I don't speak to many people in person. My understanding of the "outside world" mostly comes from viewing comments on the Internet. I saw more support for Bill Clinton and/or Ronald Reagan than I have seen for Trump. I am certain there are actual Trump fans out there, but I have not really met one yet. The only impression I am left with is that Trump won because Clinton (Hillary version) was utterly unacceptable.
Seriously though, after there were two Bushes as President, if there would have been two Clinton's I would have started the Revolution myself. Out of 360 million people, Presidents are only coming from two families? Fuck that nonsense. At least we can pretend there is not an Aristocracy now.
TL;DR, The President submits a Budget Request. This budget request is then used by Congress when deciding an actual budget. Again, Congress is still to blame.
Nuclear is the correct answer right now. Long term, extracting energy from existing gradients will be better, but we can't extract enough energy efficiently from the existing energy gradients yet. So, Nuclear Power is the ideal choice until we get the details ironed out on "renewables".
Physics 101: A gradient is required to extract energy from a system.
Knowing that, we can either create our own gradient (nuclear, coal, gas, fire in any form) or extract energy from existing gradients (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, wishing for ponies).
Creating our own gradient can cause issues. What to do with the generated heat that was unable to be turned into useful energy? What to do with the combustion/fission/fusion products from creating a gradient? etc etc etc.
Extracting from existing gradients is ideal. There are no byproducts from creating gradients. HUGE WIN! It makes the environment more stable (less energy floating around, fewer hurricanes/typhoons/etc). The devices themselves are generally passive. Very few long term issues here.
The problem with "renewables" are the short-term issues. People are trying to force them in ways that do not even make sense. It is like the Gold Rush or some such. Sooooo much fraud, disinformation, etc all in a bid to get rich quick.
Wind and solar are ideal in that they extract energy from already existing gradients. Nuclear creates a gradient with which to extract energy from. It is the creation of the gradient that seems to be so problematic.
Rivers and/or lakes are generally used as the cold side of the gradient while nuclear reactions are on the hot side. Bodies of water that accept heat have biological changes occur with them when used as the cold side of the gradient. Some of those changes are undesirable.
Nuclear reactions are the hot side of the equation and they have their own issues. We do not fully understand all of the interactions, so some safety measures are overly draconian. Nuclear interactions also create some really nasty and dangerous conditions to biological organisms that evolved around stable nuclei.
All of these issues can be dealt with, but Solar and Wind require the least amount of care and concern because they are taking advantage of existing energy gradients rather than creating one.
All of THAT being said, I still think we need Nuclear Power, at least until we get the whole "renewable" energy thing figured out. The coal and gas plants also create their own gradient, and while the dangers are more fully understood, they are still belching out undesirable chemicals into the environment.
Less energy and more efficient usage is the key to real environmentally savvy policies.
Less energy? No. That is not a given.
More efficient usage? Definitely. We have been absurdly wasteful of energy for a very long time. I recall walking to a 7/11 30 years ago. It was fucking FREEZING outside. I walk, shivering, into the store, and it is warm. Thank God. But I wanted a chocolate milk... so I opened up a cooled refrigerator inside of a heated store in an environment where it was already fucking cold. It boggled my mind. Why didn't they just allow some of the cold from outside to get into the refrigerators? Or the reverse, why don't they let the heat from the refrigerator leak to the outside rather than spending energy pushing that heat into an already heated environment? I guess they pay less on the heating bill for the store... but it seems utterly wasteful to not use the essentially infinite cold reservoir outside to cool your products.
And maybe we'd be less people on the planet. But this is another story.
This is only an issue because of inefficient use of energy. Billions of wall-warts quietly sucking energy that is wasted as heat is the issue. For example, remote Amazon tribes have no effect on the environment as a whole. They don't use any external energy sources.
The only problem I have with ANY of this is that this shit has been going since the dawn of history. Why is it suddenly a big deal now? Why is there no discussion of what the CIA is doing to the Russians, Chinese, Germans, etc? The United States is meddling just as much, if not more, than the other countries. Hell, even Israel tries to influence our elections and they receive lots of aid/support from America.
So why is Russia fucking about with a commercial service such a big interest? If they were effective, then why aren't the two parties using the same tools to have an even more profound effect than an external entity could possibly have?
There is something going on here, but what is being talked about is NOT what is important. Everything that has been revealed so far has been... boring. External entities have always been mucking about in the internal politics of others. What exactly is different this time? And why the hypocrisy surrounding it?
My best guess is that The Powers That Be are either unbelievably stupid (possible but unlikely) or they are trying to keep the masses from seeing reality (whatever that is). The only question now is: What is being hidden behind these claims of *"Russian Interference"?
* Russian Interference has already been established as has interference from almost every other political entity on this planet. The interference is not in question, the sudden (supposed) effectiveness of the interference is what is suspect.
OOoooo. That sounds so technically difficult. Scarrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy.
LOL None of those things are "hard". It could be difficult to be put them all together, but I doubt it. It also depends on how far you need to scale. For millions, it would take much more time. For thousands, this could be architected within a month and rolled out with full QA checks in 4 months.
The only issue is that there are not enough knowledgeable people to architect this solution individually at hundreds of thousands of disparate locations. But trusting Microsoft to do it is like trusting a known pedophile in a day care center not to diddle children.
Only responding to this despite much more discussable material.
But the people who are already nearly 30 years old and "have nothing saved for retirement" still need to look in the mirror to find who to blame. I can guarantee you (because I work with a lot of these people myself), a lot of younger people were never taught much of anything about finances and investing. Many have no idea how to balance a checkbook, and rely on regularly logging in to their bank's web site to determine how much money they've got in their account(s). They couldn't challenge their bank about an error if they had to.
If this issue is caused by society, then society should do something to where this is not an issue. Namely, perhaps this type of thing should be taught at a school? Society causes us to "need" to know about money, language, math, etc. There are other reasons to know these things, but living in a modern society _requires_ these things; therefore, it is up to society to provide training in these things. Blaming the parents is only useful if the parent actively avoided their children learning these things. If the parents don't know these things, how can they teach their children? How is blaming them for their "uneducated" children their fault when they don't even know that they are uneducated themselves? You can't know what you don't know, despite what Rumsfeld said.
While your attitude towards personal responsibility is correct and admirable, your understanding of what people have any control over is... weird.
Everyone is completely bereft of personal responsibility? In the richest country in the history of the world, people can not be held responsible for their own future? They can be excused because they have to have the latest big-screen LED and Iphone?
So you are saying that buying an iPhone and TV can leave you without enough money to retire? Seriously? iPhones and TVs are dirt cheap. They are the cost of one whole paycheck. In order for what you say to be true, then $2,000 has to have some weird properties that are not directly related to its obvious value. I get it though, you are trying to say they are fiscally irresponsible. I would argue that it costs too much to live in Society. But we can agree to disagree on this one.
Fun fact: A high school student working less that 20 hours a week at minimum wage makes more than 90% of the rest of humanity.
Well, sure... but 90% of humanity doesn't incur the same costs to live in society that the high school student does. Want to eat? In America, that will be $5 please. In 90% of the rest of the world, if you had to pay money instead of growing it/catching it yourself, you would pay the local equivalent of 2 cents. Don't fool yourself here. Would you rather have $10 or $100? Wait a sec, let me give you some more information first... for the $10, you can buy a shelter forever, food for a month, and buy a pack of playing cards. For the $100, you can buy a nice dinner. Now, which amount of money would you want?
As someone who has not been responsible with 401k savings, I can attest that it is not the rest of the country that is responsible for my retirement
Agree. But what if your money was worth less than you thought it was? As I have demonstrated, $100 is not $100. What if you thought you had saved enough, but when the time comes, you find out interest has hollowed our your nest egg? Back in 1970, retiring with a million dollars would have been legendary. Now, retiring with a million dollars ensure that your doctor and health insurer gets paid for a few years.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.
When your choices are: The same old shit or shit with new twists, which shit do you think will be chosen when people are tired of the same old shit?
I am confused about why you think anyone voted FOR Trump. I have not heard many people say anything good about Trump, so I really doubt that many people voted FOR him. From my point of view, it looks EXACTLY like everyone rejected Hillary Clinton and due to the two party system, what came out was Trump. Disgusting eh?
I've tried to explain this again and again to people, but they don't seem to WANT to grasp it.
The reason why the average person does not want to understand that reality is because, by definition, it turns the average person into a liability in a society where there are no jobs/uses for people who are unable to think at a higher level.
Seriously, when things settle down and most everything concerning production is automated, what is there left for the average and below average person to do? They can't participate in society because they have nothing of value to offer. They can't go off in the woods and subsist. Too many of them, not enough woods, and, someone else already owns those woods.
I am, demonstrably, above average... and yet this situation threatens my own existence too! How? Competition for jobs. The less skilled person will fluff their resume, lie, abuse nepotism, etc in order to get a job that I can legitimately and competently perform while they can not perform it... but it takes time to realize they can't perform the job and by the time it is realized, I have starved to death.
Ultimately, around 20% of all humans will have to be executed, year after year, in order to maintain the new automated society. They are dead weight (from the point of view of the owners of the land and productive machines).
Clue to Microsoft: The OS is supposed to be a productivity tool for me, not an advertising platform for you.
Dude. You exist in the wrong reality. You are thinking that Windows is a product designed to allow you to be productive. You also appear to be under the delusion that Microsoft is in the business of providing software.
Absolutely not.
Microsoft is an *American* company. American companies are in the business of making money. It doesn't matter if the excuse for making money is cars, software, massage services, etc. The only thing that matters is making money. The product being sold? Doesn't matter. What matters is that it is a product that you can not avoid. If you want to do anything software/internet related, you have to pay Microsoft (phones and tablets escaped their clutches).
Now, seeing things through their eyes, how much do you think they care whether or not you can be productive with a product that you HAVE to buy? That is why "Windows" is the way it is and will never go back to a "purchasing" model.
Honestly, I foresee Windows getting _much_ worse in the semi-near future. There will be programs that you are not allowed to run, or, if you are permitted to run it, its intimate usage details will be reported. Think of debuggers in Richard Stallman's Right to Read short story.
as their product is far too badly made and they do not have the technological expertise to stay on top of things.
I wonder if anyone inside of Microsoft truly knows the entire "Windows" product anymore... if they don't have someone like that, eventually, a middle management decision will end up bringing about an Apocalypse within Windows at some future time. We see them dancing around with sub-apocalyptic, but disastrous, features constantly now.
There is no surprise here. It costs money to have unfettered access to everyone's personal communications. The NSA and other three-letter-agencies are the reason wireless carriers can rape the population's wallets so thoroughly. Usually, when you see a situation like this, it is regulatory capture, but "capture" is not needed in this instance.
You have done an excellent job of explaining issues with C and C++.
You have explained that memory safe languages can mitigate some of those issues.
You have not shown that memory safe languages are preferable, or better, than C and/or C++. Just because a language solves one problem, that does not mean it does not introduce other, different problems. Rather like jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.
TL;DR, Yes. There are potential issues with C/C++. Solving just those issues does not inherently make another language more desirable.
Microsoft has NEVER wanted to play fair. Surely they are not now crying about Sprint not playing fair?
Nope. Microsoft is not crying about this. They don't even care. They know that an uneven playing field makes it harder for newcomers so they are happy even though this is hurting them. It is better for Skype to never make a profit or even just die than to let the playing field be fair.
Note that it is not Microsoft that noticed or said anything about the throttling.
Windows 7 user here, so I don't quite understand how this problem could happen unless your Win 10 Pro machine calls home when it's powered up, restored from hibernation or sleep, or at random times, and has lost the Win 10 Pro upgrade key.
Linux user here.
Windows 10 is constantly "reactivating" itself. At any point in time, if a reactivation is not received, it goes into "I'm stolen!" mode.
In other words, the continued operation of your computer relies on having a network connection to the mothership. Game companies originated this idea of "always connected DRM". Now, it is in your operating system too.
Why participate? We all know, especially Richard Stallman, what the end result will be.
. About the only thing this person used the computer for was web, email, Facbook, and photos. I recommended a Mac for them instead of a Windows machine and the look on their face was practically terrified.
Of course. Why would a Mac be better? Corporate ownership. Fucked up ideas on DRM. "Feature" updates in addition to Security updates. Yeah, a Mac is NOT a safe choice.
I normally frown on trying to sell Linux to the unwashed masses, but in this situation, a live DVD of Linux Mint or somesuch would have done wonders.
The market didn't decide shit. Human greed did. What we have is the best system that could be decided upon with certain pre-requisites never being optional.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't speak to many people in person. My understanding of the "outside world" mostly comes from viewing comments on the Internet. I saw more support for Bill Clinton and/or Ronald Reagan than I have seen for Trump. I am certain there are actual Trump fans out there, but I have not really met one yet. The only impression I am left with is that Trump won because Clinton (Hillary version) was utterly unacceptable.
Seriously though, after there were two Bushes as President, if there would have been two Clinton's I would have started the Revolution myself. Out of 360 million people, Presidents are only coming from two families? Fuck that nonsense. At least we can pretend there is not an Aristocracy now.
Either your understanding is wrong or mine is.
Congress allocates the money, the President spends the money.
Apparently, it is more complex than that: https://www.nationalpriorities...
TL;DR, The President submits a Budget Request. This budget request is then used by Congress when deciding an actual budget. Again, Congress is still to blame.
Nuclear is the correct answer right now. Long term, extracting energy from existing gradients will be better, but we can't extract enough energy efficiently from the existing energy gradients yet. So, Nuclear Power is the ideal choice until we get the details ironed out on "renewables".
Physics 101: A gradient is required to extract energy from a system.
Knowing that, we can either create our own gradient (nuclear, coal, gas, fire in any form) or extract energy from existing gradients (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, wishing for ponies).
Creating our own gradient can cause issues. What to do with the generated heat that was unable to be turned into useful energy? What to do with the combustion/fission/fusion products from creating a gradient? etc etc etc.
Extracting from existing gradients is ideal. There are no byproducts from creating gradients. HUGE WIN! It makes the environment more stable (less energy floating around, fewer hurricanes/typhoons/etc). The devices themselves are generally passive. Very few long term issues here.
The problem with "renewables" are the short-term issues. People are trying to force them in ways that do not even make sense. It is like the Gold Rush or some such. Sooooo much fraud, disinformation, etc all in a bid to get rich quick.
*sigh* humans.
'Better' is a judgement.
Wind and solar are ideal in that they extract energy from already existing gradients. Nuclear creates a gradient with which to extract energy from. It is the creation of the gradient that seems to be so problematic.
Rivers and/or lakes are generally used as the cold side of the gradient while nuclear reactions are on the hot side. Bodies of water that accept heat have biological changes occur with them when used as the cold side of the gradient. Some of those changes are undesirable.
Nuclear reactions are the hot side of the equation and they have their own issues. We do not fully understand all of the interactions, so some safety measures are overly draconian. Nuclear interactions also create some really nasty and dangerous conditions to biological organisms that evolved around stable nuclei.
All of these issues can be dealt with, but Solar and Wind require the least amount of care and concern because they are taking advantage of existing energy gradients rather than creating one.
All of THAT being said, I still think we need Nuclear Power, at least until we get the whole "renewable" energy thing figured out. The coal and gas plants also create their own gradient, and while the dangers are more fully understood, they are still belching out undesirable chemicals into the environment.
Less energy and more efficient usage is the key to real environmentally savvy policies.
Less energy? No. That is not a given.
More efficient usage? Definitely. We have been absurdly wasteful of energy for a very long time. I recall walking to a 7/11 30 years ago. It was fucking FREEZING outside. I walk, shivering, into the store, and it is warm. Thank God. But I wanted a chocolate milk... so I opened up a cooled refrigerator inside of a heated store in an environment where it was already fucking cold. It boggled my mind. Why didn't they just allow some of the cold from outside to get into the refrigerators? Or the reverse, why don't they let the heat from the refrigerator leak to the outside rather than spending energy pushing that heat into an already heated environment? I guess they pay less on the heating bill for the store... but it seems utterly wasteful to not use the essentially infinite cold reservoir outside to cool your products.
And maybe we'd be less people on the planet. But this is another story.
This is only an issue because of inefficient use of energy. Billions of wall-warts quietly sucking energy that is wasted as heat is the issue. For example, remote Amazon tribes have no effect on the environment as a whole. They don't use any external energy sources.
The only problem I have with ANY of this is that this shit has been going since the dawn of history. Why is it suddenly a big deal now? Why is there no discussion of what the CIA is doing to the Russians, Chinese, Germans, etc? The United States is meddling just as much, if not more, than the other countries. Hell, even Israel tries to influence our elections and they receive lots of aid/support from America.
So why is Russia fucking about with a commercial service such a big interest? If they were effective, then why aren't the two parties using the same tools to have an even more profound effect than an external entity could possibly have?
There is something going on here, but what is being talked about is NOT what is important. Everything that has been revealed so far has been... boring. External entities have always been mucking about in the internal politics of others. What exactly is different this time? And why the hypocrisy surrounding it?
My best guess is that The Powers That Be are either unbelievably stupid (possible but unlikely) or they are trying to keep the masses from seeing reality (whatever that is). The only question now is: What is being hidden behind these claims of *"Russian Interference"?
* Russian Interference has already been established as has interference from almost every other political entity on this planet. The interference is not in question, the sudden (supposed) effectiveness of the interference is what is suspect.
It ends in one of two ways:
Police State
Revolution
No. It ALWAYS ends with Revolution. Police State is just an optional period that wealthy societies will go through before the Revolution.
OOoooo. That sounds so technically difficult. Scarrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy.
LOL None of those things are "hard". It could be difficult to be put them all together, but I doubt it. It also depends on how far you need to scale. For millions, it would take much more time. For thousands, this could be architected within a month and rolled out with full QA checks in 4 months.
The only issue is that there are not enough knowledgeable people to architect this solution individually at hundreds of thousands of disparate locations. But trusting Microsoft to do it is like trusting a known pedophile in a day care center not to diddle children.
Only responding to this despite much more discussable material.
But the people who are already nearly 30 years old and "have nothing saved for retirement" still need to look in the mirror to find who to blame. I can guarantee you (because I work with a lot of these people myself), a lot of younger people were never taught much of anything about finances and investing. Many have no idea how to balance a checkbook, and rely on regularly logging in to their bank's web site to determine how much money they've got in their account(s). They couldn't challenge their bank about an error if they had to.
If this issue is caused by society, then society should do something to where this is not an issue. Namely, perhaps this type of thing should be taught at a school? Society causes us to "need" to know about money, language, math, etc. There are other reasons to know these things, but living in a modern society _requires_ these things; therefore, it is up to society to provide training in these things. Blaming the parents is only useful if the parent actively avoided their children learning these things. If the parents don't know these things, how can they teach their children? How is blaming them for their "uneducated" children their fault when they don't even know that they are uneducated themselves? You can't know what you don't know, despite what Rumsfeld said.
While your attitude towards personal responsibility is correct and admirable, your understanding of what people have any control over is... weird.
Everyone is completely bereft of personal responsibility? In the richest country in the history of the world, people can not be held responsible for their own future? They can be excused because they have to have the latest big-screen LED and Iphone?
So you are saying that buying an iPhone and TV can leave you without enough money to retire? Seriously? iPhones and TVs are dirt cheap. They are the cost of one whole paycheck. In order for what you say to be true, then $2,000 has to have some weird properties that are not directly related to its obvious value. I get it though, you are trying to say they are fiscally irresponsible. I would argue that it costs too much to live in Society. But we can agree to disagree on this one.
Fun fact: A high school student working less that 20 hours a week at minimum wage makes more than 90% of the rest of humanity.
Well, sure... but 90% of humanity doesn't incur the same costs to live in society that the high school student does. Want to eat? In America, that will be $5 please. In 90% of the rest of the world, if you had to pay money instead of growing it/catching it yourself, you would pay the local equivalent of 2 cents. Don't fool yourself here. Would you rather have $10 or $100? Wait a sec, let me give you some more information first... for the $10, you can buy a shelter forever, food for a month, and buy a pack of playing cards. For the $100, you can buy a nice dinner. Now, which amount of money would you want?
As someone who has not been responsible with 401k savings, I can attest that it is not the rest of the country that is responsible for my retirement
Agree. But what if your money was worth less than you thought it was? As I have demonstrated, $100 is not $100. What if you thought you had saved enough, but when the time comes, you find out interest has hollowed our your nest egg? Back in 1970, retiring with a million dollars would have been legendary. Now, retiring with a million dollars ensure that your doctor and health insurer gets paid for a few years.
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
Be nice. The OP is NOT wrong... even if it is a very weird thing to say and has no logical use. ;)
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.
When your choices are: The same old shit or shit with new twists, which shit do you think will be chosen when people are tired of the same old shit?
I am confused about why you think anyone voted FOR Trump. I have not heard many people say anything good about Trump, so I really doubt that many people voted FOR him. From my point of view, it looks EXACTLY like everyone rejected Hillary Clinton and due to the two party system, what came out was Trump. Disgusting eh?
I've tried to explain this again and again to people, but they don't seem to WANT to grasp it.
The reason why the average person does not want to understand that reality is because, by definition, it turns the average person into a liability in a society where there are no jobs/uses for people who are unable to think at a higher level.
Seriously, when things settle down and most everything concerning production is automated, what is there left for the average and below average person to do? They can't participate in society because they have nothing of value to offer. They can't go off in the woods and subsist. Too many of them, not enough woods, and, someone else already owns those woods.
I am, demonstrably, above average... and yet this situation threatens my own existence too! How? Competition for jobs. The less skilled person will fluff their resume, lie, abuse nepotism, etc in order to get a job that I can legitimately and competently perform while they can not perform it... but it takes time to realize they can't perform the job and by the time it is realized, I have starved to death.
Ultimately, around 20% of all humans will have to be executed, year after year, in order to maintain the new automated society. They are dead weight (from the point of view of the owners of the land and productive machines).
Clue to Microsoft: The OS is supposed to be a productivity tool for me, not an advertising platform for you.
Dude. You exist in the wrong reality. You are thinking that Windows is a product designed to allow you to be productive. You also appear to be under the delusion that Microsoft is in the business of providing software.
Absolutely not.
Microsoft is an *American* company. American companies are in the business of making money. It doesn't matter if the excuse for making money is cars, software, massage services, etc. The only thing that matters is making money. The product being sold? Doesn't matter. What matters is that it is a product that you can not avoid. If you want to do anything software/internet related, you have to pay Microsoft (phones and tablets escaped their clutches).
Now, seeing things through their eyes, how much do you think they care whether or not you can be productive with a product that you HAVE to buy? That is why "Windows" is the way it is and will never go back to a "purchasing" model.
Honestly, I foresee Windows getting _much_ worse in the semi-near future. There will be programs that you are not allowed to run, or, if you are permitted to run it, its intimate usage details will be reported. Think of debuggers in Richard Stallman's Right to Read short story.
as their product is far too badly made and they do not have the technological expertise to stay on top of things.
I wonder if anyone inside of Microsoft truly knows the entire "Windows" product anymore... if they don't have someone like that, eventually, a middle management decision will end up bringing about an Apocalypse within Windows at some future time. We see them dancing around with sub-apocalyptic, but disastrous, features constantly now.
Because without the nerd class, you'd still be driving around in a horse-and-buggy
You wish! Without the nerd class, you wouldn't even have a wheel to put on a buggy, much less fire to keep warm.
There is no surprise here. It costs money to have unfettered access to everyone's personal communications. The NSA and other three-letter-agencies are the reason wireless carriers can rape the population's wallets so thoroughly. Usually, when you see a situation like this, it is regulatory capture, but "capture" is not needed in this instance.
come to a head. Like Bastille Day.
I see what you did there. ;)
Good luck finding a Linux distro that still gets updated and works on a 486 hardware.
You can't find a distribution that is maintained in that way, but you can find a kernel that is maintained that way and compile software yourself.
VoilÃ, instant useful 486 with a fully maintained software stack. :)
Let's see you do THAT with Windows, OS X, or any other commercial software.
You have done an excellent job of explaining issues with C and C++.
You have explained that memory safe languages can mitigate some of those issues.
You have not shown that memory safe languages are preferable, or better, than C and/or C++. Just because a language solves one problem, that does not mean it does not introduce other, different problems. Rather like jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.
TL;DR, Yes. There are potential issues with C/C++. Solving just those issues does not inherently make another language more desirable.
Microsoft has NEVER wanted to play fair. Surely they are not now crying about Sprint not playing fair?
Nope. Microsoft is not crying about this. They don't even care. They know that an uneven playing field makes it harder for newcomers so they are happy even though this is hurting them. It is better for Skype to never make a profit or even just die than to let the playing field be fair.
Note that it is not Microsoft that noticed or said anything about the throttling.
Windows 7 user here, so I don't quite understand how this problem could happen unless your Win 10 Pro machine calls home when it's powered up, restored from hibernation or sleep, or at random times, and has lost the Win 10 Pro upgrade key.
Linux user here.
Windows 10 is constantly "reactivating" itself. At any point in time, if a reactivation is not received, it goes into "I'm stolen!" mode.
In other words, the continued operation of your computer relies on having a network connection to the mothership. Game companies originated this idea of "always connected DRM". Now, it is in your operating system too.
Why participate? We all know, especially Richard Stallman, what the end result will be.
. About the only thing this person used the computer for was web, email, Facbook, and photos. I recommended a Mac for them instead of a Windows machine and the look on their face was practically terrified.
Of course. Why would a Mac be better? Corporate ownership. Fucked up ideas on DRM. "Feature" updates in addition to Security updates. Yeah, a Mac is NOT a safe choice.
I normally frown on trying to sell Linux to the unwashed masses, but in this situation, a live DVD of Linux Mint or somesuch would have done wonders.
However, the market has decided
The market didn't decide shit. Human greed did. What we have is the best system that could be decided upon with certain pre-requisites never being optional.