All true, but nobody is questioning why he reported it in his bankruptcy filings.
They are questioning why it made the news, the article, and even the/. article summary. You know the summary where the most important bits of the article are summarized?
Yes. But then you need to agree on such a virtual image, the browser, the addons, the settings of the browser. Do they use adblock plus or ublock origin?
Then you need to run it through a proxy or tor.
And then you have to not log in anywhere.
And then you have the problem that the fingerprinting folks can if they wish, detect this one particular configuration, and display the page as a 'An error has occurred. Your browser configuration is not compatible with this site." And in the process nuke the utility of the image.
He was perfect for the role and he played it well.
Agreed. He and Peter Jurasik were particularly brilliant in their roles.
Although I've heard his marriage with Andrea Thompson (Talia Winters) ending and the circumstances around it may have led to some of the some of the cast and plot issues issues with her sudden departure. Not suggesting Doyle was even at fault there... just an interesting behind the scenes footnote that reverberated through the show.
can't speak much for his political leanings
Yeah, he was practically channeling Rush Limbaugh on his show at times. And that I will fully put at Doyle's feet. I would probably despise the guy, but for his portrayal of Garibaldi.
As a human being, I agree, that he seemed to be a genuine and authentic person. RIP Jerry Doyle.
As a private buyer, you can install and use Enterprise any time you want - you just need to buy 500 licences. No problem, right?
5 licenses total. (Of anything; even a mix) And then once the VLA is established you can add one-offs.
Its been a long standing loophole, that you could be 1x-4x of some product you actually need and then pad out the 5 minimum with whatever is cheapest. (often under $10.00).
Once the VLA is established and current, you can then add oneoffs to it as needed.
The VLA minimums are usually not the biggest obstacle to getting in. The obstacle for small businesses has typically been the price -- they aren't big enough to get concessions and free stuff etc... and the Software Assurance costs more than just buying it retail, and then buying the upgrades at retail. But it was a lot easier to manage licensing. But the licensing management advantages really only start to hit when your up to at least a medium business or larger.
If the windows enterprise licensing got rolled into an office 365 type offering though, that might be simple enough and attractive enough for small businesses.
Power users have been running server editions of windows for a while to over come various limitations of Windows desktop editions. But in my experience they were usually 'abusing' msdn or technet subscriptions to get the licenses.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't run a server, except that the licensing situation is still obnoxious.
Server essentials is kind of of a messed up product, like SBS was and I hate both. (I mean, if you sold 2 lathes for example with systems running SBS the customer would have a big mess since only one computer in the domain can run SBS...)
So that bumps you to server standard, which as you said works brilliantly, but at $1200 it just doesn't make a lot of financial sense to put that all over the place.
I guess on a $200,000 to $1.5M piece of kit, it's a footnote in the price tally... but still... its a ripoff; and probaby cheaper to stand up an azure domain controller, and run windows enterprise on the units; at least assuming you need more than one computer in the environment.
You're assuming that this would be a "miscarriage of justice" to Getty
A billion dollars? Would be a miscarriage of justice. I expect you could buy and sell the whole company several times over for that.
It would not be a "miscarriage of justice" in this case to sue Getty out of existence, along with any other entity who systematically tries to deny the public access to free intellectual property when it has been released as such.
I'm pretty confident there is a number far lower than a billion dollars that would straighten Getty out.
Ok.. that TPM; that's been around for 10 years already. Its a double edged sword.
Can Windows 10 Enterprise be used in this role?
Yes.
Say I build a machine and need a PC to control it. I need my customer to have complete control over that PC, but I need to buy the PC (say with Win10 enterprise license) at my factory, set up the instrument, test everything, and then ship it to my customer
It could be preinstalled with 10 pro, shipped to customer, and they'd convert it to 10 enterprise at their site with their site license. (no reinstall, not even a reboot required according to their press.)
I agree though that this is... clumsy. But a lot less clumsy if windows enterprise becomes widely deployed at your customers sites. Big "IF", yes I know. On the other hand, these aren't cheap toys you are pairing them with either. Specing that the customer site have a domain controller to manage its settings isn't completely unreasonable.
But yeah, I can see Linux potentially making inroads here if Microsoft doesn't improve the situation. Then again... does microsoft care? And how many manufacturers are going to switch vs just sucking it up... one of our lathe vendors still ships with DOS; another with Windows XP. Maybe these guys will just keep shipping win7 pro until 2030.. and by then the windows 10 launch issues will have worked themselves out.
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
-----
Give that a good read. Statutory damages in Canada, for a noncommercial infringement starts at $100, and tops out at $5000; as a single payment for all infringements involved ithe proceedings. (so not 'per song' )
First what is the "new TPM" you refer to? Second, how is both Win10 IoT and Win10 enterprise not suitable for these systems exactly?
I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I've often thought that Windows really wasn't ever ideal for embedded systems and management PCs. (One of my clients runs lathes for example, some on DOS, some on WinXP; i wish they were on linux... even if they were stuck on an old version, it would be preferable...) but really can't see windows 10 enterprise being worse than win7 for some of the systems I work with hooked up to medical diagnostic instruments, nor can I see win 10 iot being any worse than win embedded on the lathes... for example.
Yes, we all know that the MS mouthpiece is going to respond with some useless boilerplate, but its Journalism 101 to seek comments and responses to all parties when writing stories about them.
It provides for fairness, letting the company have its say (even if it is boilerplat); and also supports journalism principles for verification and accuracy. For example, Microsoft could have responded...'No, your facts are wrong. They haven't actually served us with any lawsuit yet."... or "No. They have already settled out of court; and are under a non-disclosure about the terms." or disputed/corrected any number of other facts or details about the case, that they wish.
If the journalist has all the facts 100% right, and the company really has no positive spin for it, then yeah, you'll get a boilerplate... "we beleive this case has no merit."
But its a good sign that the journal article reached out for a comment, and even better that they got one and printed it.
Microsoft does not want ANY dissent, even if it's from only 1%.
They are a business. They don't care what a fraction of a percent want. They may not go out of there way to service them, but they aren't going to go out of the way to interfere with them either.
Remember when Windows 8 preview had a registry entry to allow booting straight to deskto
The preview editions are often locked down in really weird ways to FORCE previewers to try the 'new thing'. I don't read too much into preview release gyrations.
Then they eventually apologized and made it a setting.
That kind of runs counter to your assertion that they aren't listening to feedback at all.
And windows 10 is all kinds of responding to users reaction to 8.
because with Windows 10 they doubled down on the customer abuse.
Its more that their vision of a consumer operating system is diverging from yours and mine; but Cortana... for the sort of person that would use Cortana isn't bad at what it does.
Small businesses too small to use Enterprise but still have a domain to manage make plenty of use of Group Policy.
Exactly right, and I think that's the market that needs to be re-examined.
1) Are they really too small to use enterprise? 2) What is the 'future' of the "Pro" product.
I work with several small businesses; and maybe they too need to get off pro and onto an enterprise edition.
But as you said Windows Pro is not just starting to fail to meet the needs of power users like me, but its also becoming less of a fit for small businesses... and maybe that's on purpose because they think they can get small businesses on to an azure domain controller with 7 enterprise subscriptions... and you know... that's not necessarily a bad idea.
Frankly I think Microsoft is re-positioning "Pro" as a consumer freemium-ad-supported product ; with the intention of moving all businesses to "enterprise". I think the $7/month windows enterprise subscription option is part of that.
If that's the plan though, then I think (as usualy) ms is being spectaculary bad at communicating.
Microsoft continues to amaze and excel as they go to new lengths to make the Windows experience even more excruciatingly intolerable to any user that has the slightest clue what they're doing with a computer.
I have been trying to figure out what the HELL they are thinking.
99.99% of Windows 10 Pro users were NEVER going to mess with group policy editor to tweak those settings anyway. So ~why~ go to the trouble of disabling them.
And as for the one in a thousand that is going to go into group policy and change this stuff... why spend resources getting in his way... there's no money in that. And its just going to piss them off, and they WILL find another way.
So... no I don't think this really has anything to do with preventing consumers from doing what they want.
I think this has everything to with ensuring enterprises have to use the enterprise version, and pay the VLA subscription prices etc. That's where the money is, and that's where it might actually be worth it for microsoft.
i think us power users are just being caught in the cross fire.
The interesting question for me, unless I wish to abandon windows entirely* is how painful moving to the enterprise version would be. I've always paid extra for windows pro, because i wanted to run IIS, and RDP, and not be stuck with the idiot permissions model, etc. So I've long since accepted paying a bit extra to get what I want from windows.
Now, maybe instead of pro, I just want the enterprise version. So what will that cost... because it seems it does everything I want. It lets me turn off telemetry, it lets me turn off cortana, etc, etc. If I had the enterprise version, I wouldn't be stuck fighting with windows, it would just work for me.
So Microsoft... $84/user (so i can have enterprise on all my computers and laptops, and always up to date?) And I don't have to put up with any of your consumer-freemium-telemetry-cortana-shit? I'm potentially ok making that deal.
* re abandoning windows option; I work with windows so I need it. I own a macbook pro as my primary laptop; and I have linux running in my office as well... so I'm fairly well positioned to leave windows if I really wanted to. But I don't really want to... I use it for games, and I use Windows for work (visual studio and other proprietary stuff), and for accounting, etc, etc.
I like linux, and love it as a server, but find it needs too much tinkering for a gaming PC or HTPC. And OSX... i like my laptop, but I'm not going to shoehorn myself into apple's extremely limited lineup of overpriced desktop options.
One generally uses a long, complex password for their password vault (which is fine, since you only have to remember the one password).
No. One does not. Because one needs to repeatedly enter that password in everytime one access anything, from as menial as slashdot to as important as one's bank.
Plus one needs to be able to enter it on a smartphone too; again... repeatedly.
Remembering a long complex password is easy. Repeatedly entering it over and over and over again is painful. So the practical length of most people's vault key is relatively short.
So while my bank password is long and complex and random, and i don't even know what it is; my vault password is shorter and easier for me to remember and use.
So my bank account and so forth is secure from bruteforce attacks directly on it, as well as immunity from password re-using since each is random.
My vault is relatively secure, you'd need to get a hold of it from me; and the vault password is relatively secure, but its not a 200 character pass phrase... simply because I'd go mental entering something like that in over and over again... or on a smartphone.
I've actually mitigated it a little bit as I use different vault files for different passwords, so I've actually got a couple vaults; and the vault the bank account is in is harder than the junk account vault, but while its better its still not ideal.
When you engage autopilot, you aren't driving. You aren't actively controlling any part of the car, you are just sitting there watching. YOU are the extra eye.
By comparison, I might own all the items in my safe deposit box at the bank. But clearly I don't own the bank, or even the bank lobby. And yet I cannot access my owned items except by using the bank's property.
Not a bad example. And likewise, if I wanted to send someone to the bank to retrieve or add to the contents of the safety deposit box, that would be my prerogative.
Well, OK. Then legally a legal court of law will come to a different legal conclusion than a person with no technical or legal expertise might come to.
Where the law varies significantly from people's expectations is where conflict arises, and the law is usually wrong or ultimately unenforceable, because society en masse simply ignores the law.
The law ultimately is supposed to reflect and enforce the social contract, not the other way around.
Also, civil engineer might build a bridge differently than a normal person would. News at 11!
Of course. But if the normal people couldn't cross the bridge, and kept hurting themselves on it, falling off of it, etc, etc... because it didn't conform to their expectations of how to use a bridge, then the civil engineer failed.
No wonder autopilot is safer than human drivers per mile driven.
Humans drive everywhere in all weather in all circumstances... autopilot only drives on uninterrupted stretches of highway, in clear weather... and it still demands the human sit there with his hands on the wheel as a backup.
Yes, they have an App Store on MacOSX but it's totally optional
It pretty much HAS to be installed, and you pretty much have to use it for OS updates.
And with each successive release OSX tightens the screws a little more, in the name of security...
You can't run apps you didn't get from the app store on a new mac until you go into security settings and turn on the ability to use apps you didn't get from the app store.
So its totally optional, in the sense that it comes pre-installed, you can't remove it, you have to use it for some things, and out of the box it is only option you are allowed to use to get new apps.
But yes, you can tweak the security settings to allow you to get software from other sources.
So...its like secureboot...which everyone here likes and thinks is ok... right?
Using a public service like twitter isn't in the same ball park as having a private account at a company where you most likely did sign an agreement that said something like 'you will not share company secrets' your company password would be classified as a company secret.
You are right, but that's kind of the point here -- while you and might see them as very different thing (and indeed most people do)... the CFAA doesn't differentiate.
yes, but steam isn't a really good platform for general purpose apps. I mean they're trying it...and also movies too... but I don't think it has a lot of traction... i don't really see it replacing cnet/sourceforge/etc to get torrent clients, file compression utilities, etc, etc. maybe they'll make it happen.
It always seems a bit wonky to have that stuff tied to a steam account in any way. Logging into steam... etc...
It mirrors the obvious principle that everyone here knows, which is that authorization to use a system does not necessarily confer authorization to authorize additional users.
But does that principle automatically apply here? Does a normal person *consider* their Twitter account their own property or the property of twiiter. (Not the legalese... but in terms of how they think about and interact with it.)
Moreover, it's a principle of our daily lives that's so obvious we don't even mention it. I let my neighbor Bob use my pool whenever he wants, but I would be shocked if Jill was using it and just said "Oh yeah, Bob said I could".
Exactly right. Its clearly your property, and your delegate has clearly exceeded his authority according to all social conventions. That would be quite the faux pas, and you'd be rightfully upset.
There is no reason that the principle of non-delegation (that is to say, without explicit authority granted to delegate) shouldn't apply to the virtual world just as much as it applies everywhere else.
It doesn't automatically apply everywhere else. It applies when the property being delegated is recognized as belonging to someone else. It doesn't apply when the property being delegated is recognized as belonging to me. The legalese underneath the transaction may cement that status, but socially what matters is how we perceive the property.
Bob's using YOUR pool. That is the social convention (and the legal reality) of the situation.
If I give you social media account password. Am I giving you access to MY account? Or am I giving you access to a (for example) twitter account that twitter lets me use?
Legally its probably the latter, but that's not how ANYBODY thinks about it. They think of it as THEIR OWN twitter account.
They'll say it's 'my account'; they'll complain 'my account was hacked'... everything surrounding it is framed in that sense of ownership.
The same way they think about their TV service, their cellular phone service, their steam account... that the account "belongs" to them, and they don't give a 2nd thought to whether their friends or guests or babysitters or whatever can watch their TV, or borrow their phone to make a call, or play some video games on my account.
Or even their bank account. People think of that as their property too. It gives them access to their money. Its not the banks money!! It's mine. The password is also mine. I chose it, and the bank shouldn't even know what it is. etc etc.
Yes legally, and when you get deep into it... the money is mine, but the servers are theirs. And the account is permission from them to use their servers using my chosen credential to access the money I entrusted them to hold for me... etc etc.
But if it ever came down to it, and I wanted to give someone my bank account password for some reason, my only thought would be in terms of the risk that represents to the security of MY money. I wouldn't give a 2nd thought to whether or not I had the right to delegate access to the banks servers.
Likewise with twitter... my only consideration in giving out my password would be the risk it represented to my 'reputation', the potential for greif to me from what they might say with it... etc.
The notion that I would be delegating access to twitter's server infrastructure in a way analogous to Bob letting Jill use your pool...? That would NOT be a consideration at all. No normal person thinks of their twitter account in that sense. (even if technically and legally that's what it is.)
Steven Colbert had Alexander Skarsgaard on a few weeks back and spent spent a few minutes making light of the difficulty of pronouncing his last name correctly... was that racist against Swedes? A few weeks before that they had Steve Buscemi and they talked about the difficulty with his last name too....
Slashdot Mirror
All true, but nobody is questioning why he reported it in his bankruptcy filings.
They are questioning why it made the news, the article, and even the /. article summary. You know the summary where the most important bits of the article are summarized?
It's not even slightly newsworthy.
Yes. But then you need to agree on such a virtual image, the browser, the addons, the settings of the browser. Do they use adblock plus or ublock origin?
Then you need to run it through a proxy or tor.
And then you have to not log in anywhere.
And then you have the problem that the fingerprinting folks can if they wish, detect this one particular configuration, and display the page as a 'An error has occurred. Your browser configuration is not compatible with this site." And in the process nuke the utility of the image.
He was perfect for the role and he played it well.
Agreed. He and Peter Jurasik were particularly brilliant in their roles.
Although I've heard his marriage with Andrea Thompson (Talia Winters) ending and the circumstances around it may have led to some of the some of the cast and plot issues issues with her sudden departure. Not suggesting Doyle was even at fault there... just an interesting behind the scenes footnote that reverberated through the show.
can't speak much for his political leanings
Yeah, he was practically channeling Rush Limbaugh on his show at times. And that I will fully put at Doyle's feet. I would probably despise the guy, but for his portrayal of Garibaldi.
As a human being, I agree, that he seemed to be a genuine and authentic person. RIP Jerry Doyle.
As a private buyer, you can install and use Enterprise any time you want - you just need to buy 500 licences. No problem, right?
5 licenses total. (Of anything; even a mix) And then once the VLA is established you can add one-offs.
Its been a long standing loophole, that you could be 1x-4x of some product you actually need and then pad out the 5 minimum with whatever is cheapest. (often under $10.00).
Once the VLA is established and current, you can then add oneoffs to it as needed.
The VLA minimums are usually not the biggest obstacle to getting in. The obstacle for small businesses has typically been the price -- they aren't big enough to get concessions and free stuff etc... and the Software Assurance costs more than just buying it retail, and then buying the upgrades at retail. But it was a lot easier to manage licensing. But the licensing management advantages really only start to hit when your up to at least a medium business or larger.
If the windows enterprise licensing got rolled into an office 365 type offering though, that might be simple enough and attractive enough for small businesses.
Power users have been running server editions of windows for a while to over come various limitations of Windows desktop editions. But in my experience they were usually 'abusing' msdn or technet subscriptions to get the licenses.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't run a server, except that the licensing situation is still obnoxious.
Server essentials is kind of of a messed up product, like SBS was and I hate both. (I mean, if you sold 2 lathes for example with systems running SBS the customer would have a big mess since only one computer in the domain can run SBS...)
So that bumps you to server standard, which as you said works brilliantly, but at $1200 it just doesn't make a lot of financial sense to put that all over the place.
I guess on a $200,000 to $1.5M piece of kit, it's a footnote in the price tally... but still... its a ripoff; and probaby cheaper to stand up an azure domain controller, and run windows enterprise on the units; at least assuming you need more than one computer in the environment.
You're assuming that this would be a "miscarriage of justice" to Getty
A billion dollars? Would be a miscarriage of justice. I expect you could buy and sell the whole company several times over for that.
It would not be a "miscarriage of justice" in this case to sue Getty out of existence, along with any other entity who systematically tries to deny the public access to free intellectual property when it has been released as such.
I'm pretty confident there is a number far lower than a billion dollars that would straighten Getty out.
Ok.. that TPM; that's been around for 10 years already. Its a double edged sword.
Can Windows 10 Enterprise be used in this role?
Yes.
Say I build a machine and need a PC to control it. I need my customer to have complete control over that PC, but I need to buy the PC (say with Win10 enterprise license) at my factory, set up the instrument, test everything, and then ship it to my customer
It could be preinstalled with 10 pro, shipped to customer, and they'd convert it to 10 enterprise at their site with their site license. (no reinstall, not even a reboot required according to their press.)
I agree though that this is... clumsy. But a lot less clumsy if windows enterprise becomes widely deployed at your customers sites. Big "IF", yes I know. On the other hand, these aren't cheap toys you are pairing them with either. Specing that the customer site have a domain controller to manage its settings isn't completely unreasonable.
But yeah, I can see Linux potentially making inroads here if Microsoft doesn't improve the situation. Then again... does microsoft care? And how many manufacturers are going to switch vs just sucking it up... one of our lathe vendors still ships with DOS; another with Windows XP. Maybe these guys will just keep shipping win7 pro until 2030.. and by then the windows 10 launch issues will have worked themselves out.
Not when we have court judgments standing against ordinary citizens for non-commercial infringement of over $10,000 per violation.
One gross miscarriage of justice is not a rationale to commit another one, nor to entrench systematic miscarriages.
f the infringing fees were more reasonable (particularly for first-time offenders), that'd be one thing... but they're not.
They are in some civilized countries.
Bill C-11 passed in 2012:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/...
-----
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright
owner may elect, at any time before final
judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of
damages and profits referred to in subsection
35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any
one infringer is liable individually, or for
which any two or more infringers are liable
jointly and severally,
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not
more than $20,000 that the court considers
just, with respect to all infringements involved
in the proceedings for each work or
other subject-matter, if the infringements are
for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not
more than $5,000 that the court considers
just, with respect to all infringements involved
in the proceedings for all works or
other subject-matter, if the infringements are
for non-commercial purposes.
-----
Give that a good read. Statutory damages in Canada, for a noncommercial infringement starts at $100, and tops out at $5000; as a single payment for all infringements involved ithe proceedings. (so not 'per song' )
They wasted time to prevent booting straight to desktop.
And then rolled it back in the 8.1 update. How do you explain that in a way consistent with your argument?
They are now wasting time to prevent the Windows Pro users from using common settings in group policies. None of this affects the average user.
This, as was previously argued, is to push enterprises to use the enterprise edition. That argument makes a lot of sense.
The effect it has on privacy & security conscious power users is just incidental.
Can you clarify ...
First what is the "new TPM" you refer to?
Second, how is both Win10 IoT and Win10 enterprise not suitable for these systems exactly?
I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I've often thought that Windows really wasn't ever ideal for embedded systems and management PCs. (One of my clients runs lathes for example, some on DOS, some on WinXP; i wish they were on linux... even if they were stuck on an old version, it would be preferable...) but really can't see windows 10 enterprise being worse than win7 for some of the systems I work with hooked up to medical diagnostic instruments, nor can I see win 10 iot being any worse than win embedded on the lathes... for example.
Why do they even seek comment?
The reason is "journalistic integrity",
Yes, we all know that the MS mouthpiece is going to respond with some useless boilerplate, but its Journalism 101 to seek comments and responses to all parties when writing stories about them.
It provides for fairness, letting the company have its say (even if it is boilerplat); and also supports journalism principles for verification and accuracy. For example, Microsoft could have responded ...'No, your facts are wrong. They haven't actually served us with any lawsuit yet."... or "No. They have already settled out of court; and are under a non-disclosure about the terms." or disputed/corrected any number of other facts or details about the case, that they wish.
If the journalist has all the facts 100% right, and the company really has no positive spin for it, then yeah, you'll get a boilerplate... "we beleive this case has no merit."
But its a good sign that the journal article reached out for a comment, and even better that they got one and printed it.
Microsoft does not want ANY dissent, even if it's from only 1%.
They are a business. They don't care what a fraction of a percent want. They may not go out of there way to service them, but they aren't going to go out of the way to interfere with them either.
Remember when Windows 8 preview had a registry entry to allow booting straight to deskto
The preview editions are often locked down in really weird ways to FORCE previewers to try the 'new thing'. I don't read too much into preview release gyrations.
Then they eventually apologized and made it a setting.
That kind of runs counter to your assertion that they aren't listening to feedback at all.
And windows 10 is all kinds of responding to users reaction to 8.
because with Windows 10 they doubled down on the customer abuse.
Its more that their vision of a consumer operating system is diverging from yours and mine; but Cortana ... for the sort of person that would use Cortana isn't bad at what it does.
Yes. That was pretty much my argument too.
This crippling of Pro to prevent 'consumers' from turning off cortana etc makes no sense, and would be bizarre if that was the intention.
But as a means to push actual enterprises (and small/med businesses) from pro to enterprise... it suddenly makes a lot more sense.
Small businesses too small to use Enterprise but still have a domain to manage make plenty of use of Group Policy.
Exactly right, and I think that's the market that needs to be re-examined.
1) Are they really too small to use enterprise?
2) What is the 'future' of the "Pro" product.
I work with several small businesses; and maybe they too need to get off pro and onto an enterprise edition.
But as you said Windows Pro is not just starting to fail to meet the needs of power users like me, but its also becoming less of a fit for small businesses... and maybe that's on purpose because they think they can get small businesses on to an azure domain controller with 7 enterprise subscriptions... and you know ... that's not necessarily a bad idea.
Frankly I think Microsoft is re-positioning "Pro" as a consumer freemium-ad-supported product ; with the intention of moving all businesses to "enterprise". I think the $7/month windows enterprise subscription option is part of that.
If that's the plan though, then I think (as usualy) ms is being spectaculary bad at communicating.
Microsoft continues to amaze and excel as they go to new lengths to make the Windows experience even more excruciatingly intolerable to any user that has the slightest clue what they're doing with a computer.
I have been trying to figure out what the HELL they are thinking.
99.99% of Windows 10 Pro users were NEVER going to mess with group policy editor to tweak those settings anyway. So ~why~ go to the trouble of disabling them.
And as for the one in a thousand that is going to go into group policy and change this stuff... why spend resources getting in his way... there's no money in that. And its just going to piss them off, and they WILL find another way.
So... no I don't think this really has anything to do with preventing consumers from doing what they want.
I think this has everything to with ensuring enterprises have to use the enterprise version, and pay the VLA subscription prices etc. That's where the money is, and that's where it might actually be worth it for microsoft.
i think us power users are just being caught in the cross fire.
The interesting question for me, unless I wish to abandon windows entirely* is how painful moving to the enterprise version would be. I've always paid extra for windows pro, because i wanted to run IIS, and RDP, and not be stuck with the idiot permissions model, etc. So I've long since accepted paying a bit extra to get what I want from windows.
Now, maybe instead of pro, I just want the enterprise version. So what will that cost... because it seems it does everything I want. It lets me turn off telemetry, it lets me turn off cortana, etc, etc. If I had the enterprise version, I wouldn't be stuck fighting with windows, it would just work for me.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/m...
So Microsoft... $84/user (so i can have enterprise on all my computers and laptops, and always up to date?) And I don't have to put up with any of your consumer-freemium-telemetry-cortana-shit? I'm potentially ok making that deal.
* re abandoning windows option; I work with windows so I need it. I own a macbook pro as my primary laptop; and I have linux running in my office as well... so I'm fairly well positioned to leave windows if I really wanted to. But I don't really want to... I use it for games, and I use Windows for work (visual studio and other proprietary stuff), and for accounting, etc, etc.
I like linux, and love it as a server, but find it needs too much tinkering for a gaming PC or HTPC. And OSX ... i like my laptop, but I'm not going to shoehorn myself into apple's extremely limited lineup of overpriced desktop options.
One generally uses a long, complex password for their password vault (which is fine, since you only have to remember the one password).
No. One does not. Because one needs to repeatedly enter that password in everytime one access anything, from as menial as slashdot to as important as one's bank.
Plus one needs to be able to enter it on a smartphone too; again... repeatedly.
Remembering a long complex password is easy. Repeatedly entering it over and over and over again is painful. So the practical length of most people's vault key is relatively short.
So while my bank password is long and complex and random, and i don't even know what it is; my vault password is shorter and easier for me to remember and use.
So my bank account and so forth is secure from bruteforce attacks directly on it, as well as immunity from password re-using since each is random.
My vault is relatively secure, you'd need to get a hold of it from me; and the vault password is relatively secure, but its not a 200 character pass phrase... simply because I'd go mental entering something like that in over and over again... or on a smartphone.
I've actually mitigated it a little bit as I use different vault files for different passwords, so I've actually got a couple vaults; and the vault the bank account is in is harder than the junk account vault, but while its better its still not ideal.
No.
When you engage autopilot, you aren't driving. You aren't actively controlling any part of the car, you are just sitting there watching. YOU are the extra eye.
By comparison, I might own all the items in my safe deposit box at the bank. But clearly I don't own the bank, or even the bank lobby. And yet I cannot access my owned items except by using the bank's property.
Not a bad example. And likewise, if I wanted to send someone to the bank to retrieve or add to the contents of the safety deposit box, that would be my prerogative.
Well, OK. Then legally a legal court of law will come to a different legal conclusion than a person with no technical or legal expertise might come to.
Where the law varies significantly from people's expectations is where conflict arises, and the law is usually wrong or ultimately unenforceable, because society en masse simply ignores the law.
The law ultimately is supposed to reflect and enforce the social contract, not the other way around.
Also, civil engineer might build a bridge differently than a normal person would. News at 11!
Of course. But if the normal people couldn't cross the bridge, and kept hurting themselves on it, falling off of it, etc, etc ... because it didn't conform to their expectations of how to use a bridge, then the civil engineer failed.
The CFAA is a such a failure.
No wonder autopilot is safer than human drivers per mile driven.
Humans drive everywhere in all weather in all circumstances... autopilot only drives on uninterrupted stretches of highway, in clear weather... and it still demands the human sit there with his hands on the wheel as a backup.
My point was that this is precisely the same thing Microsoft has been doing with secureboot.
Stop inventing non-issues to bitch about.
Stop having a double standard.
Yes, they have an App Store on MacOSX but it's totally optional
It pretty much HAS to be installed, and you pretty much have to use it for OS updates.
And with each successive release OSX tightens the screws a little more, in the name of security...
You can't run apps you didn't get from the app store on a new mac until you go into security settings and turn on the ability to use apps you didn't get from the app store.
So its totally optional, in the sense that it comes pre-installed, you can't remove it, you have to use it for some things, and out of the box it is only option you are allowed to use to get new apps.
But yes, you can tweak the security settings to allow you to get software from other sources.
So...its like secureboot...which everyone here likes and thinks is ok... right?
Using a public service like twitter isn't in the same ball park as having a private account at a company where you most likely did sign an agreement that said something like 'you will not share company secrets' your company password would be classified as a company secret.
You are right, but that's kind of the point here -- while you and might see them as very different thing (and indeed most people do) ... the CFAA doesn't differentiate.
yes, but steam isn't a really good platform for general purpose apps. I mean they're trying it...and also movies too... but I don't think it has a lot of traction... i don't really see it replacing cnet/sourceforge/etc to get torrent clients, file compression utilities, etc, etc. maybe they'll make it happen.
It always seems a bit wonky to have that stuff tied to a steam account in any way. Logging into steam... etc...
This is not stupid at all.
Yes, yes it IS stupid.
It mirrors the obvious principle that everyone here knows, which is that authorization to use a system does not necessarily confer authorization to authorize additional users.
But does that principle automatically apply here? Does a normal person *consider* their Twitter account their own property or the property of twiiter. (Not the legalese... but in terms of how they think about and interact with it.)
Moreover, it's a principle of our daily lives that's so obvious we don't even mention it. I let my neighbor Bob use my pool whenever he wants, but I would be shocked if Jill was using it and just said "Oh yeah, Bob said I could".
Exactly right. Its clearly your property, and your delegate has clearly exceeded his authority according to all social conventions. That would be quite the faux pas, and you'd be rightfully upset.
There is no reason that the principle of non-delegation (that is to say, without explicit authority granted to delegate) shouldn't apply to the virtual world just as much as it applies everywhere else.
It doesn't automatically apply everywhere else. It applies when the property being delegated is recognized as belonging to someone else. It doesn't apply when the property being delegated is recognized as belonging to me. The legalese underneath the transaction may cement that status, but socially what matters is how we perceive the property.
Bob's using YOUR pool. That is the social convention (and the legal reality) of the situation.
If I give you social media account password. Am I giving you access to MY account? Or am I giving you access to a (for example) twitter account that twitter lets me use?
Legally its probably the latter, but that's not how ANYBODY thinks about it. They think of it as THEIR OWN twitter account.
They'll say it's 'my account'; they'll complain 'my account was hacked'... everything surrounding it is framed in that sense of ownership.
The same way they think about their TV service, their cellular phone service, their steam account... that the account "belongs" to them, and they don't give a 2nd thought to whether their friends or guests or babysitters or whatever can watch their TV, or borrow their phone to make a call, or play some video games on my account.
Or even their bank account. People think of that as their property too. It gives them access to their money. Its not the banks money!! It's mine. The password is also mine. I chose it, and the bank shouldn't even know what it is. etc etc.
Yes legally, and when you get deep into it... the money is mine, but the servers are theirs. And the account is permission from them to use their servers using my chosen credential to access the money I entrusted them to hold for me... etc etc.
But if it ever came down to it, and I wanted to give someone my bank account password for some reason, my only thought would be in terms of the risk that represents to the security of MY money. I wouldn't give a 2nd thought to whether or not I had the right to delegate access to the banks servers.
Likewise with twitter... my only consideration in giving out my password would be the risk it represented to my 'reputation', the potential for greif to me from what they might say with it... etc.
The notion that I would be delegating access to twitter's server infrastructure in a way analogous to Bob letting Jill use your pool...? That would NOT be a consideration at all. No normal person thinks of their twitter account in that sense. (even if technically and legally that's what it is.)
Apparently this is the 'making fun of a black woman's name' thread:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...
Doesn't really strike me as "racist".
Steven Colbert had Alexander Skarsgaard on a few weeks back and spent spent a few minutes making light of the difficulty of pronouncing his last name correctly... was that racist against Swedes? A few weeks before that they had Steve Buscemi and they talked about the difficulty with his last name too....