel surcharge'. It's as though I'm supposed to believe I can fly across the Atlantic and back without using any fuel.
Then, of course, there was the $25 for an overweight bag, the $50 for a second bag, etc, etc, etc.
So prices are very difficult to determine without going through the full booking process and checking the small print.
What's the point of a 'debt ceiling' if you just raise it every time you reach it?
Don't you think that a 'debt ceiling' is supposed to, you know, stop the government from going further into debt?
Exchange rates aren't always a good indicator of strength. For example, the Latvian lat is stronger than the euro, but Latvia's economy is in the doldrums.
Most Eurozone countries wish their economy was only in the doldrums.
Because other OEMs are giving their all on android, fierce competition. Nokia will be the only one doing so on Windows Phone.
Probably because no-one in their right mind wants to run Windows on their phone.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument.
Meanwhile, in the real world, groups who can't get their preferred law passed compromise on a lesser version instead, knowing that it will soon slide down the slope far beyond their wildest dreams. Laws which don't follow the slippery slope are the rare exceptions, not the rule.
Don't forget, companies aren't there to look out for our rights. They're there to ensure that the laws are written in such a way that they favor them and help to ensure that the current big players continue to be the only players.
The funny part is that so many slashdot posters demand more laws to PUNISH THE EVIL CORPORATIONS and the corporations get to rewrite those laws to punish anyone new who tries to take over their market. If big government apologists didn't exist, big business would have to create them.
Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor.
No, that just results in everyone being poor, except for those who get to choose how to hand out the money. See the Soviet Union or any other communist nation, for example; the commie fat-cats get their Zil limos while the majority have to wait fifteen years to be allowed to buy a Trabant.
And then one would grow large enough to buy the others, and you'd be left with one or two behemoths controlling it all, doing what they can to maximize profits, and crushing or buying up start-ups.
Uh, no. That's what happens when you have regulations that prevent new competitors from entering a market by creating artificial barriers for new companies.
Big companies love regulation for that very reason; they can easily comply whereas small competitors can't. But useful idiots keep demanding that big goverment regulate big business and the big business keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
If those robot's can't repair themselves, no one will repair them.
And if they can repair themselves, they're probably too smart to slave away for humans who don't do anything useful.
That's a great idea. A "salary" to each person will ensure that no one consumes far more than their fair share.
Except for the 'important' people who will either be paid far more or given access to government property and facilities for their own use.
AS outsourcing is cheaper than building the robot.
Yet Chinese factory owners have been saying that they're replacing humans with robots because the human workers cost too much.
Your thirst for blood is powerful, young Teabagger.
Sounds more like Hilary Clinton to me.
Is this implying there is a more powerful nuclear weapon or is this speaking in the tense that they have been disabled and no longer exist?
Western nukes have been shrinking for years; there just isn't much use for a really big nuke other than destroying cities. A small one with precision guidance is much more useful if you actually intend to fight a nuclear war.
While the logical part of me is glad this is gone, the engineering part of my brain is sad. :)
They should have detonated them and charged for tickets; there's lots of space for grandstands at the Nevada Test Site.