I have an idea which country he is referring to, but it is NOT Germany.
But it is a common misconception (even in Germany) that you are required to carry your ID card with you. You are required to own either a passport or ID as these are the only official proofs of identity. And when required to proof your identity (what cops worldwide could require you to do) , it is the most convenient way to do. Driving licences usually will do, too, and I've seen police accepting bus month passes, but that's up to the officer.
Please check at least wikipedia before proliferating urban legends.
Basically, it replaces the netbook, sitting squarely between a tablet and a full size laptop in terms of intended functionality.
Not so much replace, but for the first time delivers what those netbooks promised.
To weak to run any local software, but still carrying the dead weight of a WinXP and with a screen too small to be of any use.
While the netbooks were simply too weak to run anything besides a browser, chromebooks are optimized to run nothing but a browser. Slight, but noteable difference.
So, the "pro" version of Chromebook should behave like a normal BIOS or EFI x86 PC. It should allow for booting via USB, and the installation of whatever I want to put on the damn machine.
But then, what would be the difference between a Chromebook and a regular PC Laptop be?
A powerfull Chromebook "Pro" would be the opposite of the whole Chromebook concept that is build around small, cheap, easily replaceable machines that are basically restricted to run a browser.
So if you want to do anything "professional", put it into the backend as that's where the chromebook horsepower should reside.
e.g. upgrade Google Docs to something that doesn't make you miss a local office anymore. I'm sure that running MS Office will be named more than once when asked what a "pro" laptop should be able to do., but then you have plain old local OS/software instead of the Chromebook-concept.
it's not the point of a court to make someone agree with them. Of course it's their rulings that are binding for everyone, but accepting a ruling and agreeing with it are two different things.
On the other hand I absolutely see that both sides in this case had valid points and that awarding damages above the actual damage is in line with your concept of "punitive damages"
There is reason to expect that the judge will see receiving up to date software for free (and overall "better service" due to faster availability of patches) as more beneficial and less amoral as being shot in the face and may want to hear some better explanation why such a clause should be thrown out.
Yes, but after all - that's their own decision. If your business relies on using a computer, it's your job to prepare for sudden failures.
While of cause you can sue MS for the damage they did, you can't claim as a "damage" costs that could have been avoided by common and sensible security precautions.
But you can be made to agree that your PC has to be kept up to date automatically, if only to allow for fast distribution of security fixes that only need to be developed and tested for one version.
That would reduce the number that could drag MS to court to those whose PC has actually been fucked up by the update/upgrade instead of now having to deal with everyone with "I never heard of an update!"
There's a huge difference between a security update to keep people safe on their supported copy of Windows, and forcing an upgrade from one still-supported operating system to an entirely different supported operating system.
While true, it might be bit short-sighted. Reducing version fragmentation in your user base is an important step to effectively develop and roll out the actual security patches. Just look at the situation on Android: Userbase is fragmented into lots of vendor and model specific versions, all in various states of not being supported anymore. And there is also a reason why browsers in general moved to automated and even silent updates: The actual security fixes roll out much much faster when you only have to develop and test for one version.
While I completly understand that woman and I think she she is completely right being pissed, the problem is that the whole point of automatic updates is to keep those users up to date who otherwise would go "I had never heard of security updates and no one ever asked my if I want those updates". And it's those people who would sue if updates would not happen automatically and they are hacked due to not using the latest patches. Then, all of a sudden, it's "Microsoft should have done this automatically. They have proven that they can do it before" again.
Could someone wrap up in a few words how you could scam money from people who want to SELL something?
From buyers, yes. You could simply ask for advance payment and refuse to deliver.
Or is this the old "I'll overpay you $500 when I'm paying for the bike and you give $400 to my old friend Vladimirostowzitschzky, but have to do that before you see any money from my side"? Do people still fall for that?
As another advanced reading about how successfull scamming works, I'd suggest the Most von Lipwick books in the Discworld series.
There are emergency codes you print out and keep in a safe place in case you lose your phone. Or you can keep one of the fido tokens before as a spare, in case you lost your phone.
And two-factor runs completely without text messages if you use an app to generate the otp. It's a standard algorithm and it can work completely offline.
For example, if you type "headache on one side," Google will offer up a list of associated conditions like "migraine," "common cold" or "tension headache."
But people will still be picking the "brain tumor" of that list of possible conditions.
Two Statements: Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships. Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Assuming we are talking about the same "ship owners", one of these two statements isn't true.
Uhm... no. That's not a logic conclusion, but the logical fallacy of Affirming a disjunct
Of course it would show a lack of common sense if they continue to buy bigger ships, even after finding out that smaller ships might be better in a long term perspective, but the two statements are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's very common to favor short-term-good (but long-term bad) options over long-term good options. A reason for this might be having to deal with predatory pricing.
But does that have any effect on the licence fees payable by spotify? One would think they have to pay the same but just need another source to earn that money (read: advertising)?
...widening his criticism to other rivals like Spotify in the process.
And Apple Music is different from other streaming services exactly how?
I see the point for youtube as everyone and his dog upload stuff there without giving any thought to copyrights and/or compensation (at least ContentID and monetizing has been added as an afterthought) but streaming services in general?
It is the Voice of America news service and because it is a tiny government funded news service it really tries to provide a balance coverage without any spin. The reason is that it does not have to find sponsors and it is so tiny no one in the government bothers with it. Before you dismiss it just take a look at.
Which is somehow ironic considering what VOA has been founded to be....
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if it was a visa, it would grant you access to the country, which the ESTA form explicitly does not.
I have an idea which country he is referring to, but it is NOT Germany.
But it is a common misconception (even in Germany) that you are required to carry your ID card with you. You are required to own either a passport or ID as these are the only official proofs of identity. And when required to proof your identity (what cops worldwide could require you to do) , it is the most convenient way to do. Driving licences usually will do, too, and I've seen police accepting bus month passes, but that's up to the officer.
Please check at least wikipedia before proliferating urban legends.
Basically, it replaces the netbook, sitting squarely between a tablet and a full size laptop in terms of intended functionality.
Not so much replace, but for the first time delivers what those netbooks promised.
To weak to run any local software, but still carrying the dead weight of a WinXP and with a screen too small to be of any use.
While the netbooks were simply too weak to run anything besides a browser, chromebooks are optimized to run nothing but a browser. Slight, but noteable difference.
So, the "pro" version of Chromebook should behave like a normal BIOS or EFI x86 PC. It should allow for booting via USB, and the installation of whatever I want to put on the damn machine.
But then, what would be the difference between a Chromebook and a regular PC Laptop be?
A powerfull Chromebook "Pro" would be the opposite of the whole Chromebook concept that is build around small, cheap, easily replaceable machines that are basically restricted to run a browser.
So if you want to do anything "professional", put it into the backend as that's where the chromebook horsepower should reside.
e.g. upgrade Google Docs to something that doesn't make you miss a local office anymore. I'm sure that running MS Office will be named more than once when asked what a "pro" laptop should be able to do., but then you have plain old local OS/software instead of the Chromebook-concept.
So what?
it's not the point of a court to make someone agree with them. Of course it's their rulings that are binding for everyone, but accepting a ruling and agreeing with it are two different things.
On the other hand I absolutely see that both sides in this case had valid points and that awarding damages above the actual damage is in line with your concept of "punitive damages"
That's comparing apples to potatoes.
There is reason to expect that the judge will see receiving up to date software for free (and overall "better service" due to faster availability of patches) as more beneficial and less amoral as being shot in the face and may want to hear some better explanation why such a clause should be thrown out.
Yes, but after all - that's their own decision. If your business relies on using a computer, it's your job to prepare for sudden failures.
While of cause you can sue MS for the damage they did, you can't claim as a "damage" costs that could have been avoided by common and sensible security precautions.
"performs worse" might have to be accepted if that is a side effect of tightened security. But "not working at all" would be reason for actual damage.
But you can be made to agree that your PC has to be kept up to date automatically, if only to allow for fast distribution of security fixes that only need to be developed and tested for one version.
That would reduce the number that could drag MS to court to those whose PC has actually been fucked up by the update/upgrade instead of now having to deal with everyone with "I never heard of an update!"
With this kind of logic, no damage above popping in last nights backup and hit the restore button should ever be awarded.
There's a huge difference between a security update to keep people safe on their supported copy of Windows, and forcing an upgrade from one still-supported operating system to an entirely different supported operating system.
While true, it might be bit short-sighted. Reducing version fragmentation in your user base is an important step to effectively develop and roll out the actual security patches. Just look at the situation on Android: Userbase is fragmented into lots of vendor and model specific versions, all in various states of not being supported anymore. And there is also a reason why browsers in general moved to automated and even silent updates: The actual security fixes roll out much much faster when you only have to develop and test for one version.
Automatic updates and upgrades might or might not be part of a previous EULA.
While I completly understand that woman and I think she she is completely right being pissed, the problem is that the whole point of automatic updates is to keep those users up to date who otherwise would go "I had never heard of security updates and no one ever asked my if I want those updates". And it's those people who would sue if updates would not happen automatically and they are hacked due to not using the latest patches. Then, all of a sudden, it's "Microsoft should have done this automatically. They have proven that they can do it before" again.
so basically that whole thing only happens because people are still using cheques?
I only had to write one in my life and that was the first and the last one. over 20 years ago!!
Sorry. That's what you get from reading those books in more than one language....
Could someone wrap up in a few words how you could scam money from people who want to SELL something?
From buyers, yes. You could simply ask for advance payment and refuse to deliver.
Or is this the old "I'll overpay you $500 when I'm paying for the bike and you give $400 to my old friend Vladimirostowzitschzky, but have to do that before you see any money from my side"? Do people still fall for that?
As another advanced reading about how successfull scamming works, I'd suggest the Most von Lipwick books in the Discworld series.
There are emergency codes you print out and keep in a safe place in case you lose your phone. Or you can keep one of the fido tokens before as a spare, in case you lost your phone.
And two-factor runs completely without text messages if you use an app to generate the otp. It's a standard algorithm and it can work completely offline.
Two words: Password recovery.
Google forums are full of "clever" people who went from
And why on God's green earth would I want to give Google my telephone number?
to "why can't Google just text me a new password to my cell" without any transition....
For example, if you type "headache on one side," Google will offer up a list of associated conditions like "migraine," "common cold" or "tension headache."
But people will still be picking the "brain tumor" of that list of possible conditions.
Two Statements:
Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships.
Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Assuming we are talking about the same "ship owners", one of these two statements isn't true.
Uhm... no. That's not a logic conclusion, but the logical fallacy of Affirming a disjunct
Of course it would show a lack of common sense if they continue to buy bigger ships, even after finding out that smaller ships might be better in a long term perspective, but the two statements are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's very common to favor short-term-good (but long-term bad) options over long-term good options. A reason for this might be having to deal with predatory pricing.
Oh, hi Mervin!
Nice to see you here. How are things in your new job?
Ok. Understand that.
But does that have any effect on the licence fees payable by spotify? One would think they have to pay the same but just need another source to earn that money (read: advertising)?
...widening his criticism to other rivals like Spotify in the process.
And Apple Music is different from other streaming services exactly how?
I see the point for youtube as everyone and his dog upload stuff there without giving any thought to copyrights and/or compensation (at least ContentID and monetizing has been added as an afterthought) but streaming services in general?
It is the Voice of America news service and because it is a tiny government funded news service it really tries to provide a balance coverage without any spin. The reason is that it does not have to find sponsors and it is so tiny no one in the government bothers with it.
Before you dismiss it just take a look at.
Which is somehow ironic considering what VOA has been founded to be....