The world is turning against the US and our militaristic ways. Of course Russia is acting in their interest in their own neighborhood. Maybe you want them bombing Mexico and Canada like we are bombing Russia's neighbors? If the US keeps on its current militaristic trajectory with the blessings of people like you, we are headed for much more war. Peace is an option as long as countries don't act as aggressively as the US is acting now.
Peace will only be possible when people like Jeremy Corbin are elected to office in more countries. As long as people who are like minded with you are in charge, wars will only escalate. But then again, war is great for business, eh?
No, it's much better to have belligerent warmongers running the government. Please point me to some of these scientific-technological elites that you fear. I've never heard or seen any. Most biomedical research scientists are peace loving liberals.
President Eisenhower’s fear was that the alliance between government and academia could eventually corrupt both parties: academics risked losing their intellectual freedom and creativity in their quest for government jobs and money, while university-affiliated technocrats might so dominate the policymaking process that the ordinary citizen would feel pushed to the margins. That doesn't sound as serious as the warning that war would become a permanent state of affairs with the military and industry controlling the government.
They could have done the extra security without the user unfriendly forced updates and ads and tracking. When Windows 7 users are forced to shut off auto updates, that makes computers less secure, not more secure. I will never switch from an OS I own (Windows 7 ultimate) to one that is an ad driven service. You are welcome to.
As long as the world is run by people who are like minded as you, then there will never be peace. The idea that China wants to take over the world is absurd. The US is the only country that acts that way. You think our interests are global. How did you come to that conclusion? By your reasoning, all countries should have global interests that they defend, and should be bombing the crap out of the world like we are.
As long as the world is run by people who agree with you, there will never be peace. If you have children, they will live in a more dangerous world because of our belligerence throughout the world. Maybe they will think differently than you.
I was talking about Google's search engine, not the Chrome OS. Look, if you like the idea of an OS as a service with ads and tracking, great, but I don't. Lot's of people don't.
Please tell us why the NIH should not exist. I would love to hear the rational. Were corporations in the Constitution? No? Then they should not exist at all. You just said it. The US military is not in the Constitution. There was supposed to be no standing army because of the dangers it would lead to unnecessary wars. So the US military should not exist at all. You just said it. I could go on with a much longer list, but it is obvious you didn't think your response through very well.
Who are we going to fight with these "new technologies"? Third world countries with no armies, ones that did not even attack us in the first place? This is a solution looking hard for a problem, any problem, anywhere. It will never be used except to test on some poor bastards in some third world country we labeled as terrorists.
I love new technology that is good for people, I really don't like new technology for killing people, so we differ in that respect.
Yeah, how much of that health care cost is profit for insurance companies? Hmm? And you keep changing the subject with talk about total health care costs. I was talking about saving lives with medical research at the NIH, as opposed to making wasteful, unused weapons systems as military showpieces.
I agree, but that doesn't make it acceptable. While the Greens may never win in the US, Bernie Sanders has a chance, and that would be a very different direction than Bush, Obama or Hillary.
Dwight Eisenhower warned that the military would endless chew up resources that could be better spent in the US for schools, hospitals, medical care, education, infrastructure, etc. Someday the US will switch from a guns to butter economy, but the question is how much money will we squander before we finally decide to do what is right for the American public?
The government got a ship for 4.4 billion and we are supposed to be glad? It will never be used. It is a showpiece. It is a boondoggle. War is a racket.
Medicare fraud has nothing to do with the NIH, and you know it.
NIH may be a small part of DHHS, but it is the major source of scientific discovery that has reduced deaths due to human disease and cancer. I for one would rather waste money on that than showpiece ships that are really nothing more than a jobs program for defense contractors.
Yeah, and as long as voters keep voting for warmongers, taxpayer's money is going to be endlessly squandered on weapon systems we will never use. The entire NIH budget is something like $35 billion. Cancer deaths alone in the US are over half a million a year. How many lives are these destroyers going to save?
We are not going to be at war with Russia or China, so please don't try and bring that up as a justification (although I know some of you will nonetheless).
You have to be kidding. MS makes a computer operating system. Google is running a search engine. MS has a huge existing user base of desktop computer users. How is it not obvious that there are huge differences? I can't just go to another operating system the way I can go to a different search engine, like Duck-Duck-Go. I would need to wipe my hard drive and start over to go to a different OS.
MS does not need to imitate, it could actually innovate. If it wanted to.
I don't see MS doing this for the sake of users, I see them doing it because they think this will provide greater revenue streams. There is not other explanation for them pushing a change to 10 so aggressively. They need as many eyes on the app store as possible, or it isn't going to pan out.
Your instincts from a year ago were more on target.
Microsoft now has Windows 7 users shutting off auto updates to stop this. They are getting the unintended consequences that any rational person should have seen coming a mile away. This is not going to go well for MS, and it would not surprise me if it ended up in court. They are basically turning the most used OS on the planet into an advertising platform with an app store built in. They were making a ton of money on the paid-for versions like 7, so I don't know why they let the bean counters talk them into switching revenue streams. If bundling IE got them in trouble with courts, there has to be a class action lawsuit in here somewhere, regardless of what is in the EULA.
My old Intel X25-m SSD is 6 years old, and the Intel SSD utility says that it has 99% of its life remaining. I have not had a single SSD fail on me yet. My 4 year old Samsung 830 pro also says it has 99% of its lifetime remaining. Those two drives combined have written well over 20 TB of data. Even my Samsung 840 pro which is only 2 years old has written 7.3 TB of data. I have had many platter hard drives fail on me, some within a week or two of purchase. I trust SSDs more for continual use, but my backup drives that sit without power for long periods of time are platter drives.
I think that the relatively low, now almost flat adoption rate for Windows 10 is that people don't like the 2D interface. Plus, it is not as stable as Windows 7 and it has crap stuck on the start menu that you need to fiddle with to get rid of. It also has more "telemetry" built in. None of the so-called improvements are particularly useful (Cortana is a great example). It seems dumbed down so that it will work on mobile devices. I think that is why there is a market for the older version that has more features (Windows 7 Ultimate), which doesn't have all the downsides.
So it says nothing that Windows 10 is free, and people are paying $300 for the old version? And as I recall my copy of Windows 7 Ultimate was something like $239 when new.
The GWX (get windows 10) Control Panel is a great tool. It lets you kill everything associated with the W10 upgrade. You can pick it up at several places including NeoWin.net.
I noticed that Windows 7 Ultimate (basically Windows 7 Enterprise edition for consumers) is selling for $300 over at eBay now. Should tell you something.
Don't leave out the part about lobbying, PAC money and bullying by the insurance companies. It is a major issue at this point. I agree that it is going to have to get even worse before most Americans wake up and realize what has been done to them by corporate control of the government and money in politics. Even the news media are now owned by huge corporations, including defense contractors (e.g., GE), and so the news isn't what it used to be either.
The US is the only highly developed nation without national universal health coverage as a human right. Here in the US it is much more important for insurance companies to be highly profitable than it is to take care of everyone. And as long as voters keep putting the corporate controlled politicians in office, we will continue to get corporate controlled legislation.
Agree completely. I have been over at the MS Windows 10 forums where lots of the "Insiders" debate Windows issues. The attitude from many of the Insiders is incomprehensible. It seems to be that they know best, and they have to repeatedly remind everyone that they "are not stupid" and MS is not stupid, so they obviously have gotten lots of negative feedback to be that defensive.
So MS is going for a free OS, app-store-on-the-start-menu revenue stream, and I just don't think that is going to pull in the kind of money that selling the OS to most businesses and government agencies had done for them. It's a big gamble, and risks losing even more of their vast user base. I just don't see them breaking into the mobile market to any great extent, so the entire push to make a one-size-fits-all-devices OS doesn't seem like a good business decision.
I guess we will find out if they are or are not stupid over the next few years.
PS, I hate the default setting of not showing extensions, and it is the first thing I change when I install Windows on a machine for someone.
I would love to know what made them go for the flat monochrome look. It is hideous. What I was hoping they would do is make themes much more robust (rather than eliminating them). I would love it if they had standard themes for XP, W7 and W8/8.1, all of which could be infinitely customized further. It would be fun to be able to switch to Windows XP theme, and then click on the Windows 7 theme, and have everything just the way it was. Or you could choose the standard W10 theme. So themes would be more than a look, it would also change the way the OS worked to make it like the original in both look and feel. So for XP through 7 you would have the control panel, but for 8 and 10 you would have PC settings. This way everyone is happy.
How do you equate neuroscience with psychology? I love it when folks at/. know what field another commenter is or isn't in by reading their comments. Very strange indeed. Embryos don't have fully formed human brains. They are single cells, or a blastula composed of a small number of cells. I used to make hybridomas for monoclonal antibody production way back in the 1990s, and we froze cell lines away in liquid nitrogen all the time (90% fetal bovine serum, 10% DMSO). That is completely different from freezing a human brain solid and bringing it back without severe pathology. You sir are the one who doesn't sound anything like a "real scientist" as you so oddly put it. And you are showing signs of the Dunning Kruger effect.
The first job of the" managed security services group" at MS needs to be, Windows. Once they get that figured out, they can then offer their services to others. But they seem to be more interested in turning Windows into a targeted advertising platform, so I am not sure that their own product is even on their managed security services group radar.
Slashdot Mirror
The world is turning against the US and our militaristic ways. Of course Russia is acting in their interest in their own neighborhood. Maybe you want them bombing Mexico and Canada like we are bombing Russia's neighbors? If the US keeps on its current militaristic trajectory with the blessings of people like you, we are headed for much more war. Peace is an option as long as countries don't act as aggressively as the US is acting now.
Peace will only be possible when people like Jeremy Corbin are elected to office in more countries. As long as people who are like minded with you are in charge, wars will only escalate. But then again, war is great for business, eh?
OK, so you are with Donald Trump and the people who deny science. Nuf said.
No, it's much better to have belligerent warmongers running the government. Please point me to some of these scientific-technological elites that you fear. I've never heard or seen any. Most biomedical research scientists are peace loving liberals.
President Eisenhower’s fear was that the alliance between government and academia could eventually corrupt both parties: academics risked losing their intellectual freedom and creativity in their quest for government jobs and money, while university-affiliated technocrats might so dominate the policymaking process that the ordinary citizen would feel pushed to the margins. That doesn't sound as serious as the warning that war would become a permanent state of affairs with the military and industry controlling the government.
They could have done the extra security without the user unfriendly forced updates and ads and tracking. When Windows 7 users are forced to shut off auto updates, that makes computers less secure, not more secure. I will never switch from an OS I own (Windows 7 ultimate) to one that is an ad driven service. You are welcome to.
As long as the world is run by people who are like minded as you, then there will never be peace. The idea that China wants to take over the world is absurd. The US is the only country that acts that way. You think our interests are global. How did you come to that conclusion? By your reasoning, all countries should have global interests that they defend, and should be bombing the crap out of the world like we are.
As long as the world is run by people who agree with you, there will never be peace. If you have children, they will live in a more dangerous world because of our belligerence throughout the world. Maybe they will think differently than you.
I was talking about Google's search engine, not the Chrome OS. Look, if you like the idea of an OS as a service with ads and tracking, great, but I don't. Lot's of people don't.
Please tell us why the NIH should not exist. I would love to hear the rational. Were corporations in the Constitution? No? Then they should not exist at all. You just said it. The US military is not in the Constitution. There was supposed to be no standing army because of the dangers it would lead to unnecessary wars. So the US military should not exist at all. You just said it. I could go on with a much longer list, but it is obvious you didn't think your response through very well.
Who are we going to fight with these "new technologies"? Third world countries with no armies, ones that did not even attack us in the first place? This is a solution looking hard for a problem, any problem, anywhere. It will never be used except to test on some poor bastards in some third world country we labeled as terrorists.
I love new technology that is good for people, I really don't like new technology for killing people, so we differ in that respect.
Yeah, how much of that health care cost is profit for insurance companies? Hmm? And you keep changing the subject with talk about total health care costs. I was talking about saving lives with medical research at the NIH, as opposed to making wasteful, unused weapons systems as military showpieces.
I agree, but that doesn't make it acceptable. While the Greens may never win in the US, Bernie Sanders has a chance, and that would be a very different direction than Bush, Obama or Hillary.
Dwight Eisenhower warned that the military would endless chew up resources that could be better spent in the US for schools, hospitals, medical care, education, infrastructure, etc. Someday the US will switch from a guns to butter economy, but the question is how much money will we squander before we finally decide to do what is right for the American public?
The government got a ship for 4.4 billion and we are supposed to be glad? It will never be used. It is a showpiece. It is a boondoggle. War is a racket.
Medicare fraud has nothing to do with the NIH, and you know it.
NIH may be a small part of DHHS, but it is the major source of scientific discovery that has reduced deaths due to human disease and cancer. I for one would rather waste money on that than showpiece ships that are really nothing more than a jobs program for defense contractors.
Yeah, and as long as voters keep voting for warmongers, taxpayer's money is going to be endlessly squandered on weapon systems we will never use. The entire NIH budget is something like $35 billion. Cancer deaths alone in the US are over half a million a year. How many lives are these destroyers going to save?
We are not going to be at war with Russia or China, so please don't try and bring that up as a justification (although I know some of you will nonetheless).
You have to be kidding. MS makes a computer operating system. Google is running a search engine. MS has a huge existing user base of desktop computer users. How is it not obvious that there are huge differences? I can't just go to another operating system the way I can go to a different search engine, like Duck-Duck-Go. I would need to wipe my hard drive and start over to go to a different OS.
MS does not need to imitate, it could actually innovate. If it wanted to.
I don't see MS doing this for the sake of users, I see them doing it because they think this will provide greater revenue streams. There is not other explanation for them pushing a change to 10 so aggressively. They need as many eyes on the app store as possible, or it isn't going to pan out.
Your instincts from a year ago were more on target.
Microsoft now has Windows 7 users shutting off auto updates to stop this. They are getting the unintended consequences that any rational person should have seen coming a mile away. This is not going to go well for MS, and it would not surprise me if it ended up in court. They are basically turning the most used OS on the planet into an advertising platform with an app store built in. They were making a ton of money on the paid-for versions like 7, so I don't know why they let the bean counters talk them into switching revenue streams. If bundling IE got them in trouble with courts, there has to be a class action lawsuit in here somewhere, regardless of what is in the EULA.
My old Intel X25-m SSD is 6 years old, and the Intel SSD utility says that it has 99% of its life remaining. I have not had a single SSD fail on me yet. My 4 year old Samsung 830 pro also says it has 99% of its lifetime remaining. Those two drives combined have written well over 20 TB of data. Even my Samsung 840 pro which is only 2 years old has written 7.3 TB of data. I have had many platter hard drives fail on me, some within a week or two of purchase. I trust SSDs more for continual use, but my backup drives that sit without power for long periods of time are platter drives.
OK, so Windows 10 is free for about 65% or more of the existing user base. That is a lot of people.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-...
I think that the relatively low, now almost flat adoption rate for Windows 10 is that people don't like the 2D interface. Plus, it is not as stable as Windows 7 and it has crap stuck on the start menu that you need to fiddle with to get rid of. It also has more "telemetry" built in. None of the so-called improvements are particularly useful (Cortana is a great example). It seems dumbed down so that it will work on mobile devices. I think that is why there is a market for the older version that has more features (Windows 7 Ultimate), which doesn't have all the downsides.
So it says nothing that Windows 10 is free, and people are paying $300 for the old version? And as I recall my copy of Windows 7 Ultimate was something like $239 when new.
The GWX (get windows 10) Control Panel is a great tool. It lets you kill everything associated with the W10 upgrade. You can pick it up at several places including NeoWin.net.
http://www.neowin.net/news/gwx...
I noticed that Windows 7 Ultimate (basically Windows 7 Enterprise edition for consumers) is selling for $300 over at eBay now. Should tell you something.
Don't leave out the part about lobbying, PAC money and bullying by the insurance companies. It is a major issue at this point. I agree that it is going to have to get even worse before most Americans wake up and realize what has been done to them by corporate control of the government and money in politics. Even the news media are now owned by huge corporations, including defense contractors (e.g., GE), and so the news isn't what it used to be either.
The US is the only highly developed nation without national universal health coverage as a human right. Here in the US it is much more important for insurance companies to be highly profitable than it is to take care of everyone. And as long as voters keep putting the corporate controlled politicians in office, we will continue to get corporate controlled legislation.
Agree completely. I have been over at the MS Windows 10 forums where lots of the "Insiders" debate Windows issues. The attitude from many of the Insiders is incomprehensible. It seems to be that they know best, and they have to repeatedly remind everyone that they "are not stupid" and MS is not stupid, so they obviously have gotten lots of negative feedback to be that defensive.
So MS is going for a free OS, app-store-on-the-start-menu revenue stream, and I just don't think that is going to pull in the kind of money that selling the OS to most businesses and government agencies had done for them. It's a big gamble, and risks losing even more of their vast user base. I just don't see them breaking into the mobile market to any great extent, so the entire push to make a one-size-fits-all-devices OS doesn't seem like a good business decision.
I guess we will find out if they are or are not stupid over the next few years.
PS, I hate the default setting of not showing extensions, and it is the first thing I change when I install Windows on a machine for someone.
I would love to know what made them go for the flat monochrome look. It is hideous. What I was hoping they would do is make themes much more robust (rather than eliminating them). I would love it if they had standard themes for XP, W7 and W8/8.1, all of which could be infinitely customized further. It would be fun to be able to switch to Windows XP theme, and then click on the Windows 7 theme, and have everything just the way it was. Or you could choose the standard W10 theme. So themes would be more than a look, it would also change the way the OS worked to make it like the original in both look and feel. So for XP through 7 you would have the control panel, but for 8 and 10 you would have PC settings. This way everyone is happy.
How do you equate neuroscience with psychology? I love it when folks at /. know what field another commenter is or isn't in by reading their comments. Very strange indeed. Embryos don't have fully formed human brains. They are single cells, or a blastula composed of a small number of cells. I used to make hybridomas for monoclonal antibody production way back in the 1990s, and we froze cell lines away in liquid nitrogen all the time (90% fetal bovine serum, 10% DMSO). That is completely different from freezing a human brain solid and bringing it back without severe pathology. You sir are the one who doesn't sound anything like a "real scientist" as you so oddly put it. And you are showing signs of the Dunning Kruger effect.
The first job of the" managed security services group" at MS needs to be, Windows. Once they get that figured out, they can then offer their services to others. But they seem to be more interested in turning Windows into a targeted advertising platform, so I am not sure that their own product is even on their managed security services group radar.