A lot of people aren't paying for it. Loads of gamer types who build their own PC are using unactivated Windows 10, something they would have had to use hacks to be able to do with XP.
So MS have loosened up the rules on paying for the OS but at the same time monetized app auto installs. Consider. If you buy a PC it comes with a load of crapware preinstalled - Norton Internet Security, Anti virus and so on. Most of those are trials - after a month or so they prompt you for a credit card to get a subscription. Now some percentage of PC users will dumbly hand over their credit card, and some percentage will work out they can uninstall it and use Windows Defender instead.
So each machine with trial software on it will generate a certain amount of revenue for the software vendor. Which means the software vendor can pay PC vendors to install trial software.
People have argued that the price of the trial ware knocked off a significant percentage of the cost of a Windows licence in volume. The problem from MS's perspective is that all the cash went to the vendor and WIndows got poor reputation for performance because things like Norton Internet Security absolutely killed performance.
Now with WIndows 10 and push installs MS have a chance to get in on the act. Some software vendor can do a deal where they pay MS to push install their software.
PC vendors probably won't get to install Windows for free though - there's no reason for MS to allow that and it would kill their revenue. However people building their own machines will probably get to use unactivated windows for free. Possibly MS will segregate things so that unactivated windows will get software pushed while corporate machines where the company pays a per seat license will not. I.e. 'free' windows can be monetized in a way that doesn't require the users pay a fee.
As my friend Comrade Colonel General Koleshnikov once said "Dmitry Sonovavich, we have often noticed traitors and spies have large amounts of hazardous radioactive isotopes in their hideouts. We have no idea why this is. Maybe they put them in their tea for some reason"
Any cuts to government spending means PEOPLE WILL DIE according to the Democrats, who also claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and reducing deficits.
"However, Google is reportedly only displaying stories from a select group of publishers, including those it partnered with on the development, on its own site at the moment."
Since those partners are "CNN, Conde Nast, Hearst, Mashable, Meredith, Mic, Vox Media, and the Washington Post" and it only happens if you use Google I think it's safe to say this won't affect me.
But wasn't one of the concerns about net neutrality that companies would act as gatekeepers and privilege the content from their 'partners', who would need to pay a fee to take part?
Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm yr-1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 +/- 0.006 mm yr-2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.
So we expect a rise of 1.7mm +/- 0.3 mm per year . In the UK the government tells the people building sea defences to plan for a worst case rise of 3mm per year when planning sea defences.
So long as they do that, what's the problem? Also a 28 to 34 cm rise over 110 years isn't all that much to deal with.
No it'll be like journalism. Journalists study ethics at J school and as we all know every single J school graduate is ethically perfect. That's why there's no such thing as fake news, clickbait or people running press releases they haven't read because the headline suits their publication's ideologically biases. Every single journalist carefully verifies the facts of the story they are running, and if they later find out they've made a mistake they issue a fulsome mea culpa as prominently as the original story. When their editor slaps them on the ass and tells them to "clickbait and shil" they say "No Sir, I have my principles" and get the bus back to the Midwest or wherever they came from. They're poorer but they're sure they made the right decision and have stayed uncorrupted by the big city media and its amoral materialism. Then they meet a nice country boy, start a family and live happily ever after.
What does uMatrix do that uBlock Origin doesn't do in Medium Mode? As part of my holy war on Facebook, Google and third party javascript, I'm always interested in learning of new weapons.
Back before the EU British Summer Time was announced when Her Britannic Majesty emerged from her underground Winter Palace. If she saw a shadow summer had arrived and we all wound our pocket watches. Anyone that didn't was killed, horribly.
It's total CO2 emissions that affect the climate, not per capita emissions. Also if China is going to radically increase its CO2 emissions it is impossible for the US or EU to do anything to cause total emissions to fall because, as you point out, China is a big place.
If you care about the national debt, you should never, ever vote a Republican into the Oval Office. Their stated goal ("starve the beast" philosophy) is to increase the debt to try to force the government to shrink. Like increasing your credit card debt to force yourself to be more frugal.
Obama D 68% Bush R 101% Clinton D 32% HW_Bush R 54% Reagan R 186% Carter D 43% Ford R 47% Nixon R 34% LBJ D 13% JFK D 8% Eisenhower R 9% Truman D 3% FDR D 1048% Hoover R 32% Coolidge R -26% Harding R -7% Wilson D 727%
So that's 8 Democrats who added 1942% to the debt, or an average of 242.75% each. And 9 Republicans who added 430% to the debt or 47.78% each.
The only real outlier is Reagan who spent a tonne of cash. Still that caused the USSR to collapse and the economy to rebound. And he did much less fiscal damage than FDR or Wilson, both of whom also had an existential crisis to deal with. If you're going to exclude them on the grounds the won WWII and WWI, why not exclude Reagan too on the grounds he was governing at the end of the Cold War.
In which case you get this result. Six Democrat presidents increased the debt by a total of 167%, or 27.83% each. Eight Republican presidents increased the debt by a total of 244 or 30.5% each.
I.e. the notion that Democrats run cause the debt to increase more slowly isn't really true. In fact, and surprisingly, there's not much difference. Especially since FDR who enormously increased the size of the peacetime government. Something which is very hard to undo, because Democrat's pet welfare recipients will riot if you do and the media will cheer them on.
It's called the Systembolaget. Back when I was there it was only open to 5pm. Which meant that if you had a job you need to go there at lunch time to get beer for a party. In Sweden you have Starköl which is > 3.5% and that needs to be sold at the 'System'.
The System also has a decent selection of wine too. And the net effect is a horrible sort of paternalism. Unemployed/underclass people who the elite are scared of obviously have no trouble heading out to buy booze during the day. The elite send their assistants to buy wine, which is actually surprisingly cheap. However for the average person leaving work at lunch time and driving to the System is a bit of a pain, and anything but wine is of course not surprisingly cheap. In fact booze prices in Sweden are very high. I.e. the elite and their underclass pets are not bothered too much, but everyone else is kept in line.
This is how it worked when I was there, which must be about ten years ago now. Maybe it has changed.
Looking at it they have liberalised the rules a little bit
På söndagar har Systembolaget stängt. Åren 1982-2000 var Systembolaget stängt även på lördagarna, men är numera öppet fram till kl 13-15 alla icke röda lördagar (den exakta öppettiden varierar beroende på ortens och butikens storlek). Beslutet om lördagsstängt förknippas främst med Sveriges dåvarande socialminister Karin Söder (c).
i.e.
On Sundays, Systembolaget is closed. In 1982-2000, Systembolaget was closed on Saturdays, but is open until 13-15 all non-red Saturdays (the exact opening hours vary depending on the size of the place and store). The decision on Saturday closure is primarily associated with Sweden's then Social Minister Karin Söder ( c ).
Red days are public holidays. So since 2000 the System is open from 1pm to 3pm on a Saturday. So people who work during the week can actually go there without using up their lunch hours. Well for some stores, which presumably means the ones in elite areas usually are and the ones in not so elite areas usually aren't. Then again the underclass in Sweden don't tend to drink, if you know what I mean...
Also it seems like going on Saturday means you need to queue up
Still it was a little unexpected for me to walk into Systembolaget in the hour before it was due to close (ahead of being closed all day Sunday) and see the lengthy queues. "Is this the Swedish version of the six o'clock swill?", I thought to myself.
Another problem for FB is how people use it. If people go to the site, look at their feed, see ads and post status updates FB can harvest data and sell ads.
If people just use Messenger Lite, the possibilities are much less. And from FB's point of view using the mobile app is better than using the mobile website which is better than using Messenger which is better than using Messenger Lite.
In fact the very fact that they offered Messenger Lite is a sign they're in trouble. All the crap the mobile app and full fat Messenger do in the background drained peoples batteries and people started to complain. However that background crap was a vital part of FB's data hoovering business model. So was relying on people to actively post stuff on the website, ideally with no adblocker installed.
Heck if you use uBlock Origin it's amazing how many third party websites access facebook.com, which is blocked by default on uBlock Origin.
Facebook has a lot to lose once people decide it is a bad thing and try to interact with it to the minimum possible. Unfortunately I know people in other countries who are only contactable via FB Messenger so I keep Messenger Lite on my phone. If they migrated away I'd use something else to contact them. Apart from that I avoid FB completely.
They could've utterly stopped using coal with the pure amount of solar panels they produced and sold in the past ten years with their fucking rigging of the REE market.
China added 3000 TWh of generation capacity from 2000 to 2014
Meanwhile if you look here at global energy consumption by source renewables are very small percentage. The reason for that is because all the increase is in places like China and India, and people there can only afford fossil fuels.
Finally we will crush the lamers who just use ARM IP unmodified with our brilliant and revolutionary Kryo core, the crown jewel of Qualcomm which we've spent a fortune optimising.
Wait, actually we're going take ARM A73 cores, hack them around and just call it Kryo and just pull in a cheap ARM GPU hard macro unmodified. Actually we've pretty much given up on doing microarchitecture design and are gradually turning into a company that just takes hard macros from ARM and puts them on chips. Oh dear.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people aren't paying for it. Loads of gamer types who build their own PC are using unactivated Windows 10, something they would have had to use hacks to be able to do with XP.
So MS have loosened up the rules on paying for the OS but at the same time monetized app auto installs. Consider. If you buy a PC it comes with a load of crapware preinstalled - Norton Internet Security, Anti virus and so on. Most of those are trials - after a month or so they prompt you for a credit card to get a subscription. Now some percentage of PC users will dumbly hand over their credit card, and some percentage will work out they can uninstall it and use Windows Defender instead.
So each machine with trial software on it will generate a certain amount of revenue for the software vendor. Which means the software vendor can pay PC vendors to install trial software.
People have argued that the price of the trial ware knocked off a significant percentage of the cost of a Windows licence in volume. The problem from MS's perspective is that all the cash went to the vendor and WIndows got poor reputation for performance because things like Norton Internet Security absolutely killed performance.
Now with WIndows 10 and push installs MS have a chance to get in on the act. Some software vendor can do a deal where they pay MS to push install their software.
PC vendors probably won't get to install Windows for free though - there's no reason for MS to allow that and it would kill their revenue. However people building their own machines will probably get to use unactivated windows for free. Possibly MS will segregate things so that unactivated windows will get software pushed while corporate machines where the company pays a per seat license will not. I.e. 'free' windows can be monetized in a way that doesn't require the users pay a fee.
Or maybe they'll sell Microsoft Insecticide
As my friend Comrade Colonel General Koleshnikov once said "Dmitry Sonovavich, we have often noticed traitors and spies have large amounts of hazardous radioactive isotopes in their hideouts. We have no idea why this is. Maybe they put them in their tea for some reason"
I don't think Her Majesty's Government would get involved in anything underhand.
We don't do it to lepers anymore, only to iPhone users. The corruption of their apostrophes Slashdot's way of making them say "Unclean! Unclean!".
Any cuts to government spending means PEOPLE WILL DIE according to the Democrats, who also claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and reducing deficits.
They're only doing it with their partners
"However, Google is reportedly only displaying stories from a select group of publishers, including those it partnered with on the development, on its own site at the moment."
Since those partners are "CNN, Conde Nast, Hearst, Mashable, Meredith, Mic, Vox Media, and the Washington Post" and it only happens if you use Google I think it's safe to say this won't affect me.
But wasn't one of the concerns about net neutrality that companies would act as gatekeepers and privilege the content from their 'partners', who would need to pay a fee to take part?
Slashdot marks the posts of iPhone users in accordance with Leviticus 13:45.
Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm yr-1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 +/- 0.006 mm yr-2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.
So we expect a rise of 1.7mm +/- 0.3 mm per year . In the UK the government tells the people building sea defences to plan for a worst case rise of 3mm per year when planning sea defences.
So long as they do that, what's the problem? Also a 28 to 34 cm rise over 110 years isn't all that much to deal with.
No it'll be like journalism. Journalists study ethics at J school and as we all know every single J school graduate is ethically perfect. That's why there's no such thing as fake news, clickbait or people running press releases they haven't read because the headline suits their publication's ideologically biases. Every single journalist carefully verifies the facts of the story they are running, and if they later find out they've made a mistake they issue a fulsome mea culpa as prominently as the original story. When their editor slaps them on the ass and tells them to "clickbait and shil" they say "No Sir, I have my principles" and get the bus back to the Midwest or wherever they came from. They're poorer but they're sure they made the right decision and have stayed uncorrupted by the big city media and its amoral materialism. Then they meet a nice country boy, start a family and live happily ever after.
Oh wait...
gorhill, the developer of uBlock Origin and uMatrix uses uBlock Origin in Medium mode, not uMatrix.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBl...
https://www.wilderssecurity.co...
What does uMatrix do that uBlock Origin doesn't do in Medium Mode? As part of my holy war on Facebook, Google and third party javascript, I'm always interested in learning of new weapons.
Back before the EU British Summer Time was announced when Her Britannic Majesty emerged from her underground Winter Palace. If she saw a shadow summer had arrived and we all wound our pocket watches. Anyone that didn't was killed, horribly.
This is how it should be.
It's total CO2 emissions that affect the climate, not per capita emissions. Also if China is going to radically increase its CO2 emissions it is impossible for the US or EU to do anything to cause total emissions to fall because, as you point out, China is a big place.
China already emits more CO2 than America. And the climate, if it cares at all, cares about total emissions not per capita emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
If you care about the national debt, you should never, ever vote a Republican into the Oval Office. Their stated goal ("starve the beast" philosophy) is to increase the debt to try to force the government to shrink. Like increasing your credit card debt to force yourself to be more frugal.
You can see the debt increase by president here
https://www.thebalance.com/us-...
Obama D 68%
Bush R 101%
Clinton D 32%
HW_Bush R 54%
Reagan R 186%
Carter D 43%
Ford R 47%
Nixon R 34%
LBJ D 13%
JFK D 8%
Eisenhower R 9%
Truman D 3%
FDR D 1048%
Hoover R 32%
Coolidge R -26%
Harding R -7%
Wilson D 727%
So that's 8 Democrats who added 1942% to the debt, or an average of 242.75% each. And 9 Republicans who added 430% to the debt or 47.78% each.
The only real outlier is Reagan who spent a tonne of cash. Still that caused the USSR to collapse and the economy to rebound. And he did much less fiscal damage than FDR or Wilson, both of whom also had an existential crisis to deal with. If you're going to exclude them on the grounds the won WWII and WWI, why not exclude Reagan too on the grounds he was governing at the end of the Cold War.
In which case you get this result. Six Democrat presidents increased the debt by a total of 167%, or 27.83% each. Eight Republican presidents increased the debt by a total of 244 or 30.5% each.
I.e. the notion that Democrats run cause the debt to increase more slowly isn't really true. In fact, and surprisingly, there's not much difference. Especially since FDR who enormously increased the size of the peacetime government. Something which is very hard to undo, because Democrat's pet welfare recipients will riot if you do and the media will cheer them on.
Yeah, they have it in Sweden.
It's called the Systembolaget. Back when I was there it was only open to 5pm. Which meant that if you had a job you need to go there at lunch time to get beer for a party. In Sweden you have
Starköl which is > 3.5% and that needs to be sold at the 'System'.
The System also has a decent selection of wine too. And the net effect is a horrible sort of paternalism. Unemployed/underclass people who the elite are scared of obviously have no trouble heading out to buy booze during the day. The elite send their assistants to buy wine, which is actually surprisingly cheap. However for the average person leaving work at lunch time and driving to the System is a bit of a pain, and anything but wine is of course not surprisingly cheap. In fact booze prices in Sweden are very high. I.e. the elite and their underclass pets are not bothered too much, but everyone else is kept in line.
This is how it worked when I was there, which must be about ten years ago now. Maybe it has changed.
Looking at it they have liberalised the rules a little bit
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
På söndagar har Systembolaget stängt. Åren 1982-2000 var Systembolaget stängt även på lördagarna, men är numera öppet fram till kl 13-15 alla icke röda lördagar (den exakta öppettiden varierar beroende på ortens och butikens storlek). Beslutet om lördagsstängt förknippas främst med Sveriges dåvarande socialminister Karin Söder (c).
i.e.
On Sundays, Systembolaget is closed. In 1982-2000, Systembolaget was closed on Saturdays, but is open until 13-15 all non-red Saturdays (the exact opening hours vary depending on the size of the place and store). The decision on Saturday closure is primarily associated with Sweden's then Social Minister Karin Söder ( c ).
Red days are public holidays. So since 2000 the System is open from 1pm to 3pm on a Saturday. So people who work during the week can actually go there without using up their lunch hours. Well for some stores, which presumably means the ones in elite areas usually are and the ones in not so elite areas usually aren't. Then again the underclass in Sweden don't tend to drink, if you know what I mean...
Also it seems like going on Saturday means you need to queue up
https://jamesobrien.blog/2013/...
Still it was a little unexpected for me to walk into Systembolaget in the hour before it was due to close (ahead of being closed all day Sunday) and see the lengthy queues. "Is this the Swedish version of the six o'clock swill?", I thought to myself.
Land of the free!
I liked
"Woosh <- The sound a swinging pendant makes"
Exactly.
Another problem for FB is how people use it. If people go to the site, look at their feed, see ads and post status updates FB can harvest data and sell ads.
If people just use Messenger Lite, the possibilities are much less. And from FB's point of view using the mobile app is better than using the mobile website which is better than using Messenger which is better than using Messenger Lite.
In fact the very fact that they offered Messenger Lite is a sign they're in trouble. All the crap the mobile app and full fat Messenger do in the background drained peoples batteries and people started to complain. However that background crap was a vital part of FB's data hoovering business model. So was relying on people to actively post stuff on the website, ideally with no adblocker installed.
Heck if you use uBlock Origin it's amazing how many third party websites access facebook.com, which is blocked by default on uBlock Origin.
Facebook has a lot to lose once people decide it is a bad thing and try to interact with it to the minimum possible. Unfortunately I know people in other countries who are only contactable via FB Messenger so I keep Messenger Lite on my phone. If they migrated away I'd use something else to contact them. Apart from that I avoid FB completely.
Lot's of the other parents I know feel the same way.
You's sound's like good's parent's. I bet's her's use of apostrophe's is grammatically's correct's too's
They could've utterly stopped using coal with the pure amount of solar panels they produced and sold in the past ten years with their fucking rigging of the REE market.
China added 3000 TWh of generation capacity from 2000 to 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Meanwhile if you look here at global energy consumption by source renewables are very small percentage. The reason for that is because all the increase is in places like China and India, and people there can only afford fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Once we leave the EU we can set our own DST rules, free from the tyranny of a federal superstate.
I'd argue but you're having so much fun beating your straw man it seems a bit cruel to stop you.
Lies.
Finally we will crush the lamers who just use ARM IP unmodified with our brilliant and revolutionary Kryo core, the crown jewel of Qualcomm which we've spent a fortune optimising.
Wait, actually we're going take ARM A73 cores, hack them around and just call it Kryo and just pull in a cheap ARM GPU hard macro unmodified. Actually we've pretty much given up on doing microarchitecture design and are gradually turning into a company that just takes hard macros from ARM and puts them on chips. Oh dear.
Yours,
A Qualcomm Engineer.
What sort of communist hellhole has government owned liquor stores?
That's not true. This report from 2010 - the most recent I can find - shows massive amounts of Chinese coal plants being built.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%... page 16
https://imgur.com/a/NDlL3