Even though I mislike President Trump (nee: Drumpf), rhetoric and sheer energy are extremely unlikely to be of any use in opposing him. If we (collectively) leave off anger and knee-jerk reactions and instead choose to exert a calm continuous opposition to the current administration I suspect we will gain both a more receptive audience for our views and a far greater effectiveness in our efforts.
. . . not unlike their somewhat heavy-handed tactics in pushing Windows 10 out (and pushing out updates), this is actually Microsoft's best answer to the perception that their product is buggy and exploit-prone.
Let's set the wayback machine to the days of XP. Microsoft had to put up with a near-constant stream of complaints that many machines running XP were exploited and buggy. There was a lot of evidence to support this - but in many cases, the bugs and exploits were due to end-users not patching/updating their systems, making many old resolved exploits de facto zero-day exploits. In many instances, they were still being dogged by failures in downlevel versions of Windows. Support was similarly a nightmare, as even in enterprise settings they could not entirely count on end-users running a known version of Windows - oh, sure, "95, ME, XP", "Pro/Enterprise/Server" . . . but even within that specification there existed a whole spectrum of patch levels - even extending to some tiny subset of users actively preventing the installation of specific patches - decisions being made not by IT professionals, but often by end-users.
With Microsoft's forceful insistence that everyone upgrade to Windows 10 (and a similar coercion to apply all patches and updates), Microsoft can now be at least somewhat confident that the vast majority of desktop systems running their OS are running the same OS, patches and all. Granted, this leads to some real problems (such as the debacle surrounding the forced uninstallation of software Microsoft doesn't want running on their systems), but it also means that they don't have literally thousands of systems running Windows 8/Windows 10 which are vulnerable to an exploit they closed several months ago. It also means that when they hear about a bug or exploit, they can be reasonably sure that they haven't already fixed the problem once. Finally, it means that they don't have to rely upon end-user expertise to differentiate between valid software and Trojan horses (not that I entirely trust Microsoft in this regard, but then neither do I trust Google or Apple to do a perfect job in this respect).
A great number of people take great delight in pointing out every unpopular action by Microsoft - and often, they are right - but if you insist that Microsoft fix PEBKAC errors, you lose the right to complain about them removing en masse the end-user's ability to choose for themselves how their systems will be configured, patched and maintained.
Oh - I'll bet you thought that "My Computer" meant it was yours. The hardware is yours, the data arguably so. Licensed software is not yours - you just have permission to use it. This includes the OS if you're running MS-Windows. It's sort of like American freedom - you're willing to surrender some freedom to be kept safe, get used to not having your freedom anymore. Pick your poison, but don't cry like a child with a skinned knee when you can't have both.
Just to point out a relevant parallel - Google just pushed out an update to the Android Google Voice app client - and took away the widget. I was using that widget and I'm very unhappy with their decision. I've sent feedback to Google asking that they restore widget functionality to the app. This is only the most recent example of such activity by Google - where's the hue and cry over that?
As has been noted elsewhere, this goes part and parcel with the "Brexit" decision UK citizens voted for.
On the upside, the British Pound should shortly regain the strength and robustness which membership in the European Union was costing it. The downside is that the rest of Europe will want a slice of your pie, so to speak; no longer being in the EU will let them apply international, rather than purely financial pressures to achieve this.
In short - the players have changed but the song remains the same. We in the US have Trump (nee: Drumpf) to deal with, you guys have Brexit. Welcome to the global hangover!
Libre Office (previously: Star Office) was intended as a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office. It was designed from the beginning to provide file-format compatibility as a free and open-source alternative to the costly (if powerful) suite of tools marketed by Microsoft.
Making it function as identically as possible to MS-Office (ironically, even replicating bugs and security exploits) has been an intentional choice, not an accident. The presence of the ribbon in Libre Office assures that users accustomed to MS-Office will benefit from greater familiarity with the software. It'll facilitate migration from paid software to free software for users and organizations which may not want to expend the time, effort and expense to learn to use a different software package from the one they've become accustomed to.
Yet despite those failures (many of which were attributable to Tesla's lack of business sense, not a lack of genius), much of Mr. Tesla's research and innovation is still relevant and meaningful today. His name is remembered in history books, and the science he pioneered continues to be of great importance. Even more remarkable is the degree to which Tesla advanced our understanding of one of the fundamental forces which control our Universe.
Mind you, I think that Musk is a kook, a total loon - but then again, a lot of people thought that about Tesla back in his day.
Consider that the most notable research advancements from this organization have dealt primarily with energy storage (battery) technology. I'm sure I'm not the only one to realize the vast number of non-automotive applications such devices might be suited for. Security robots come screaming to mind, although I can think of several other intriguing possibilities as well. Anywhere it would be reasonable to operate a powered device over a long period of time without needing a physical power feed (e.g., an extension cord) could well be a beneficiary of the battery research performed by Tesla (Motors).
Indeed. I note that I didn't bring the reference to Trump (nee: Drumpf) into the thread - I merely responded to it.
In what way was I arrogant? I merely pointed out a consistency between a stated position and an assessment of intelligence. I did not make a derogatory reference to that level of intelligence. The difference here is as real as the difference, say, between banning Muslims and banning all but Christians from Muslim states.
In defense of the many negative comments here, the very summary title is argumentative.
It's Time To Admit Apple Watch Is a Success
Apple is a success (although not nearly as much so as Microsoft, or IBM, or Linux, or . ..). The Success of the Apple Watch is apparently subject to debate, as the headline itself implies. I, for one, have barely even heard of the Apple Watch and have never seen one. Fitbits, Pebbles and various Android smart-watches? Yes, I've seen them. I haven't seen the usefulness of them, but I've seen them.
The article itself smacks of binspam to me. I'm sure there are any number of Apple users who own Apple Watches and wouldn't trade them for anything - I suspect, however, that they are a very small fraction of the world consumer market.
You have very aptly demonstrated all of the intelligence and thoughtfulness the majority of voting Americans perceive in supporters of Donald Trump (nee: Drumpf). Please . . . continue.
Of course, it's a shame that I'm likely to release a flood of flames from Anonymous Cowards - but in truth their handle says it all, don't you think?
No - the SAN's internal wipe. It took nearly thirty minutes to wipe the filesystems. Unfortunately, the fact that I'd wiped the wrong device didn't become evident until four hours after that. In all honesty, I'd have fired me that day. I'm glad my manager was a more understanding fellow than myself.
Sadly, I remember personally making a similar mistake about a decade ago. Upgrading SAN hardware, preparing the old hardware for decommissioning (deleting data prior to sending the units to vendor). Even with offsite data replication, I survived several uncomfortable days and never did fully live down my error. Could've been worse - I thought I had a career change opportunity on my hands. My only saving grace was that I was acting under direction from vendor tech support when the error occurred (although it was still my fingers on the keyboard).
I'm not that naive. Sophistry can't hide the plain, readily seen Truth (not alternative truth) in this case. This ban is nothing more than barely-concealed discrimination against a religious group. Thus, the answer to my question is self-evident (and I'll give that answer here myself, even if you won't admit it) - Trump is lying to us now, when he says that the ban, however "temporary" is not the first step towards wholesale discrimination against practicioners of Islam.
Thank you for keeping your responses intelligent and well thought-out. While I disagree strongly with your opinion on this subject, it's refreshing to argue the subject intelligently. I suspect that the next few months will leave one of us vindicated and one of us disappointed.
So when did Trump lie - when he said he'd ban Muslims from entering the US, or when he says his recent executive order isn't a ban on Muslims entering the US?
But you still haven't answered my question - was Trump lying when he promised to ban Muslims from entering the country, or is he lying now when he insists his current entry ban isn't a ban on Muslims entering the country?
Slashdot Mirror
And prepare to wait for a lo-o-ong time . . .
Will the medal winners be able to cover the roaming charges?
. . . before the fire started, I was squeezin' off a muscle missile. You know, like in the Jackson Browne song 'Rosie'.
Even though I mislike President Trump (nee: Drumpf), rhetoric and sheer energy are extremely unlikely to be of any use in opposing him. If we (collectively) leave off anger and knee-jerk reactions and instead choose to exert a calm continuous opposition to the current administration I suspect we will gain both a more receptive audience for our views and a far greater effectiveness in our efforts.
Let's set the wayback machine to the days of XP. Microsoft had to put up with a near-constant stream of complaints that many machines running XP were exploited and buggy. There was a lot of evidence to support this - but in many cases, the bugs and exploits were due to end-users not patching/updating their systems, making many old resolved exploits de facto zero-day exploits. In many instances, they were still being dogged by failures in downlevel versions of Windows. Support was similarly a nightmare, as even in enterprise settings they could not entirely count on end-users running a known version of Windows - oh, sure, "95, ME, XP", "Pro/Enterprise/Server" . . . but even within that specification there existed a whole spectrum of patch levels - even extending to some tiny subset of users actively preventing the installation of specific patches - decisions being made not by IT professionals, but often by end-users.
With Microsoft's forceful insistence that everyone upgrade to Windows 10 (and a similar coercion to apply all patches and updates), Microsoft can now be at least somewhat confident that the vast majority of desktop systems running their OS are running the same OS, patches and all. Granted, this leads to some real problems (such as the debacle surrounding the forced uninstallation of software Microsoft doesn't want running on their systems), but it also means that they don't have literally thousands of systems running Windows 8/Windows 10 which are vulnerable to an exploit they closed several months ago. It also means that when they hear about a bug or exploit, they can be reasonably sure that they haven't already fixed the problem once. Finally, it means that they don't have to rely upon end-user expertise to differentiate between valid software and Trojan horses (not that I entirely trust Microsoft in this regard, but then neither do I trust Google or Apple to do a perfect job in this respect).
A great number of people take great delight in pointing out every unpopular action by Microsoft - and often, they are right - but if you insist that Microsoft fix PEBKAC errors, you lose the right to complain about them removing en masse the end-user's ability to choose for themselves how their systems will be configured, patched and maintained.
Oh - I'll bet you thought that "My Computer" meant it was yours. The hardware is yours, the data arguably so. Licensed software is not yours - you just have permission to use it. This includes the OS if you're running MS-Windows. It's sort of like American freedom - you're willing to surrender some freedom to be kept safe, get used to not having your freedom anymore. Pick your poison, but don't cry like a child with a skinned knee when you can't have both.
Just to point out a relevant parallel - Google just pushed out an update to the Android Google Voice app client - and took away the widget. I was using that widget and I'm very unhappy with their decision. I've sent feedback to Google asking that they restore widget functionality to the app. This is only the most recent example of such activity by Google - where's the hue and cry over that?
On the upside, the British Pound should shortly regain the strength and robustness which membership in the European Union was costing it. The downside is that the rest of Europe will want a slice of your pie, so to speak; no longer being in the EU will let them apply international, rather than purely financial pressures to achieve this.
In short - the players have changed but the song remains the same. We in the US have Trump (nee: Drumpf) to deal with, you guys have Brexit. Welcome to the global hangover!
Oh, wait - I liked VisiCalc. Lotus 1-2-3 wasn't bad either, now that I think of it.
Libre Office (previously: Star Office) was intended as a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office. It was designed from the beginning to provide file-format compatibility as a free and open-source alternative to the costly (if powerful) suite of tools marketed by Microsoft.
Making it function as identically as possible to MS-Office (ironically, even replicating bugs and security exploits) has been an intentional choice, not an accident. The presence of the ribbon in Libre Office assures that users accustomed to MS-Office will benefit from greater familiarity with the software. It'll facilitate migration from paid software to free software for users and organizations which may not want to expend the time, effort and expense to learn to use a different software package from the one they've become accustomed to.
FTFY
Mind you, I think that Musk is a kook, a total loon - but then again, a lot of people thought that about Tesla back in his day.
Consider that the most notable research advancements from this organization have dealt primarily with energy storage (battery) technology. I'm sure I'm not the only one to realize the vast number of non-automotive applications such devices might be suited for. Security robots come screaming to mind, although I can think of several other intriguing possibilities as well. Anywhere it would be reasonable to operate a powered device over a long period of time without needing a physical power feed (e.g., an extension cord) could well be a beneficiary of the battery research performed by Tesla (Motors).
In what way was I arrogant? I merely pointed out a consistency between a stated position and an assessment of intelligence. I did not make a derogatory reference to that level of intelligence. The difference here is as real as the difference, say, between banning Muslims and banning all but Christians from Muslim states.
Here's another one - please, downmod away. If this is trolling, I suppose I must admit I enjoy it.
Apple is a success (although not nearly as much so as Microsoft, or IBM, or Linux, or . . .). The Success of the Apple Watch is apparently subject to debate, as the headline itself implies. I, for one, have barely even heard of the Apple Watch and have never seen one. Fitbits, Pebbles and various Android smart-watches? Yes, I've seen them. I haven't seen the usefulness of them, but I've seen them.
The article itself smacks of binspam to me. I'm sure there are any number of Apple users who own Apple Watches and wouldn't trade them for anything - I suspect, however, that they are a very small fraction of the world consumer market.
Of course, it's a shame that I'm likely to release a flood of flames from Anonymous Cowards - but in truth their handle says it all, don't you think?
No - the SAN's internal wipe. It took nearly thirty minutes to wipe the filesystems. Unfortunately, the fact that I'd wiped the wrong device didn't become evident until four hours after that. In all honesty, I'd have fired me that day. I'm glad my manager was a more understanding fellow than myself.
Sadly, I remember personally making a similar mistake about a decade ago. Upgrading SAN hardware, preparing the old hardware for decommissioning (deleting data prior to sending the units to vendor). Even with offsite data replication, I survived several uncomfortable days and never did fully live down my error. Could've been worse - I thought I had a career change opportunity on my hands. My only saving grace was that I was acting under direction from vendor tech support when the error occurred (although it was still my fingers on the keyboard).
. . . or at least respond to the name "Joshua".
Lawyers always act in "good faith" - but nobody has ever fully explained to me what "good faith" means, let alone what they have "good faith" in.
On the campaign trail, or yesterday?
Thank you for keeping your responses intelligent and well thought-out. While I disagree strongly with your opinion on this subject, it's refreshing to argue the subject intelligently. I suspect that the next few months will leave one of us vindicated and one of us disappointed.
For now, at least.
And he's only banning Muslims from places where he doesn't have financial interests at stake.
For now, at least.
And he's only lying a little bit.
Oh, wait - it's fashionable to call it "alternative truth" now, isn't it?
You can't have it both ways.
But you still haven't answered my question - was Trump lying when he promised to ban Muslims from entering the country, or is he lying now when he insists his current entry ban isn't a ban on Muslims entering the country?