I don't think you can turn off the telemetry that fires every time you open an application (ex: notepad), which is plenty of envelope information leaking all the time. Windows 10 is compromised by design. This is documented, and the fact that it DID cause a shit-storm and you ignored it should be a serious wake up call.
It's not pirated unless DPRK has extended copyright protection to those companies. I'm pretty sure they haven't, so there is no crime or violation whatsoever.
I'm curious about how you would block something like this, in the general case.
I'm not suggesting anyone use a phone that might explode instead of handing it in for a refund. But in the broad case, what are the defenses that you have in a case similar to this, where you might have great reasons to prevent such an update?
This sounds like it is being pushed out as a carrier update. On an iPhone, I can defer those as I can all updates. I suspect the same is true on an Android. Eventually, of course (or immediately in a case like this), such a phone will stop working as a phone on any network (or if that's not the case here, it could be made to be the case). But is that definitely the case?
> carefully consider a choice for an election and cast the vote
You are making the same mistakes he is. One, that's not how votes are cast, with careful choices. Two, being able to make a careful and intellectual choice is not how votes are cast fundamentally. Votes are cast by citizens. The dumb ones, and the smart ones. Everyone gets a vote.
This has the statistic that 13% of 2012 voters think that Obama is the antichrist. 22%- almost one out of four- of Romney voters believe that. Wait, why not 26%? Logically, if you calmly and rationally believe that Obama is a supernatural entity sent to end the world, you'd at least check Romney on the ballot, right? So there's 2% of the voting public that either voted for the antichrist, or voted for a third party candidate. That's not calm and rational, assuming their givens.
The same study shows that 4% of voters believe in lizard people. I wonder if they take a queue from Douglas Adams and are sure to not vote for "the wrong lizard".
These are actual beliefs reached by very significant portions of the voting public. In some cases, they vote along these beliefs- in other cases, they are like "sure, he's a minion of Satan, but I need health insurance".
The fundamental assumption- that we enfranchise voters because of their intellectual capacity- is absolutely incorrect. As is the assumption that rational thought is involved in the voting process in any or all cases.
> we claim the 18 year old is old enough to be drafted and vote, but not old enough to make good decisions about alcohol
Incorrect. It is legal for an 18 year old US citizen to purchase and consume alcohol. All 50 states have laws against it, but if you are out of a state's jurisdiction you may do so freely. There is no federal law banning it- in fact, they strongarmed all 50 states into it over the course of years, using federal funding as a lever.
His position that someone has the self control to vote (given that elections are determined hugely by emotions and totally irrational beliefs), but not to be held fully accountable for wiring and placing a bomb, is self contradictory. His assumptions about what gives someone the vote are completely ahistoric and incorrect.
"Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,"
Voting has nothing to do with logical reasoning. First, IQ and reasoning are not EXPLICITLY required. We let retards vote. Some states let people of an "unsound mind" vote. We count the votes of people with deeply below average IQ and learning disabilities the exact same as those who have received great academic achievements.
Second, IQ and reasoning are only barely involved in politics at all. Emotions are the biggest motivators. When a politician wants to convince you, he doesn't just lay his case out and connect points, he makes you feel proud of him, happy with the way things will be with his help, scared of the other guy, scared what the other guy represents, etc. Elections are entirely emotions.
If a professor is trying to allow 16 year olds to vote- people who are, by law, required to spend every day in a government institution- he probably has some other reasoning behind that.
So I googled it real fast.
Lawrence Steinburg is the professor in question. Here he is discussing the younger of the two Boston Bombers, a 19 year old:
"If neurobiological immaturity makes adolescents inherently less responsible for their crimes, and if science now demonstrates that the brain is still maturing well into the early 20s, should we rethink where we draw the boundary between adolescence and adulthood under the law? The Boston Marathon bombing trial is important not only because the crime was so horrific, but because it forces us to ask hard questions about how best to judge the behavior of those who are legal adults, but in many respects neurobiological adolescents."
In this article, he is overall arguing for less culpability for a multiple murderer, based on his presumed lack of neural development. So according to this professor, a 16 year old should be able to vote, but a 19 year old should be held to a lower standard for his crimes. If you spend years arguing for the lack of developmental progression, why then suddenly pop up and claim that a 16 year old should be able to vote? The claim stands in contrast to his other positions. A reasonable argument from his positions and data seems to be raising the voting age to 25. But then we would run into issues where you would have soldiers (in some cases, theoretically draftees, as we had a draft the last time this sort of conversation happened) unable to vote on politicians who may or may not be sending them to their doom.
A 16 year old without a home is a problem for the state. A 16 year old without resources is a problem for the state. A 16 year old does not have a guaranteed right to work in all places, and may have many restrictions and benefits placed upon them by the state. A 16 year old is not liable for their crimes in the same way an 18 year old is, the details of which vary from place to place. Voting has much more to do with this than any form of cognition. If cognition were the test, then we'd literally give cognition tests. If emotional maturity were the test, then we'd give those tests. Instead, we vest citizens with the responsibility of voting at the same time we vest them with a wide array of other responsibilities and civic duties. If he were arguing for lowering the age of adulthood, I could see his point- but instead he has a set of oddly specific and contradictory statements, based on a fundamentally unsound assumption about what makes a citizen. It is responsibilities, not intellect. Half of people are stupider than average, after all, and they get the same voice politically.
Plus it just doesn't seem smart to let students be told how to vote by their high school teachers. Way too much peer pressure, you could probably get extremely high compliance rates, especially given that schools would inevitably force their students to vote there in person when possible.
Why would the government explicitly target symbolism? The pirate party is a political movement and party. It is a controversial and minority party, but to explicitly ask for symbolic victories instead of pragmatic ones is pretty creepy. That's some seriously odd reasoning.
They did, you have to click on the bell and fix it. It lets them push their sponsored corporate content more, and obviously it is at the expense of the bulk of youtubers.
> Say I want to pay my plumber or handyman, someone I have a relationship with. How can I pay?
Well, I've just written checks.
> I can pay by check. Except I don't have physical checks anymore.
Hey buddy, I got a tip for you. Ask your bank for some fucking checks.
Here's your procedure:
1- Get some checks. This may cost you up to 20 bucks, or may be free. 2- Write the amount, the recipient, and sign the check. 3- Done.
Alternatively, if you don't have bitcoins: 1- Make an account on some bitcoin transfer place. 2- Enter your bank routing number and account number and get a transaction 3- While waiting for that to go through (normally takes days) 4- Download bitcoin-qt or some other program. Make sure you pick the correct one, or your money will be stolen while you sleep. 5- Download 80 gigs of blockchain, which represents every bitcoin transaction ever made since its inception. This will be hundreds of gigs in just a couple years. This must be kept constantly up to date or else everything is for naught. If bitcoin had been invented in 2000 BC, this list would not fit on any hard drive on earth, and would definitely have a bunch of sumerian copper transactions recorded on it. 6- Now that your wallet is synced, transfer bitcoins from wherever you got them into your wallet. This takes awhile, and be sure to properly enter the address. 7- Be sure your wallet is encrypted, and be sure your computer isn't compromised in any way ever. Otherwise, some hacker will take all your shit, as per normal.
Now that you have bitcoins: 8- Ask your handyman for his bitcoin address. This is a long sequence of letters and numbers that all blue collar workers maintain with them at all times. 9- Transfer the money to the handyman by launching your computer, opening your program, connect to the internet, and enter the long sequence of letters and numbers. 10- Agreed on an exchange rate of bitcoins to dollars, because your purchase of a service is in dollars. If you can't reach an agreement here, hire two fat libertarians to fight with katanas, but no shirts. The winning sword-libertarian gets to decide on which exchange rate to use. 11- Send an appropriate amount of bitcoins to the address provided by the handyman. Be sure to include a transaction fee so that the server farms in China actually process your fucking transaction ever. 12- The handyman doesn't and shouldn't trust you, and should instead launch his own program to ensure that the bitcoins are coming through. This means that he needs to have access to the internet as well, so that he can see confirmations of the incoming transaction to his account. 13- Now that the handyman has bitcoins, he has to sell them for dollars, unless he has a use for them. This means he must also open an account with an exchange, or something. 14- DONE
In seriousness, have you ever payed anyone like a roofer, plumber, etc. in bitcoin? Is that real? Where, in a broad sense, do you live where this is common?
Also: I've never talked to a workman who can't take a credit card. I'm sure they exist, but they aren't super common. I can't imagine that the set of "workmen who take bitcoin" is larger than the set of "workmen who take visa". Just simply no way.
One thought I had as an alternative to mass reloading of tabs isn't really a consumer level solution, but it might be interesting to some.
If you run your browser through a VM, and save a snapshot, reloading that snapshot may take awhile, but it won't reload your tabs from remote. Might be worth looking into if this is important and you have an SSD though.
I'll also add this: when you close your browser, you might not WANT images of webpages to be automatically saved to disk, ready for reload. Having this as a basic functionality would probably not be the wisest decision from a privacy perspective.
Privacy is getting harder and harder to find online, which is why it is important to work for it where we can. Moving everything to different processes, making use of OS level security features- all of these create redundancies. I'll also point out that PCs offer another solution in general to software inefficiencies- buy better hardware. While this is not an ideal solution (and arguably doesn't even address the question at all), it does reduce the market demand for efficient software.
It will be hard to prove in court that the sender actually suspected a seizure would result.
Think real hard before making any more categories of information a crime. For this to happen:
1- You need a bad actor that you can identify. Once this becomes a crime, you'll never identify the bad actor. 2- He has to send some manner of hazardous speech, be it in image, a sound, or words. 3- His computer must faithfully send this hazard 4- The ISP must faithfully carry this hazard 5- The hazard must be routed correctly 6- Twitter must receive this hazard 7- Twitter must transmit this hazard to the user and all who view it 8- The receiving ISP must faithfully carry this hazard 9- The receiving computer must not filter this hazard 10- The receiving web browser must display this hazard in a hazardous way (at full speed, full contrast, on an endless loop) 11- The recipient must be one of the few people vulnerable to this hazard
This is a lot of places where you can place blame or otherwise sue somebody, if you decide that categories of information should be subject to this. Everyone will focus on (1), but there's a whole lotta places where lawyers can lawyer.
That's not quite right. You can run Windows 7 on Skylake and Kabylake just fine. What you don't get is support for any new features specific to those processors. You still gain in IPC and/or clock speed as per normal, and you can still run them just fine.
> The only thing I can think of is arguably a better interface for touch screen users.
I don't want a non-touchscreen device to have an OS that was designed with ANY consideration for touchscreen users. All that does is hurt the usability on the device I'm using it on. The touchscreen device should have an OS, or at least a UI, that is entirely designed around them. A hybrid approach sucks for everyone.
YOU don't have privacy on the internet. People who want it, do. More importantly, the fact that privacy on the internet is harder to come by than it should be, does not in ANY way give justification to Windows 10, which makes you not have privacy on your DESKTOP.
> Well set aside those Libertarian ideas that \. loves so much, boys, only regulation will fix this kind of crap.
> such a ban will have little influence over the development and use of "killer robots"
Correct, what is needed is a treaty. Unfortunately, governments don't normally ban a weapon preemptively. Chemical, biological, nuclear- all had been seen in battle before people banned them to any measurable degree. In this thread, there's plenty of people pointing out the obvious- it would be much safer if there were more ways of projecting force that don't endanger soldiers as much. For this reason alone, autonomous weaponry will be vigorously pursued. Throw in "our adversaries are working on it", and it's absolutely assured.
In order for it to be effectively banned, it would have to happen and actually be really bad. That actually seems unlikely- a robot identifying a child as an enemy and destroying him or her (for instance) would be clinically weighed against whether a soldier would have made that mistake too. If the soldier wouldn't have, the calculus will shift to "do autonomous robots on average screw up more or less often than soldiers". If that didn't turn out in the robot's favor, the question would have to do with total deaths, or efficiency, or a war that resolves faster and thus kills less civilians. The goalposts will be set wherever they need to be set. The robots would have to be so monumentally awful at their task that they are offensive to common sense before they are banned.
This is stupid, of course, but what's the replacement?
I'd love a solution that could work on an Apple phone or a Linux box, and sync via a method that isn't viewable to naughty employees, as evernote is quickly becoming. Even throwing away the hard part of that requirement (Linux), what solutions are there really in this space?
No, they won't. Or if they do, it will be something that will go away later. Windows users will put up with anything, so why should they bend over backwards for them in any way?
The "alt-right" was developed as a term to describe groups of conservatives who are not mainstream conservatives or establishment Republicans. As a classification term, it didn't imply racism- it encompassed several different groups of thought. I'm not sure how it was turned into a "movement", despite all these groups not really identifying as such, but I know that if you change "a classification for non-mainstream conservatives" into "a movement that accepts neo-nazis", you've totally redefined the term. Probably with the purpose of painting the non-mainstream conservatives with a neo-nazi brush, despite there being a decent number of the former, and only a handful of jackhats in the latter.
Regardless, it is done, and it happened super fast and recently. Already, the non-racist conservatives who are not mainstream have begun rebranding themselves to make plain that they are not "alt-right", because now the term just means "neo-nazi".
> A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally
Right, that's what a "nationalist" is. A (race) Nationalist is a *fundamentally different term*, however. It means someone who wants a nation to support a race in some manner, often by sorting people by race. That's why modern nationalists (with no racial preference) often identify themselves as civic nationalists, in case the term "nationalist" is misconstrued.
I've seen the general meme you are throwing around in a few places, and I wonder if it came from a chan or a discord, maybe some lolplot. Or maybe it's just an honest misunderstanding that a lot of folks ended up with somehow. A White Nationalist, or a Black Nationalist ultimately wants to establish a nation based on some (often modern and ahistoric) understanding of a people or race. That's why that racial adjective is there: it is not saying "a civic nationalist who is (race)", but instead talking about someone who often wants to sunder an existing country in some fashion, and is often only a few steps away from stuff far more horrifying than that.
> There's a lot of rif raf on both sides to muddy up the averages. But most smart people are Democrats, and most racists Republican.
Wait, so your argument is that the Republicans have some handful of IQ 400 superbrains to balance out all their dummies?
There's no meaningful difference between a Democrat and a Republican on IQ scales and on a great number of measurements. Even most blue states have a lot of red, and most red states have a lot of blue.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's how to turn off the Windows 10 keylogger that doesn't exist according to you:
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
I don't think you can turn off the telemetry that fires every time you open an application (ex: notepad), which is plenty of envelope information leaking all the time. Windows 10 is compromised by design. This is documented, and the fact that it DID cause a shit-storm and you ignored it should be a serious wake up call.
It's not pirated unless DPRK has extended copyright protection to those companies. I'm pretty sure they haven't, so there is no crime or violation whatsoever.
> something like this, in the general case
> in the broad case
> where you might have great reasons to prevent such an update
l2read
I'm curious about how you would block something like this, in the general case.
I'm not suggesting anyone use a phone that might explode instead of handing it in for a refund. But in the broad case, what are the defenses that you have in a case similar to this, where you might have great reasons to prevent such an update?
This sounds like it is being pushed out as a carrier update. On an iPhone, I can defer those as I can all updates. I suspect the same is true on an Android. Eventually, of course (or immediately in a case like this), such a phone will stop working as a phone on any network (or if that's not the case here, it could be made to be the case). But is that definitely the case?
> carefully consider a choice for an election and cast the vote
You are making the same mistakes he is. One, that's not how votes are cast, with careful choices. Two, being able to make a careful and intellectual choice is not how votes are cast fundamentally. Votes are cast by citizens. The dumb ones, and the smart ones. Everyone gets a vote.
http://www.publicpolicypolling...
This has the statistic that 13% of 2012 voters think that Obama is the antichrist. 22%- almost one out of four- of Romney voters believe that. Wait, why not 26%? Logically, if you calmly and rationally believe that Obama is a supernatural entity sent to end the world, you'd at least check Romney on the ballot, right? So there's 2% of the voting public that either voted for the antichrist, or voted for a third party candidate. That's not calm and rational, assuming their givens.
The same study shows that 4% of voters believe in lizard people. I wonder if they take a queue from Douglas Adams and are sure to not vote for "the wrong lizard".
These are actual beliefs reached by very significant portions of the voting public. In some cases, they vote along these beliefs- in other cases, they are like "sure, he's a minion of Satan, but I need health insurance".
The fundamental assumption- that we enfranchise voters because of their intellectual capacity- is absolutely incorrect. As is the assumption that rational thought is involved in the voting process in any or all cases.
> we claim the 18 year old is old enough to be drafted and vote, but not old enough to make good decisions about alcohol
Incorrect. It is legal for an 18 year old US citizen to purchase and consume alcohol. All 50 states have laws against it, but if you are out of a state's jurisdiction you may do so freely. There is no federal law banning it- in fact, they strongarmed all 50 states into it over the course of years, using federal funding as a lever.
His position that someone has the self control to vote (given that elections are determined hugely by emotions and totally irrational beliefs), but not to be held fully accountable for wiring and placing a bomb, is self contradictory. His assumptions about what gives someone the vote are completely ahistoric and incorrect.
"Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,"
Voting has nothing to do with logical reasoning. First, IQ and reasoning are not EXPLICITLY required. We let retards vote. Some states let people of an "unsound mind" vote. We count the votes of people with deeply below average IQ and learning disabilities the exact same as those who have received great academic achievements.
Second, IQ and reasoning are only barely involved in politics at all. Emotions are the biggest motivators. When a politician wants to convince you, he doesn't just lay his case out and connect points, he makes you feel proud of him, happy with the way things will be with his help, scared of the other guy, scared what the other guy represents, etc. Elections are entirely emotions.
If a professor is trying to allow 16 year olds to vote- people who are, by law, required to spend every day in a government institution- he probably has some other reasoning behind that.
So I googled it real fast.
Lawrence Steinburg is the professor in question. Here he is discussing the younger of the two Boston Bombers, a 19 year old:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...
Here's his quote from that article:
"If neurobiological immaturity makes adolescents inherently less responsible for their crimes, and if science now demonstrates that the brain is still maturing well into the early 20s, should we rethink where we draw the boundary between adolescence and adulthood under the law? The Boston Marathon bombing trial is important not only because the crime was so horrific, but because it forces us to ask hard questions about how best to judge the behavior of those who are legal adults, but in many respects neurobiological adolescents."
In this article, he is overall arguing for less culpability for a multiple murderer, based on his presumed lack of neural development. So according to this professor, a 16 year old should be able to vote, but a 19 year old should be held to a lower standard for his crimes. If you spend years arguing for the lack of developmental progression, why then suddenly pop up and claim that a 16 year old should be able to vote? The claim stands in contrast to his other positions. A reasonable argument from his positions and data seems to be raising the voting age to 25. But then we would run into issues where you would have soldiers (in some cases, theoretically draftees, as we had a draft the last time this sort of conversation happened) unable to vote on politicians who may or may not be sending them to their doom.
A 16 year old without a home is a problem for the state. A 16 year old without resources is a problem for the state. A 16 year old does not have a guaranteed right to work in all places, and may have many restrictions and benefits placed upon them by the state. A 16 year old is not liable for their crimes in the same way an 18 year old is, the details of which vary from place to place. Voting has much more to do with this than any form of cognition. If cognition were the test, then we'd literally give cognition tests. If emotional maturity were the test, then we'd give those tests. Instead, we vest citizens with the responsibility of voting at the same time we vest them with a wide array of other responsibilities and civic duties. If he were arguing for lowering the age of adulthood, I could see his point- but instead he has a set of oddly specific and contradictory statements, based on a fundamentally unsound assumption about what makes a citizen. It is responsibilities, not intellect. Half of people are stupider than average, after all, and they get the same voice politically.
Plus it just doesn't seem smart to let students be told how to vote by their high school teachers. Way too much peer pressure, you could probably get extremely high compliance rates, especially given that schools would inevitably force their students to vote there in person when possible.
Why would the government explicitly target symbolism? The pirate party is a political movement and party. It is a controversial and minority party, but to explicitly ask for symbolic victories instead of pragmatic ones is pretty creepy. That's some seriously odd reasoning.
They did, you have to click on the bell and fix it. It lets them push their sponsored corporate content more, and obviously it is at the expense of the bulk of youtubers.
> Say I want to pay my plumber or handyman, someone I have a relationship with. How can I pay?
Well, I've just written checks.
> I can pay by check. Except I don't have physical checks anymore.
Hey buddy, I got a tip for you. Ask your bank for some fucking checks.
Here's your procedure:
1- Get some checks. This may cost you up to 20 bucks, or may be free.
2- Write the amount, the recipient, and sign the check.
3- Done.
Alternatively, if you don't have bitcoins:
1- Make an account on some bitcoin transfer place.
2- Enter your bank routing number and account number and get a transaction
3- While waiting for that to go through (normally takes days)
4- Download bitcoin-qt or some other program. Make sure you pick the correct one, or your money will be stolen while you sleep.
5- Download 80 gigs of blockchain, which represents every bitcoin transaction ever made since its inception. This will be hundreds of gigs in just a couple years. This must be kept constantly up to date or else everything is for naught. If bitcoin had been invented in 2000 BC, this list would not fit on any hard drive on earth, and would definitely have a bunch of sumerian copper transactions recorded on it.
6- Now that your wallet is synced, transfer bitcoins from wherever you got them into your wallet. This takes awhile, and be sure to properly enter the address.
7- Be sure your wallet is encrypted, and be sure your computer isn't compromised in any way ever. Otherwise, some hacker will take all your shit, as per normal.
Now that you have bitcoins:
8- Ask your handyman for his bitcoin address. This is a long sequence of letters and numbers that all blue collar workers maintain with them at all times.
9- Transfer the money to the handyman by launching your computer, opening your program, connect to the internet, and enter the long sequence of letters and numbers.
10- Agreed on an exchange rate of bitcoins to dollars, because your purchase of a service is in dollars. If you can't reach an agreement here, hire two fat libertarians to fight with katanas, but no shirts. The winning sword-libertarian gets to decide on which exchange rate to use.
11- Send an appropriate amount of bitcoins to the address provided by the handyman. Be sure to include a transaction fee so that the server farms in China actually process your fucking transaction ever.
12- The handyman doesn't and shouldn't trust you, and should instead launch his own program to ensure that the bitcoins are coming through. This means that he needs to have access to the internet as well, so that he can see confirmations of the incoming transaction to his account.
13- Now that the handyman has bitcoins, he has to sell them for dollars, unless he has a use for them. This means he must also open an account with an exchange, or something.
14- DONE
In seriousness, have you ever payed anyone like a roofer, plumber, etc. in bitcoin? Is that real? Where, in a broad sense, do you live where this is common?
Also: I've never talked to a workman who can't take a credit card. I'm sure they exist, but they aren't super common. I can't imagine that the set of "workmen who take bitcoin" is larger than the set of "workmen who take visa". Just simply no way.
One thought I had as an alternative to mass reloading of tabs isn't really a consumer level solution, but it might be interesting to some.
If you run your browser through a VM, and save a snapshot, reloading that snapshot may take awhile, but it won't reload your tabs from remote. Might be worth looking into if this is important and you have an SSD though.
I'll also add this: when you close your browser, you might not WANT images of webpages to be automatically saved to disk, ready for reload. Having this as a basic functionality would probably not be the wisest decision from a privacy perspective.
Privacy is getting harder and harder to find online, which is why it is important to work for it where we can. Moving everything to different processes, making use of OS level security features- all of these create redundancies. I'll also point out that PCs offer another solution in general to software inefficiencies- buy better hardware. While this is not an ideal solution (and arguably doesn't even address the question at all), it does reduce the market demand for efficient software.
It will be hard to prove in court that the sender actually suspected a seizure would result.
Think real hard before making any more categories of information a crime. For this to happen:
1- You need a bad actor that you can identify. Once this becomes a crime, you'll never identify the bad actor.
2- He has to send some manner of hazardous speech, be it in image, a sound, or words.
3- His computer must faithfully send this hazard
4- The ISP must faithfully carry this hazard
5- The hazard must be routed correctly
6- Twitter must receive this hazard
7- Twitter must transmit this hazard to the user and all who view it
8- The receiving ISP must faithfully carry this hazard
9- The receiving computer must not filter this hazard
10- The receiving web browser must display this hazard in a hazardous way (at full speed, full contrast, on an endless loop)
11- The recipient must be one of the few people vulnerable to this hazard
This is a lot of places where you can place blame or otherwise sue somebody, if you decide that categories of information should be subject to this. Everyone will focus on (1), but there's a whole lotta places where lawyers can lawyer.
That's not quite right. You can run Windows 7 on Skylake and Kabylake just fine. What you don't get is support for any new features specific to those processors. You still gain in IPC and/or clock speed as per normal, and you can still run them just fine.
> The only thing I can think of is arguably a better interface for touch screen users.
I don't want a non-touchscreen device to have an OS that was designed with ANY consideration for touchscreen users. All that does is hurt the usability on the device I'm using it on. The touchscreen device should have an OS, or at least a UI, that is entirely designed around them. A hybrid approach sucks for everyone.
> You don't have privacy on the internet.
YOU don't have privacy on the internet. People who want it, do. More importantly, the fact that privacy on the internet is harder to come by than it should be, does not in ANY way give justification to Windows 10, which makes you not have privacy on your DESKTOP.
> Well set aside those Libertarian ideas that \. loves so much, boys, only regulation will fix this kind of crap.
Install Linux, problem solved :/
> such a ban will have little influence over the development and use of "killer robots"
Correct, what is needed is a treaty. Unfortunately, governments don't normally ban a weapon preemptively. Chemical, biological, nuclear- all had been seen in battle before people banned them to any measurable degree. In this thread, there's plenty of people pointing out the obvious- it would be much safer if there were more ways of projecting force that don't endanger soldiers as much. For this reason alone, autonomous weaponry will be vigorously pursued. Throw in "our adversaries are working on it", and it's absolutely assured.
In order for it to be effectively banned, it would have to happen and actually be really bad. That actually seems unlikely- a robot identifying a child as an enemy and destroying him or her (for instance) would be clinically weighed against whether a soldier would have made that mistake too. If the soldier wouldn't have, the calculus will shift to "do autonomous robots on average screw up more or less often than soldiers". If that didn't turn out in the robot's favor, the question would have to do with total deaths, or efficiency, or a war that resolves faster and thus kills less civilians. The goalposts will be set wherever they need to be set. The robots would have to be so monumentally awful at their task that they are offensive to common sense before they are banned.
I'm glad I lived to see the day that the WHITEHOUSE would complain that the KREMLIN had told the truth, and that this was UNACCEPTABLE.
What a year indeed.
The summary makes it sound like losing access to cash is a good thing, as long as it can be replaced by a number on a server in all cases. It is not.
This is stupid, of course, but what's the replacement?
I'd love a solution that could work on an Apple phone or a Linux box, and sync via a method that isn't viewable to naughty employees, as evernote is quickly becoming. Even throwing away the hard part of that requirement (Linux), what solutions are there really in this space?
> but hopefully Microsoft gives us
No, they won't. Or if they do, it will be something that will go away later. Windows users will put up with anything, so why should they bend over backwards for them in any way?
The "alt-right" was developed as a term to describe groups of conservatives who are not mainstream conservatives or establishment Republicans. As a classification term, it didn't imply racism- it encompassed several different groups of thought. I'm not sure how it was turned into a "movement", despite all these groups not really identifying as such, but I know that if you change "a classification for non-mainstream conservatives" into "a movement that accepts neo-nazis", you've totally redefined the term. Probably with the purpose of painting the non-mainstream conservatives with a neo-nazi brush, despite there being a decent number of the former, and only a handful of jackhats in the latter.
Regardless, it is done, and it happened super fast and recently. Already, the non-racist conservatives who are not mainstream have begun rebranding themselves to make plain that they are not "alt-right", because now the term just means "neo-nazi".
> A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally
Right, that's what a "nationalist" is. A (race) Nationalist is a *fundamentally different term*, however. It means someone who wants a nation to support a race in some manner, often by sorting people by race. That's why modern nationalists (with no racial preference) often identify themselves as civic nationalists, in case the term "nationalist" is misconstrued.
I've seen the general meme you are throwing around in a few places, and I wonder if it came from a chan or a discord, maybe some lolplot. Or maybe it's just an honest misunderstanding that a lot of folks ended up with somehow. A White Nationalist, or a Black Nationalist ultimately wants to establish a nation based on some (often modern and ahistoric) understanding of a people or race. That's why that racial adjective is there: it is not saying "a civic nationalist who is (race)", but instead talking about someone who often wants to sunder an existing country in some fashion, and is often only a few steps away from stuff far more horrifying than that.
Lemme guess- this fusion reactor is just 20 years from opening, right?
> There's a lot of rif raf on both sides to muddy up the averages. But most smart people are Democrats, and most racists Republican.
Wait, so your argument is that the Republicans have some handful of IQ 400 superbrains to balance out all their dummies?
There's no meaningful difference between a Democrat and a Republican on IQ scales and on a great number of measurements. Even most blue states have a lot of red, and most red states have a lot of blue.
> That's not in dispute anywhere.
More like, that's not sourced anywhere.
> How can you Godwin yourself in a discussion of Hitler?
It's SUPER easy, as it turns out...