All I have seen is a statement that OS support may stop after the lifetime of the device, likely due to no longer supporting older hardware. I have seen nothing about paying for extending older hardware support, subscription style. Certainly nothing official.
Microsoft brought some really good ideas from adaptive and responsive web design to app development. The core application is identical. UI easily adapts to screen size by allowing developers to move objects on the screen and to hide items in menus when in mobile mode vs. having them more easily accessible in desktop, as well as easily switching from multi-pane layout to drilling down, adapting fonts to typical usage distances, spacing items farther for touch than when using a mouse, and so on. Apps also adapt to device and hardware capabilities.
A developer targeting multiple devices could always just write two different apps, if that really was better. They would still have to worry about "proper keyboard shortcuts on the desktop version". But with UWP they can do that too, but with options that are superior without sacrificing the ability to adapt to each scenario.
I've not seen anything suggesting that consumers would need to continuously pay for OS updates. What are you talking about with subscriptions that are relevant only to the OS? (Office and Xbox Live subscriptions excluded.)
I, anecdotally, do NOT like the iOS UI. Its widgets are hidden away in a drawer, apps' most useful functions tend to be at the top of the screen instead of within thumb reach, and I can't even choose where on my homescreen I want to place an icon. Android UI is generally better and it provides more flexibility, although I wish it were more flexible out-of-the-box and didn't require rooting to do some of the truly nice things. Windows Mobile UI is a mix, where its widgets (tiles) aren't quite as useful but the tradeoff of better resource management makes that acceptable.
Again, just my opinion, but the UI is absolutely NOT the weak point for Microsoft. Apps are. That should improve if more well-known app vendors port to universal Windows 10 apps, since they would only need to tweak the desktop/tablet UI a bit for phones. MS needs to be much more proactive on getting app developers on board.
Microsoft has strength in its future ecosystem where apps will run on Xbox, phone, desktop, tablet, tables, HoloLens, IoT, and so on. IF they get that going, it could blow all the others away. Of course that's future and not today, so this strength is only hypothetical and as of this moment they don't get many points here.
I don't think the Windows phone platform is dead. I think the WP7/8 iterations are dead. 10 has some great potential, but MS needs more innovation in hardware as well as software or that platform will never get to its fullest potential.
5 or 6 anecdotes in a slashdot story hardly qualifies.
Did you even read what I wrote? The part about it NOT being limited to these few Slashdot comments? Go ahead, read it again, come back once you're done.
It it applies well to 99.7% of the population or even 95% it's still a really good measure.
[citation needed]
You claim that it is good for that portion of the population. Back it up with data.
Or, everyone is complaining that BMI is a bad metric for its intended purpose. Your "special snowflakes" are anecdotes, and once enough anecdotes exist (and it extends FAR beyond this small discussion thread) they are no longer exceptions, but tend to become a rule.
1) 500 knots is 1/3 of 0.77 km/s. 3.3 mm is 1/3 of 10 mm. 2) 10 mm is the number you provided, so it's the number I calculated. 3.3 mm is significantly less than 10 mm, so if you meant that, why not say "around 3 mm" or "less than 4 mm" or "3.3 mm"? 3) I don't know too many "normal things" that move even at 500 knots.
I'm not just talking about liability limits. I'm talking about gaps in coverage that affect your own property such as depreciation gaps, no coverage for custom parts on a stolen vehicle, no coverage for the vehicle of driven by someone who isn't in your policy, no coverage for personal belongings of passengers when the vehicle is stolen, no coverage for your vehicle when it is being used in commercial business such as pizza delivery, and so on. I am also talking about deductibles. And this conversation is not limited to auto insurance, what about having a home policy without flood coverage or one that covers only belongings within the dwelling but not outside (such as fencing)? Medical insurance that doesn't cover infertility treatments?
Is it not feasible that I could come up with a plan that covers my situation better than generic insurance does? Sure it is.
But they also don't have the choice to accept or reject the claim that standard insurance has successfully managed the risk, so I don't see how that's much different.
Despite your claim, there is no insurance that will cover single possible case fully. There is always a limit to what an insurer will cover. What happens when someone's situation falls in that gap? The driver would be held responsible for the full costs, even though they invested so much of their money in premiums.
But if the driver set aside a savings account to cover such situations, they would be ok. Or if the driver pooled money with his friends or neighborhood to create an unofficial kind of mutual insurance company, again he might be covered.
And I have already said that you can self-insure through bond purchases - but thats still classed as insurance and comes with massive caveats.
This probably only applies in your jurisdiction. I don't know of anything similar where I live. I either must get insurance, or get fined for not having it. Besides, this is precisely the kind of thing I'm advocating for, so I'm not sure why you think it is an argument against me.
You seem to be the one missing the point. Why do you think that people should not have choice? If someone can manage that risk outside of a structure that is typically considered "insurance" then they should be allowed to do so.
I agree with all of that. I still think it should be a choice, because the bottom line is that the average person will pay more into insurance than they receive in benefits. (They have to, if the insurance company is to be solvent.) Some people could manage their risk and financial situation better than an insurance company could, and should have the right to do so.
If the debt never gets erased, then doing that only causes them more pain and suffering in the long run. They would never be freed of such a lifestyle. But someone who strives for a decent job would earn their way out of that debt and back into keeping all their income.
Even in such a case, only a portion of non-needs income is diverted to debt payments.
It doesn't help that many governments require insurance. It's no longer a choice, but a mandate.
Of course, it has to be a mandate because the government doesn't require you to be responsible for anything. If you wreck my car and have no insurance, you might not have to pay me anything. The government should instead require repayment, even if you don't have the means right now, on a schedule. If you can't be compliant, then some of your income should be withheld until the debt is paid. (Even if insurance were still mandatory, this would apply to other areas that are not covered by insurance.)
War didn't invent those things. War just provided the incentive to complete them. It's like the Interstate Highway system, it was not built for the sole purpose of moving troops quickly across the US, but that provided enough real incentive to kickstart the process.
But consider that GitHub would be nothing without the amazing number of free and open projects that it hosts, or without the free and open Git system that runs it.
They can still provide quick and personal support for a cost, or require payment for all support if that's the business model that suits them best. But to say they will provide free support and then not really do it or not really provide insight into the status of the ticket, that can frustrate potential paying customers and those who would have paid for better support from the beginning.
If a computer were too expensive, I would replace components until it made financial sense to purchase a full system.
Something similar could happen with automobiles. The manufacturer could provide a refit program at least once during the typical life of the vehicle (perhaps 3 or 4 years in). It would bring in much of the latest technology for a much lower cost than purchasing a new vehicle, keeping customers happy and less likely to look at a competitor's latest model.
It may block the same amount of sunlight as it passes over the day side of the earth (unless it is in a polar orbit that is synchronized with the earth's revolution around the sun).
Perhaps even more, since its reflective timeframe would be limited as it would pass into the earth's shadow. Also I assume the material's opacity is greater than its reflectivity.
It's kind of like the term "marriage". Its meaning is different depending on who you ask. Some believe it is a religious concept, some believe it is a legal concept, and some feel it is both.
I think we can all agree that the proper term for Pluto is "gay planet".
Slashdot Mirror
All I have seen is a statement that OS support may stop after the lifetime of the device, likely due to no longer supporting older hardware. I have seen nothing about paying for extending older hardware support, subscription style. Certainly nothing official.
Microsoft brought some really good ideas from adaptive and responsive web design to app development. The core application is identical. UI easily adapts to screen size by allowing developers to move objects on the screen and to hide items in menus when in mobile mode vs. having them more easily accessible in desktop, as well as easily switching from multi-pane layout to drilling down, adapting fonts to typical usage distances, spacing items farther for touch than when using a mouse, and so on. Apps also adapt to device and hardware capabilities.
A developer targeting multiple devices could always just write two different apps, if that really was better. They would still have to worry about "proper keyboard shortcuts on the desktop version". But with UWP they can do that too, but with options that are superior without sacrificing the ability to adapt to each scenario.
I've not seen anything suggesting that consumers would need to continuously pay for OS updates. What are you talking about with subscriptions that are relevant only to the OS? (Office and Xbox Live subscriptions excluded.)
How do you place icons in the bottom-right corner (without filling up the screen with icons)? That's what I was talking about.
Which is it, the apps or the UI?
I, anecdotally, do NOT like the iOS UI. Its widgets are hidden away in a drawer, apps' most useful functions tend to be at the top of the screen instead of within thumb reach, and I can't even choose where on my homescreen I want to place an icon. Android UI is generally better and it provides more flexibility, although I wish it were more flexible out-of-the-box and didn't require rooting to do some of the truly nice things. Windows Mobile UI is a mix, where its widgets (tiles) aren't quite as useful but the tradeoff of better resource management makes that acceptable.
Again, just my opinion, but the UI is absolutely NOT the weak point for Microsoft. Apps are. That should improve if more well-known app vendors port to universal Windows 10 apps, since they would only need to tweak the desktop/tablet UI a bit for phones. MS needs to be much more proactive on getting app developers on board.
Microsoft has strength in its future ecosystem where apps will run on Xbox, phone, desktop, tablet, tables, HoloLens, IoT, and so on. IF they get that going, it could blow all the others away. Of course that's future and not today, so this strength is only hypothetical and as of this moment they don't get many points here.
I don't think the Windows phone platform is dead. I think the WP7/8 iterations are dead. 10 has some great potential, but MS needs more innovation in hardware as well as software or that platform will never get to its fullest potential.
Your "special snowflakes" are anecdotes
er huh?
http://dictionary.reference.co...
5 or 6 anecdotes in a slashdot story hardly qualifies.
Did you even read what I wrote? The part about it NOT being limited to these few Slashdot comments? Go ahead, read it again, come back once you're done.
It it applies well to 99.7% of the population or even 95% it's still a really good measure.
[citation needed]
You claim that it is good for that portion of the population. Back it up with data.
Actually, considering that YOU are pretty much the only loud voice backing BMI in this discussion, I'm giving YOU the title of "special snowflake".
Hope it doesn't get too warm for you, you might melt.
Or, everyone is complaining that BMI is a bad metric for its intended purpose. Your "special snowflakes" are anecdotes, and once enough anecdotes exist (and it extends FAR beyond this small discussion thread) they are no longer exceptions, but tend to become a rule.
I don't understand your confusion:
1) 500 knots is 1/3 of 0.77 km/s. 3.3 mm is 1/3 of 10 mm.
2) 10 mm is the number you provided, so it's the number I calculated. 3.3 mm is significantly less than 10 mm, so if you meant that, why not say "around 3 mm" or "less than 4 mm" or "3.3 mm"?
3) I don't know too many "normal things" that move even at 500 knots.
Sure, if "most normal things move" around 0.77 km/s.
I'm not just talking about liability limits. I'm talking about gaps in coverage that affect your own property such as depreciation gaps, no coverage for custom parts on a stolen vehicle, no coverage for the vehicle of driven by someone who isn't in your policy, no coverage for personal belongings of passengers when the vehicle is stolen, no coverage for your vehicle when it is being used in commercial business such as pizza delivery, and so on. I am also talking about deductibles. And this conversation is not limited to auto insurance, what about having a home policy without flood coverage or one that covers only belongings within the dwelling but not outside (such as fencing)? Medical insurance that doesn't cover infertility treatments?
Is it not feasible that I could come up with a plan that covers my situation better than generic insurance does? Sure it is.
But they also don't have the choice to accept or reject the claim that standard insurance has successfully managed the risk, so I don't see how that's much different.
Despite your claim, there is no insurance that will cover single possible case fully. There is always a limit to what an insurer will cover. What happens when someone's situation falls in that gap? The driver would be held responsible for the full costs, even though they invested so much of their money in premiums.
But if the driver set aside a savings account to cover such situations, they would be ok. Or if the driver pooled money with his friends or neighborhood to create an unofficial kind of mutual insurance company, again he might be covered.
And I have already said that you can self-insure through bond purchases - but thats still classed as insurance and comes with massive caveats.
This probably only applies in your jurisdiction. I don't know of anything similar where I live. I either must get insurance, or get fined for not having it. Besides, this is precisely the kind of thing I'm advocating for, so I'm not sure why you think it is an argument against me.
You seem to be the one missing the point. Why do you think that people should not have choice? If someone can manage that risk outside of a structure that is typically considered "insurance" then they should be allowed to do so.
This is inevitable. Our society needs to figure out how to deal with it, instead of inciting fear that the world is doomed because of it.
I agree with all of that. I still think it should be a choice, because the bottom line is that the average person will pay more into insurance than they receive in benefits. (They have to, if the insurance company is to be solvent.) Some people could manage their risk and financial situation better than an insurance company could, and should have the right to do so.
If the debt never gets erased, then doing that only causes them more pain and suffering in the long run. They would never be freed of such a lifestyle. But someone who strives for a decent job would earn their way out of that debt and back into keeping all their income.
Even in such a case, only a portion of non-needs income is diverted to debt payments.
It doesn't help that many governments require insurance. It's no longer a choice, but a mandate.
Of course, it has to be a mandate because the government doesn't require you to be responsible for anything. If you wreck my car and have no insurance, you might not have to pay me anything. The government should instead require repayment, even if you don't have the means right now, on a schedule. If you can't be compliant, then some of your income should be withheld until the debt is paid. (Even if insurance were still mandatory, this would apply to other areas that are not covered by insurance.)
War didn't invent those things. War just provided the incentive to complete them. It's like the Interstate Highway system, it was not built for the sole purpose of moving troops quickly across the US, but that provided enough real incentive to kickstart the process.
But consider that GitHub would be nothing without the amazing number of free and open projects that it hosts, or without the free and open Git system that runs it.
They can still provide quick and personal support for a cost, or require payment for all support if that's the business model that suits them best. But to say they will provide free support and then not really do it or not really provide insight into the status of the ticket, that can frustrate potential paying customers and those who would have paid for better support from the beginning.
If a computer were too expensive, I would replace components until it made financial sense to purchase a full system.
Something similar could happen with automobiles. The manufacturer could provide a refit program at least once during the typical life of the vehicle (perhaps 3 or 4 years in). It would bring in much of the latest technology for a much lower cost than purchasing a new vehicle, keeping customers happy and less likely to look at a competitor's latest model.
Of course it is, that's what obfuscation does.
It may block the same amount of sunlight as it passes over the day side of the earth (unless it is in a polar orbit that is synchronized with the earth's revolution around the sun).
Perhaps even more, since its reflective timeframe would be limited as it would pass into the earth's shadow. Also I assume the material's opacity is greater than its reflectivity.
It's kind of like the term "marriage". Its meaning is different depending on who you ask. Some believe it is a religious concept, some believe it is a legal concept, and some feel it is both.
I think we can all agree that the proper term for Pluto is "gay planet".
I'm not sure why you inserted "not" before the predicates of the subordinate clauses in your sentences. You changed the structure of the analogy.