OTOH 8.1's multimonitor isn't as good as 10s modern apps and the start menu have to be full screen the hyperV in 10 is better directX 11.3 / 12.0 And I dispute your argument that 8.1 is faster than 10.
But naming it "Boaty McBoatface" for the long term? Can you imagine a scientist who worked on that ship and putting that on your resume?
Yes. If I were a scientist who worked on that ship, I'd still put boaty mcboatface at least in parenthesis.
Why? Because nobody on the planet has heard of Attenblawhrawwatever, and few ever will. I'll put that name on too of course, but if I mention Boaty McBoatface -- it maybe a "stupid" name, but its a celebrity name all the same. If I put I worked on Boaty McBoatface... everyone knows THAT boat. Its not 'just another research vessel'... its Boaty!
If so, its then better to block at that point, rather than installing Win 10.
If the only reason you aren't upgrading to 10 is the telemetry the installing a telemetry blocker and then staying on 7 makes no sense. The telemetry blocker solves the problem you have.
But by all means, yes, if you are planning to stay on 7 for whatever OTHER reason aside from telemetry then yes, install a telemetry blocker in 7 or 8.1.
Its far less hassle than playing whack-a-mole with updates.
Almost every feature you specify already comes with Windows 8.1
1) He's upgrading from 7. And it makes no sense at all to upgrade from 7 to 8.1. Given 10's UI walks back some of the most annoying things about 8.1.
2) while several of the improvements I mentioned started with 8/8.1 they got incrementally better in 10. HyperV in 10 is better than it is in 8.1. Multimonitor support in 10 is better than 8.1. Security / hardening got incrementally better in 10. etc etc.
Seriously if you are on 8.1 there is absolutely no good reason not to upgrade to 10 that I can think of.
While the Mac appstore is indeed integrated in the OS, it doesn't bother you,
and you can disable updates
I have the ability to turn off app updates in the Microsoft store.
OS Updates on the other hand, you are right; but the thread here isn't about windows update... its about the app store. And win 10 updates... given MS's history... I'm not sure its the wrong move. Far too many admins will run swiss cheese networks on theory that if its not broken leave it alone. But it is broken, and they just don't recognize it until after the hacks and data breaches. Unpatched systems exposing vulnerabilities that have been fixed is a huge issue -- and what we'd been doing so far hasn't been working. IT admins in corporate networks were NO better than consumers at getting critical fixes out.
(Yes everybody here is a responsible competent admin who validates each security patch, and rolls it out promptly. So I guess I'm talking about the hundreds of millions of corporate networks run by people who aren't here. Because those unpatched swiss-cheese corporate systems are definitely out there in the millions.)
When you disable spotlight's web search it stays disabled.
I've disabled send search queries to bing on windows 10 and it's stayed disabled too.
And you can freely ignore this with no real drawbacks.
And you can with windows 10 too. I only use local accounts, and its never caused the slightest problem.
It's not that you can't remove it, you stupid fuck. It's that MS won't let the admin block it.
Unless you have enterprise or educational editions. Home and Pro are apparently consumer/pro-sumer editions now.
Apple *does* allow MDM to restrict the app store to updating MDM installed apps and the OS only.
So does active directory + enterprise desktop. The only difference is how much you have to pay. Apple's OSX server is pretty reasonable... Windows 10 enterprise quite a bit less so.
Which is what MS just removed from their platform.
Removed from 1 edition. It was never in home edition, and it always was and remaints in enterprise and education. All microsoft has done is shifted Win 10 pro more towards being a pro-sumer os rather than a business os. Why? I expect to sell more enterprise versions to more businesses.
Does it suck yes, but tweaking the differentiation characteristics of different editions of windows is hardly "removing something from the platform"
under Windows 10 and the spying stuff (which is sadly, mostly true) you're the product.
It's really not much different in OSX. 1) Spotlight has been in OSX forever and can be used to search web so potentially 'local search terms are sent out to the internet'. Same issue as windows search.
2) "Microsoft Accounts" to sign-in; again just retreading a feature OSX *already* has, where OSX prompts you to create an account tied to your AppleID with itunes, appstore, and icloud links.
3) App Store you can't remove... as discussed OSX had it years ago.
4) Telemetry -- ok windows got here first; but honest to goodness telemetry really isn't the bogeyman its made out to be. Yes, its truly irritating microsoft hasn't been transparent enough, and bizarre they won't just let you turn it off. (Most people won't even bother so why not just let that vocal group turn it off and avoid the circus I don't know.)
5) "Spying"; ok... lets stop there and talk Cortana first. Because again OSX did it first, with siri. But so far Siri is only on your phone -- and a TON of the information that is so-called spying (and part of why the EULA is such a wide cast net) is related to the cortana "feature"... to function as designed it "needs" to know who your contacts are, your search terms, your calendar, document meta data, etc, etc. And it needs to be in the 'cloud' so it can be processed and available on other devices you use, etc, etc. And further for Cortana to be be any use she needs to be pretty integrated into the OS... so where am I going with this? Siri is exactly the same, on IOS. All the same problems are there. Microsoft's only 'innovation' is to put it on the desktop.
So what about apple? Watch for the June WWDC where Apple annouces Siri availability for OSX... and then check out the accompanying EULA that has to go with it.
I've been using Windows 7 for a long time and i haven't seen much of a compelling reason to upgrade to 10.
Most of the worst bits of windows 10 telemetry etc have been backported to 7 so unless you are spending more than normal amount of time inspecting updates there's no advantage to 7 on that front.
Better and simpler IMO to update to 10 and just install one of the telemetry blockers.
Ok... as for compelling reasons to upgrade.. . DirectX 11.3 / 12.0 -- whether that's compelling is up to you. HyperV -- and better virtualization support in general Multimonitor -- better than 7, better than 7 with 3rd party addons IMO Sleep / Wake / Reboot -- markedly better/faster than 7 Task Manager -- much improved over what's in 7 Antivirus -- built in good enough to run without more SystemTray -- much better system tray/notifications setup Security -- More OS hardening features Smaller footprint -- smaller on disk, smaller in memory
There's a bunch of features (built in) and addons (like classic shell) you can use to make 10 look more like 7; but IMO sticking with the look of 7 vs 10 really just amounts to "resisting changes" for the sake of "resisting changes". I know people who jumped through hoops to make XP look like 98, then to make 7 look like XP etc... I don't think its productive or worth the effort, and you do miss out on some of the actual improvements by being close minded to the idea that maybe just may the windows 7 really might not be the pinnacle of user interfaces. (Not that windows 10 is... but it took little effort to adjust to it)
As a user of several windows versions 3.1 onward, Mac os7 thru X, and several linux desktops I can say that windows 10 desktop has some flaws (the confusing mix of old control panels and new "settings" to set things is probably the worst; and the a bunch of the defaults are idiotic; -- the default start menu tiles for example; I unpinned all of them; or the default file viewers for a few things being useless "modern apps" but that is all easily and quickly tamed. )
Is 10 a big upgrade from 7? No. But it is an upgrade, and it doesn't cost anything but some time and effort.
" Maybe I really will end up a Mac guy after all, or something?"
Ok. Since the presence of the 'forced' app store on Windows 10 offended you so much that you are considering switching to Mac.
What is the Apple supported way to remove the App Store in OSX El Capitan?
The app store in OSX is, if anything even more integrated than the App Store in Windows is, as it delivers OS updates as well. I look around a bit and found a few articles from circa 2011 when they first introduced it in 10.6. and even back then the removal instructions amounted to hacks where "you can do a-b-c to remove it but its not supported by apple at all". And that was several releases ago now.
So here we have a case of Microsoft doing a thing that everyone has seemingly already accepted from Apple years ago... but hate Microsoft doing it so much that they threaten to switch to Apple over it... so...um... yeah.
Microsoft has removed the capability of even system administrators to block/remove the Windows App store in Windows 10, even in the Pro version. Whereas previously it was possible to use registry edits or GPO to remove/block the app store and other forced start menu tiles in Windows 10, a recent Microsoft update has eliminated that capability and re-enabled these features.
the store is installed on my win10 pc, but the store icon is not on my start menu, or task bar, or otherwise visible unless I go looking for it. So its there, but its hardly an issue.
I don't think I'd personally want to remove the app store... because I do use exactly one app... Netflix.
But sure I can see businesses potentially wanting it removed... it sounds like for now this works:
crack open PowerShell and run Get-AppxPackage â*windowsstore*â | Remove-AppxPackage
But I wonder what Microsoft is thinking here. If the business is large enough to put its users on Active Directory to get policy management, its large enough that it doesn't want its users playing angry birds and solitaire.
Posting anon for obvious reasons. The plan internally is to continue to offer it for free indefinitely after the existing period expires.
This is what I expected -- in one form or another. It just makes sense given their goals. The only reason to have the free period even "end" was to try and motivate people to upgrade today because it's going to cost something tomorrow.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see them let the deal end, then reintroduce it a month later for another year "due to the demand/excitement/whatever". That gives them another year of "time is running out".
BUT, having said all that, I'd also expected the cheap upgrades ($20 iirc) from 7 to 8 to persist indefinitely as well, but they didn't; and I never understood why. Nobody, but nobody, ever would pay $80-$100+ to upgrade from 7 to 8/8.1 so why discontinue the 'deal' price?
All Snapchat did was to record a readily available piece of GPS data
Apparently that's not all Snapchat does. Apparently there is a 'trophy' involved?
Is there some sort of gamification going on, with "acheivements or trophies", perhaps it even has global rankings and completion stats (I don't know)?
But if so -- whether that makes them liable here, I'm not convinced of THAT yet -- but if they'd gamified it they WERE doing more than "merely recording data".
Also, it is NOT free. Honda may not charge me but I loose the opportunity to make money that day
So borrow a car for a shift from a friend/relative? Or take it somewhere that offers courtesy vehicles; its not like its an emergency so you can schedule around a courtesy car being available.
Worst case, rent a car... that will actually cost you some money, but presumably less than working that day will.
But it is the hypocrisy that ought to derail her presidential bid./quote
If hypocrisy derailed presidential bids then Ron Paul probably would have been our last president elected unopposed, and Sanders would be the only candidate running this election, for either party.
I see SOOO many posts of "why is this news, we've been doing $OTHERTHING$ forever." where $OTHERTHING$, if you rubbed two brain cells together, is completely different.
But yeah, maybe a ~whoosh~ is in order here. I can see it now that you raised it as a possibility.
No. Absolutely not. This is the only update Microsoft has ever produced where you agree to do the install one day, while running Windows Update, and then the install happens on another day in the far far future because it was scheduled to do so...
Said someone whose never been on really slow / spotty / rural internet. Where, yeah, getting a 600MB+ service pack runs days to weeks.
This seems to be a case of completely misplaced priorities.
Yes... and... no.
The root of the issue appears to be that its 'minified', which if it wasn't other people would rightly complain about wasted bandwidth over metered connections. Minified isn't deliberately obfuscated per se, although minification does tend to obfuscate functionality.
That said, the FSFs request actually isn't unreasonable when you get right down to it. They suggest we establish a standard way link back to the original un-minified source.
This is very easy to do, and honestly it is a perfectly reasonable thing to demand of a government.
Is it my top priority? No. Is it worthy of a march in protest? Not to me.
But I am actually in favor of this being standard practice for the government. At the end of the day they are running software on my computer, and they could easily provide the source for it. Its not a major burden, and it represents value to the people -- its a good faith demonstration of transparency. So that we can inspect for ourselves what they are running on our computers. Why not?!
on my wife's laptop, it had been asking her for months if she wanted to upgrade to Windows 10
Ok, here's the thing, at some point in the past your wife or some other user had clicked, "yes, I want to upgrade/reserve my copy etc". THAT was when the upgrade process was "comitted"
Everything after that was basically, "you've told me to upgrade, ill do what i can in the background, and when I'm ready, we finsih committing it."
This is exactly like doing a manual windows update where, you ticked off the update, clicked update, and then it downloads the update and it asks do you want to restart to complete the install now or in 5 minutes or 2 hours? Its too late to decide you didn't want to install the update... you already committed to it.
"I changed my mind, don't install that update is not an option" -- you've got this update in progress, you're committed, you've got to finish it. Perhaps there should be a "hey I changed my mind, lets not install this update after all" but there isn't. Fortunately you can uninstall the windows update afterwards though.
The win10 upgrade is, for better or for worse, treated pretty much the exactly same as these other windows 7 updates. Once you've started it, its committed to do it. And like all the other win7 updates, you can uninstall it and restore back to before you upgraded. (I.e. restore back to win 7)
The point is it's not "forcing people to upgrade". Its forcing the completion of the upgrade that was previously requested; same as it eventually does for any update.
And for what its worth, windows 10 is fine. A bunch of the setup defaults are bad; telemetry is a concern (i use a tool to block it); start menu live tiles i turn off and unpin, cortana gets disabled... and then really... i like it just fine. But that's me... if you want to keep 7, do so... but if you've 'reserved your windows 10 upgrade' and it wants to complete it, pick a convenient time, get it over with and then restore previous version of windows. Or eventually it will "force" the completion of the upgrade you requested; same as any other update.
The issue is that it is not a perfect market. Increasing the supply means giving more money to drivers; that's how you incentivize more drivers to hop into a car. So they need to keep the price the same while paying drivers more money during a surge to get them onto the road.
And the solution to ubers "problem" is pretty simple.
Price the service to account for it. Do the analysis on surge frequency and duration and they raise the cost of a regular fare by a nickle or so, and then when a surge hits, they have that 'warchest of extra nickels' built up to absorb the cost of paying drivers extra to get them on the road during a surge.
What would you call survivors of the nuclear war then?
I know I wouldn't call them "extinct".
Would you like to be one?
I'm not sure "like" is the word I would choose. But yeah, if there was a world to rebuild, even if that meant I lived out my life trying to preserve knowledge and teach the next generation while scavenging supplies and living in a solar/geo thermal powered mushroom farm/cave in some out of the way site that wasn't near any actual detonations... while humantity collectively waits for the radioactive dust to cool and settle on the surface.
That's not a life I would ever desire, but if those were the cards I'm dealt, so be it.
Now if by survivor you mean my face is half melted off, im blind, deaf, and one arm is fused to a the remnants of the cellphone I was holding... then yeah, maybe that me isn't up to the challenges of nuclear winter.
The point is, yes, there will be those killed in the war itself, those killed or disabled in the immediate aftermath from hard radiation sickness, orther disease, injury, starvation, etc. But there will definitely be actual survivors who are obviously seriously negatively impacted, but who still have legitimate credible hope to live on and build a better life for themselves and their descendents.
I'm not a prepper or any thing like that, and I live suburban life so I'm probably going to die. But if I was on vacation in the right place at the right time... I absolutely would try to survive.
Find an attractive women, or man... or maybe your into kids. Walk in their front door when they aren't home; install some stealthy cameras. You can even return to re-position or recharge them or simply retrieve them. With no breakin, the occupants don't suspect a thing.
Or install a USB keylogger on their computer; and wait for their bank info, or all sorts of other snooping / information targeted theft etc. Get what you need for identity theft. etc.
Or kidnapping... ex-husband just walks into a home in the middle of the night and walks out again with the baby he lost custody of.
Or assassination... deliver poison, or bombs, or whatever. Far fetched, yeah... i don't expect a rash of assassinations to go down... but you take away the obstacle of actually having to "break in" and it does become a lot easier. An ex can just walk in put something in the orange juice and walk out again.
Or maybe it stops at harassment. An ex shows up looks through your stuff, leaves you notes etc. Police aren't taking it too seriously because there's no evidence of forced entry... etc.
The fact that your in and out without leaving a broken door, lock, or window enables all sorts of stuff beyond theft.
I would assume that the systems in theory logs unlocks etc; but you may not think to look at the logs until WAY too late. And if we assume the systems are easily hacked, it may be trivial to avoid leaving logs behind as well, or to wipe them, or falsify them. or if you can't remove the reocrd of your entry spam them with thousands of unlocks so your entry is lost in the noise...
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH
8.1's multimonitor isn't as good as 10s
modern apps and the start menu have to be full screen
the hyperV in 10 is better
directX 11.3 / 12.0
And I dispute your argument that 8.1 is faster than 10.
But naming it "Boaty McBoatface" for the long term? Can you imagine a scientist who worked on that ship and putting that on your resume?
Yes. If I were a scientist who worked on that ship, I'd still put boaty mcboatface at least in parenthesis.
Why? Because nobody on the planet has heard of Attenblawhrawwatever, and few ever will. I'll put that name on too of course, but if I mention Boaty McBoatface -- it maybe a "stupid" name, but its a celebrity name all the same. If I put I worked on Boaty McBoatface... everyone knows THAT boat. Its not 'just another research vessel' ... its Boaty!
Are there telemetry blockers for Win 7?
If so, its then better to block at that point, rather than installing Win 10.
If the only reason you aren't upgrading to 10 is the telemetry the installing a telemetry blocker and then staying on 7 makes no sense. The telemetry blocker solves the problem you have.
But by all means, yes, if you are planning to stay on 7 for whatever OTHER reason aside from telemetry then yes, install a telemetry blocker in 7 or 8.1.
Its far less hassle than playing whack-a-mole with updates.
ineffective host file etc
Modifying hosts to trivially defeat DNS is a common practice for malware.
Use the firewall to block services and block destination addresses.
Almost every feature you specify already comes with Windows 8.1
1) He's upgrading from 7. And it makes no sense at all to upgrade from 7 to 8.1. Given 10's UI walks back some of the most annoying things about 8.1.
2) while several of the improvements I mentioned started with 8/8.1 they got incrementally better in 10. HyperV in 10 is better than it is in 8.1. Multimonitor support in 10 is better than 8.1. Security / hardening got incrementally better in 10. etc etc.
Seriously if you are on 8.1 there is absolutely no good reason not to upgrade to 10 that I can think of.
While the Mac appstore is indeed integrated in the OS, it doesn't bother you,
and you can disable updates
I have the ability to turn off app updates in the Microsoft store.
OS Updates on the other hand, you are right; but the thread here isn't about windows update... its about the app store. And win 10 updates... given MS's history... I'm not sure its the wrong move. Far too many admins will run swiss cheese networks on theory that if its not broken leave it alone. But it is broken, and they just don't recognize it until after the hacks and data breaches. Unpatched systems exposing vulnerabilities that have been fixed is a huge issue -- and what we'd been doing so far hasn't been working. IT admins in corporate networks were NO better than consumers at getting critical fixes out.
(Yes everybody here is a responsible competent admin who validates each security patch, and rolls it out promptly. So I guess I'm talking about the hundreds of millions of corporate networks run by people who aren't here. Because those unpatched swiss-cheese corporate systems are definitely out there in the millions.)
When you disable spotlight's web search it stays disabled.
I've disabled send search queries to bing on windows 10 and it's stayed disabled too.
And you can freely ignore this with no real drawbacks.
And you can with windows 10 too. I only use local accounts, and its never caused the slightest problem.
It's not that you can't remove it, you stupid fuck. It's that MS won't let the admin block it.
Unless you have enterprise or educational editions. Home and Pro are apparently consumer/pro-sumer editions now.
Apple *does* allow MDM to restrict the app store to updating MDM installed apps and the OS only.
So does active directory + enterprise desktop. The only difference is how much you have to pay. Apple's OSX server is pretty reasonable... Windows 10 enterprise quite a bit less so.
Which is what MS just removed from their platform.
Removed from 1 edition. It was never in home edition, and it always was and remaints in enterprise and education. All microsoft has done is shifted Win 10 pro more towards being a pro-sumer os rather than a business os. Why? I expect to sell more enterprise versions to more businesses.
Does it suck yes, but tweaking the differentiation characteristics of different editions of windows is hardly "removing something from the platform"
Yes. Smaller footprint. RAM usage from task manager doesn't really mean anything anymore; for a lot of reasons.
Windows 10 runs markely better on a system with 2GB ram than 7 or 8 does for example.
"Restrict App Store to MDM installed apps and software updates only":
Do you not need an OSX Server to do that though? Fewer people have those than have Windows 10 Enterprise licenses.
I mean even Microsoft has a very simple solution involving Active Directory and Windows 10 Enterprise licensing. Its there its just not cheap.
under Windows 10 and the spying stuff (which is sadly, mostly true) you're the product.
It's really not much different in OSX.
1) Spotlight has been in OSX forever and can be used to search web so potentially 'local search terms are sent out to the internet'. Same issue as windows search.
2) "Microsoft Accounts" to sign-in; again just retreading a feature OSX *already* has, where OSX prompts you to create an account tied to your AppleID with itunes, appstore, and icloud links.
3) App Store you can't remove... as discussed OSX had it years ago.
4) Telemetry -- ok windows got here first; but honest to goodness telemetry really isn't the bogeyman its made out to be. Yes, its truly irritating microsoft hasn't been transparent enough, and bizarre they won't just let you turn it off. (Most people won't even bother so why not just let that vocal group turn it off and avoid the circus I don't know.)
5) "Spying"; ok... lets stop there and talk Cortana first. Because again OSX did it first, with siri. But so far Siri is only on your phone -- and a TON of the information that is so-called spying (and part of why the EULA is such a wide cast net) is related to the cortana "feature"... to function as designed it "needs" to know who your contacts are, your search terms, your calendar, document meta data, etc, etc. And it needs to be in the 'cloud' so it can be processed and available on other devices you use, etc, etc. And further for Cortana to be be any use she needs to be pretty integrated into the OS... so where am I going with this? Siri is exactly the same, on IOS. All the same problems are there. Microsoft's only 'innovation' is to put it on the desktop.
So what about apple? Watch for the June WWDC where Apple annouces Siri availability for OSX... and then check out the accompanying EULA that has to go with it.
I've been using Windows 7 for a long time and i haven't seen much of a compelling reason to upgrade to 10.
Most of the worst bits of windows 10 telemetry etc have been backported to 7 so unless you are spending more than normal amount of time inspecting updates there's no advantage to 7 on that front.
Better and simpler IMO to update to 10 and just install one of the telemetry blockers.
Ok... as for compelling reasons to upgrade..
.
DirectX 11.3 / 12.0 -- whether that's compelling is up to you.
HyperV -- and better virtualization support in general
Multimonitor -- better than 7, better than 7 with 3rd party addons IMO
Sleep / Wake / Reboot -- markedly better/faster than 7
Task Manager -- much improved over what's in 7
Antivirus -- built in good enough to run without more
SystemTray -- much better system tray/notifications setup
Security -- More OS hardening features
Smaller footprint -- smaller on disk, smaller in memory
There's a bunch of features (built in) and addons (like classic shell) you can use to make 10 look more like 7; but IMO sticking with the look of 7 vs 10 really just amounts to "resisting changes" for the sake of "resisting changes". I know people who jumped through hoops to make XP look like 98, then to make 7 look like XP etc... I don't think its productive or worth the effort, and you do miss out on some of the actual improvements by being close minded to the idea that maybe just may the windows 7 really might not be the pinnacle of user interfaces. (Not that windows 10 is... but it took little effort to adjust to it)
As a user of several windows versions 3.1 onward, Mac os7 thru X, and several linux desktops I can say that windows 10 desktop has some flaws (the confusing mix of old control panels and new "settings" to set things is probably the worst; and the a bunch of the defaults are idiotic; -- the default start menu tiles for example; I unpinned all of them; or the default file viewers for a few things being useless "modern apps" but that is all easily and quickly tamed. )
Is 10 a big upgrade from 7? No. But it is an upgrade, and it doesn't cost anything but some time and effort.
" Maybe I really will end up a Mac guy after all, or something?"
Ok. Since the presence of the 'forced' app store on Windows 10 offended you so much that you are considering switching to Mac.
What is the Apple supported way to remove the App Store in OSX El Capitan?
The app store in OSX is, if anything even more integrated than the App Store in Windows is, as it delivers OS updates as well. I look around a bit and found a few articles from circa 2011 when they first introduced it in 10.6. and even back then the removal instructions amounted to hacks where "you can do a-b-c to remove it but its not supported by apple at all". And that was several releases ago now.
So here we have a case of Microsoft doing a thing that everyone has seemingly already accepted from Apple years ago... but hate Microsoft doing it so much that they threaten to switch to Apple over it... so...um... yeah.
Microsoft has removed the capability of even system administrators to block/remove the Windows App store in Windows 10, even in the Pro version. Whereas previously it was possible to use registry edits or GPO to remove/block the app store and other forced start menu tiles in Windows 10, a recent Microsoft update has eliminated that capability and re-enabled these features.
the store is installed on my win10 pc, but the store icon is not on my start menu, or task bar, or otherwise visible unless I go looking for it. So its there, but its hardly an issue.
I don't think I'd personally want to remove the app store... because I do use exactly one app... Netflix.
But sure I can see businesses potentially wanting it removed... it sounds like for now this works:
crack open PowerShell and run Get-AppxPackage â*windowsstore*â | Remove-AppxPackage
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
But I wonder what Microsoft is thinking here. If the business is large enough to put its users on Active Directory to get policy management, its large enough that it doesn't want its users playing angry birds and solitaire.
Posting anon for obvious reasons. The plan internally is to continue to offer it for free indefinitely after the existing period expires.
This is what I expected -- in one form or another. It just makes sense given their goals. The only reason to have the free period even "end" was to try and motivate people to upgrade today because it's going to cost something tomorrow.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see them let the deal end, then reintroduce it a month later for another year "due to the demand/excitement/whatever". That gives them another year of "time is running out".
BUT, having said all that, I'd also expected the cheap upgrades ($20 iirc) from 7 to 8 to persist indefinitely as well, but they didn't; and I never understood why. Nobody, but nobody, ever would pay $80-$100+ to upgrade from 7 to 8/8.1 so why discontinue the 'deal' price?
All Snapchat did was to record a readily available piece of GPS data
Apparently that's not all Snapchat does. Apparently there is a 'trophy' involved?
Is there some sort of gamification going on, with "acheivements or trophies", perhaps it even has global rankings and completion stats (I don't know)?
But if so -- whether that makes them liable here, I'm not convinced of THAT yet -- but if they'd gamified it they WERE doing more than "merely recording data".
Also, it is NOT free. Honda may not charge me but I loose the opportunity to make money that day
So borrow a car for a shift from a friend/relative? Or take it somewhere that offers courtesy vehicles; its not like its an emergency so you can schedule around a courtesy car being available.
Worst case, rent a car... that will actually cost you some money, but presumably less than working that day will.
But it is the hypocrisy that ought to derail her presidential bid. /quote
If hypocrisy derailed presidential bids then Ron Paul probably would have been our last president elected unopposed, and Sanders would be the only candidate running this election, for either party.
I see SOOO many posts of "why is this news, we've been doing $OTHERTHING$ forever." where $OTHERTHING$, if you rubbed two brain cells together, is completely different.
But yeah, maybe a ~whoosh~ is in order here. I can see it now that you raised it as a possibility.
-cheers
No. Absolutely not. This is the only update Microsoft has ever produced where you agree to do the install one day, while running Windows Update, and then the install happens on another day in the far far future because it was scheduled to do so...
Said someone whose never been on really slow / spotty / rural internet. Where, yeah, getting a 600MB+ service pack runs days to weeks.
Go ahead then, show us a 100 year old sewing machine that can stitch together the intestines inside a living animal by itself.
This seems to be a case of completely misplaced priorities.
Yes... and... no.
The root of the issue appears to be that its 'minified', which if it wasn't other people would rightly complain about wasted bandwidth over metered connections. Minified isn't deliberately obfuscated per se, although minification does tend to obfuscate functionality.
That said, the FSFs request actually isn't unreasonable when you get right down to it. They suggest we establish a standard way link back to the original un-minified source.
This is very easy to do, and honestly it is a perfectly reasonable thing to demand of a government.
Is it my top priority? No. Is it worthy of a march in protest? Not to me.
But I am actually in favor of this being standard practice for the government. At the end of the day they are running software on my computer, and they could easily provide the source for it. Its not a major burden, and it represents value to the people -- its a good faith demonstration of transparency. So that we can inspect for ourselves what they are running on our computers. Why not?!
on my wife's laptop, it had been asking her for months if she wanted to upgrade to Windows 10
Ok, here's the thing, at some point in the past your wife or some other user had clicked, "yes, I want to upgrade/reserve my copy etc". THAT was when the upgrade process was "comitted"
Everything after that was basically, "you've told me to upgrade, ill do what i can in the background, and when I'm ready, we finsih committing it."
This is exactly like doing a manual windows update where, you ticked off the update, clicked update, and then it downloads the update and it asks do you want to restart to complete the install now or in 5 minutes or 2 hours? Its too late to decide you didn't want to install the update... you already committed to it.
"I changed my mind, don't install that update is not an option" -- you've got this update in progress, you're committed, you've got to finish it. Perhaps there should be a "hey I changed my mind, lets not install this update after all" but there isn't. Fortunately you can uninstall the windows update afterwards though.
The win10 upgrade is, for better or for worse, treated pretty much the exactly same as these other windows 7 updates. Once you've started it, its committed to do it. And like all the other win7 updates, you can uninstall it and restore back to before you upgraded. (I.e. restore back to win 7)
The point is it's not "forcing people to upgrade". Its forcing the completion of the upgrade that was previously requested; same as it eventually does for any update.
And for what its worth, windows 10 is fine. A bunch of the setup defaults are bad; telemetry is a concern (i use a tool to block it); start menu live tiles i turn off and unpin, cortana gets disabled... and then really... i like it just fine. But that's me... if you want to keep 7, do so... but if you've 'reserved your windows 10 upgrade' and it wants to complete it, pick a convenient time, get it over with and then restore previous version of windows. Or eventually it will "force" the completion of the upgrade you requested; same as any other update.
The issue is that it is not a perfect market. Increasing the supply means giving more money to drivers; that's how you incentivize more drivers to hop into a car. So they need to keep the price the same while paying drivers more money during a surge to get them onto the road.
And the solution to ubers "problem" is pretty simple.
Price the service to account for it. Do the analysis on surge frequency and duration and they raise the cost of a regular fare by a nickle or so, and then when a surge hits, they have that 'warchest of extra nickels' built up to absorb the cost of paying drivers extra to get them on the road during a surge.
Seriously this isn't hard. Uber just sucks.
What would you call survivors of the nuclear war then?
I know I wouldn't call them "extinct".
Would you like to be one?
I'm not sure "like" is the word I would choose. But yeah, if there was a world to rebuild, even if that meant I lived out my life trying to preserve knowledge and teach the next generation while scavenging supplies and living in a solar/geo thermal powered mushroom farm/cave in some out of the way site that wasn't near any actual detonations... while humantity collectively waits for the radioactive dust to cool and settle on the surface.
That's not a life I would ever desire, but if those were the cards I'm dealt, so be it.
Now if by survivor you mean my face is half melted off, im blind, deaf, and one arm is fused to a the remnants of the cellphone I was holding... then yeah, maybe that me isn't up to the challenges of nuclear winter.
The point is, yes, there will be those killed in the war itself, those killed or disabled in the immediate aftermath from hard radiation sickness, orther disease, injury, starvation, etc. But there will definitely be actual survivors who are obviously seriously negatively impacted, but who still have legitimate credible hope to live on and build a better life for themselves and their descendents.
I'm not a prepper or any thing like that, and I live suburban life so I'm probably going to die. But if I was on vacation in the right place at the right time... I absolutely would try to survive.
Here's a scenario... just for example.
Find an attractive women, or man... or maybe your into kids. Walk in their front door when they aren't home; install some stealthy cameras. You can even return to re-position or recharge them or simply retrieve them. With no breakin, the occupants don't suspect a thing.
Or install a USB keylogger on their computer; and wait for their bank info, or all sorts of other snooping / information targeted theft etc. Get what you need for identity theft. etc.
Or kidnapping... ex-husband just walks into a home in the middle of the night and walks out again with the baby he lost custody of.
Or assassination... deliver poison, or bombs, or whatever. Far fetched, yeah... i don't expect a rash of assassinations to go down... but you take away the obstacle of actually having to "break in" and it does become a lot easier. An ex can just walk in put something in the orange juice and walk out again.
Or maybe it stops at harassment. An ex shows up looks through your stuff, leaves you notes etc. Police aren't taking it too seriously because there's no evidence of forced entry... etc.
The fact that your in and out without leaving a broken door, lock, or window enables all sorts of stuff beyond theft.
I would assume that the systems in theory logs unlocks etc; but you may not think to look at the logs until WAY too late. And if we assume the systems are easily hacked, it may be trivial to avoid leaving logs behind as well, or to wipe them, or falsify them. or if you can't remove the reocrd of your entry spam them with thousands of unlocks so your entry is lost in the noise...