And having used both, Google is much better suited for your average user than Microsoft, which seems to think you should need a MIS degree to use O365; Making it harder to use, for no apparent reason.
I went through an O365/Exchange Online migration, which was a bitch to say the least.
I also continue to support them, and I can say unequivocally, that O365 takes more hand holding, more troubleshooting, and causes more hassles for me, as an admin than when we were using Office 2013 and Exchange onPrem.
However, with all that being said, from the users perspective it wasn't much of a change, and no, you don't need an MIS degree to use it.
Outlook, Excel, Word, etc?
The site, itself, admits in an online statement, “We use your microphone to identify the things you’re listening to or watching, based on the music and TV matches we’re able to identify.” But, experts contend that the site is going a step further. In what some users are calling an alarming trend, described as “Big Brother,”
People who realize that Vista, despite the inevitable hardships and bad reputation that came with breaking drivers and applications, was the result of a tough but vital decision to make some great improvements to security.
Right, and when did Vista come out? Waaaayyyy too late to put the Genie back in the lamp(or horse in the barn).
Oh, and the chest thumping security techniques that MS likes to brag about post Vista were things that were the norm in most other OS'.
So essentially MS was shamed into even taking security seriously, actually.
Gen X had a brief flicker of spotlight in the 90s, then became quickly forgotten.
We were overshadowed by the Boomers from the 60s - 80s, and then when they had kids(The Millenials, who are now the largest generation), they became the generation du jour, as so aptly penned here.
I agree with much of what Marshall Brain has written on this topic, except for the part where people buy shares in Australia and move there to live in the wonderland of robot and vr plenty.
His Manna story could be a good film, if done right.
My point in all of this is that if you make a solvable issue sound insurmountable because you want to make a political point you weaken you position. Once they see you exaggerate in one area they assume you exaggerate (or make stuff up) in all areas because of your agenda. Be honest about the positive effects along with the negative and you won't have so many deniers.
Perhaps you could use some critical thinking skills when reading my post.
The scientific consensus about climate is that there will be places on the Earth that have traditionally supported human habitation that will be adversely impacted in the future. We are already seeing this happen.
The places that will be impacted, in all likelihood, will have population movements(migrations) away from them, to, somewhere else that has a climate that more easily supports human life.
As I pointed out, technology could be used to alleviate the problems of extreme heat, however the financial and political force to do that doesn't exist in most of the places that will be impacted like areas of the Middle East and South Asia.
I never said these problems are insurmountable, you did, and you filtered my post through your politicized lens, which isn't surprising in todays hyper-partisan political climate.
I was merely asking the simple questions about how will we deal with this.
I think it is a good thing to be cognizant of possible outcomes and to prepare for them.
If this trend continues, and it looks like it will, we will see "environmental refugees" increase. It will become more difficult to support life in certain parts of this planet, places that have had human civilization for quite a long time.
Sure, technology could alleviate many of the problems of living in a place with extreme heat, but that requires money and political will.
We have already seen the warnings about areas of the Middle East becoming uninhabitable later this century.
Where will these people go?
Who will support them?
How will governments deal with the crisis?
I usually side with Grammar Nazis on/., but in this instance, phrases like "ATM Machine" and "PIN Number" have become colloquial American English "canon", so to speak.
People have been calling them "ATM Machines" and "PIN Numbers" since the 80s.
There are many commonly used phrases and acronyms(in American English) that don't follow a grammatically correct logic, yet are used constantly.
Deal with it.
Actually, once upon a time an ATM couldn't be programmed without the presence of a sealed hardware unit that couldn't be activated without entering two unique pass-codes entered by two bank officials, the codes being provided by a portable handheld device. Later on the banks 'upgraded' to Windows.
That sounds almost like a condensed version of computing in general.
There is a crap-ton of money being made by the testing industry (and Quest is a big one), and is closely allied to the 'Law and Order' political whores owned by the Prison-Industrial complex (another massive money-making leach sucking the US dry).
That really is the crux of the issue here.
Money to be made, as you say, just like the prison industrial complex.
During the crack cocaine epidemic in the 80's, and the three strikes laws, etc, people saw an industry grow up almost overnight for workplace drug testing.
The ultimate irony here is that carboxy-thc shows up in a screen for around a month, depending on body fat, etc;
You could have used cannabis one time at a social gathering, concert, whatever, and a month later they can nail you for it.
One time.
OTOH, you can get blasted, shit-faced drunk every night for a month, driving around completely blitzed, endangering the public and yourself, etc, and no one ever knows....
Will workplace drug testing detect EtG in someone like this?,
How their body metabolizes and excretes will determine that.
What about "moderate" drinkers?
What is a "moderate drinker"?
How is a "moderate drinker" different, or "better" than someone who uses cannabis, say, once every few months?
So where do you draw the line, or how often to test, what threshold should a positive be at?
The real issue here is how this technology will change human behavior.
Traditional "human behavior", molded from hundreds of thousands of years, is now having to change.
As Solandri points out, with ubiquitous monitoring and facial recognition, etc, people will have to "keep things to themselves".
Some people are natually inclined to be like that, while others aren't.
Some people may thrive in such an environment, while others will find it horrid.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever called it?
All they do is transfer you to another department...
Its the grandest circle jerk of all time!
No. After July everyone will be bitching and moaning that they have to pay for the latest windows again, instead getting a free upgrade.
I get the feeling you'll be the only one.
Better hurry and get your free upgrade!
And having used both, Google is much better suited for your average user than Microsoft, which seems to think you should need a MIS degree to use O365; Making it harder to use, for no apparent reason.
I went through an O365/Exchange Online migration, which was a bitch to say the least.
I also continue to support them, and I can say unequivocally, that O365 takes more hand holding, more troubleshooting, and causes more hassles for me, as an admin than when we were using Office 2013 and Exchange onPrem.
However, with all that being said, from the users perspective it wasn't much of a change, and no, you don't need an MIS degree to use it.
Outlook, Excel, Word, etc?
The site, itself, admits in an online statement, “We use your microphone to identify the things you’re listening to or watching, based on the music and TV matches we’re able to identify.” But, experts contend that the site is going a step further. In what some users are calling an alarming trend, described as “Big Brother,”
Do we need anymore proof?
This is unconscionable.
Since I already commented I can't give you points.
This deserves all the points I have!
People who realize that Vista, despite the inevitable hardships and bad reputation that came with breaking drivers and applications, was the result of a tough but vital decision to make some great improvements to security.
Right, and when did Vista come out? Waaaayyyy too late to put the Genie back in the lamp(or horse in the barn).
Oh, and the chest thumping security techniques that MS likes to brag about post Vista were things that were the norm in most other OS'.
So essentially MS was shamed into even taking security seriously, actually.
What happened?
Gen X had a brief flicker of spotlight in the 90s, then became quickly forgotten.
We were overshadowed by the Boomers from the 60s - 80s, and then when they had kids(The Millenials, who are now the largest generation), they became the generation du jour, as so aptly penned here.
1. Scorched baron earth
Is that like duke mars?
Sick and injured humans will be identified using thermal and vision sensors that detect changes in body temperature
Yea, I remember when I read that.
Holy shit...
Well, if they follow your example, they'll all pee sitting down.
In a weird way that makes sense.
For all our sakes I hope you are wrong.
I agree with much of what Marshall Brain has written on this topic, except for the part where people buy shares in Australia and move there to live in the wonderland of robot and vr plenty.
His Manna story could be a good film, if done right.
My point in all of this is that if you make a solvable issue sound insurmountable because you want to make a political point you weaken you position. Once they see you exaggerate in one area they assume you exaggerate (or make stuff up) in all areas because of your agenda. Be honest about the positive effects along with the negative and you won't have so many deniers.
Perhaps you could use some critical thinking skills when reading my post.
The scientific consensus about climate is that there will be places on the Earth that have traditionally supported human habitation that will be adversely impacted in the future. We are already seeing this happen.
The places that will be impacted, in all likelihood, will have population movements(migrations) away from them, to, somewhere else that has a climate that more easily supports human life.
As I pointed out, technology could be used to alleviate the problems of extreme heat, however the financial and political force to do that doesn't exist in most of the places that will be impacted like areas of the Middle East and South Asia.
I never said these problems are insurmountable, you did, and you filtered my post through your politicized lens, which isn't surprising in todays hyper-partisan political climate.
I was merely asking the simple questions about how will we deal with this.
I think it is a good thing to be cognizant of possible outcomes and to prepare for them.
If this trend continues, and it looks like it will, we will see "environmental refugees" increase. It will become more difficult to support life in certain parts of this planet, places that have had human civilization for quite a long time.
Sure, technology could alleviate many of the problems of living in a place with extreme heat, but that requires money and political will.
We have already seen the warnings about areas of the Middle East becoming uninhabitable later this century.
Where will these people go?
Who will support them?
How will governments deal with the crisis?
I usually side with Grammar Nazis on /., but in this instance, phrases like "ATM Machine" and "PIN Number" have become colloquial American English "canon", so to speak.
People have been calling them "ATM Machines" and "PIN Numbers" since the 80s.
There are many commonly used phrases and acronyms(in American English) that don't follow a grammatically correct logic, yet are used constantly.
Deal with it.
Actually, once upon a time an ATM couldn't be programmed without the presence of a sealed hardware unit that couldn't be activated without entering two unique pass-codes entered by two bank officials, the codes being provided by a portable handheld device. Later on the banks 'upgraded' to Windows.
That sounds almost like a condensed version of computing in general.
I was about to post something similar...
Good call.
Netflix wins, I win, the ISP loses through their customer base having another data point to how they are being screwed. I see no problem with this.
How do you win when you can't get your ISP to change who/what they throttle and there is no competition for ISPs?
Throttling by individual IP...at an ISP level is hilarious.
Its like whitelisting all the MS Office 365 / Exchange Online ips
NF: "See, we TOOOLLLDDD you it was your ISP!
There is a crap-ton of money being made by the testing industry (and Quest is a big one), and is closely allied to the 'Law and Order' political whores owned by the Prison-Industrial complex (another massive money-making leach sucking the US dry).
That really is the crux of the issue here.
Money to be made, as you say, just like the prison industrial complex.
During the crack cocaine epidemic in the 80's, and the three strikes laws, etc, people saw an industry grow up almost overnight for workplace drug testing.
Yes, you are correct.
The ultimate irony here is that carboxy-thc shows up in a screen for around a month, depending on body fat, etc;
You could have used cannabis one time at a social gathering, concert, whatever, and a month later they can nail you for it.
One time.
OTOH, you can get blasted, shit-faced drunk every night for a month, driving around completely blitzed, endangering the public and yourself, etc, and no one ever knows....
Will workplace drug testing detect EtG in someone like this?,
How their body metabolizes and excretes will determine that.
What about "moderate" drinkers?
What is a "moderate drinker"?
How is a "moderate drinker" different, or "better" than someone who uses cannabis, say, once every few months?
So where do you draw the line, or how often to test, what threshold should a positive be at?
The real issue here is how this technology will change human behavior.
Traditional "human behavior", molded from hundreds of thousands of years, is now having to change.
As Solandri points out, with ubiquitous monitoring and facial recognition, etc, people will have to "keep things to themselves".
Some people are natually inclined to be like that, while others aren't.
Some people may thrive in such an environment, while others will find it horrid.
I've never followed this logic that you have to be anonymous to be private.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm the same way.