Of course what he likely means is spraying an otherwise lethal dose of glyphosate on the crops, as that is how you actually use Roundup on Monsanto GMO crops.
In the US, or at least in certain parts of the US (I don't know how widespread this is), receiving stolen goods without knowing they were stolen does not guarantee the item will be taken away from you if found. If you knew or should reasonably be expected to know the item is stolen, that is another story (buying a $2000 stereo for $200 for instance).
Well, Metro is a big point of contention, but that aside, the UI looks like a mess. Preference of Aero or not; the classic theme was also removed. The Windows Store is of trivial usefulness. They removed stock ability to play DVDs. XP mode was removed. The ribbon interface in explorer is annoying. The start menu was removed; replaced with a full screen interface that wastes a lot of space per item and while it might be decent on a tablet, really doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a regular PC.
There is other things, but these are personally my reasons for preferring "Windows 6.1" over "Windows 6.2"
You realize you can disable that extension, right? Without it enabled in chrome, it won't work anywhere, in or out of chrome. Fairly certain if you wanted to "uninstall" it completely, you can delete the file the flash extension is stored in.
It would charge more than that. On non-data plans, you get charged a surcharge just to start using data that day. It's a couple bucks a day, plus a rather exorbitant amount per megabyte of data. If gone unchecked, it could easily go beyond the $30/month data plan cost just by letting small amounts of data trickle through each day during the month activating the daily data surcharge. Just on surcharges to activate the daily data mode, a month of service could be between $50-$90 a month.
He's also wrong, as T-Mobile won't force you into a data plan automatically if you use a smartphone. In fact, when I first activated my smartphone, I intended to use only wifi. I disabled 3G but part of the old 2G stuff wasn't disabled proper, so a tiny amount of data was leaking out as part of how Android does its business, and it incurred charges against me. After talking with T-Mobile and making my data intentions known, they wiped the $15 or so I'd already incurred (there's like a $3/day data usage fee if you don't have a data plan or something), and that was the end of any trouble I had.
T-Mobile does not do this. I have a smartphone without a data plan through T-Mobile. The only mention of a data plan was a notice on the phone's specs suggesting a data plan. As long as you disable data capabilities on the phone, you will never incur a charge nor have your plan upgraded against your will.
It's not a case of affordability. It's a case of not wanting to pay for something you have no intention on using. Just because you have a phone that can technically do something doesn't mean you want to do it. Thankfully, T-Mobile understands this and doesn't do this bullshit.
I recently got a smartphone without a data plan from T-mobile replacing my old razr2 (am in a contract with them so it was a free upgrade), and all T-Mobile did was tell me on their site that if I want to use data at a reasonable price, I needed a data plan. The first thing I did was disable data capabilities on my phone outside of direct Wifi. I made a mistake, because there was a special setting you need to flip to disable all data completely, so I ended up with an extra $15 in charges the first month, which T-Mobile was happy to remove after I explained the situation and my intent not to use data. Now my phone is essentially a dumbphone unless I'm home or at a coffee shop or something. Perfect for my uses.
That's how I felt about the one between Aero and Murphy Canyon Road. Damn thing lights up like Christmas even when it seems like no one is crossing any lines.
And you do feel the same way regarding coffee, soda pop, activities that cause your body to release endorphins, and other such socially acceptable stimulants, right?
... that is if you use Steam with DRM for online distribution (a good idea) then they disallow you from having a physical copy without Steam (bad idea) or from using alternate online distribution means. (some games use Steam to distribute w/o DRM though)
This is not true, or at the very least is not part of the stock deal between Steam and developers. Developers may be able to negotiate a lower fee for use of Steam for extra concessions, but it is not an outright requirement.
So does licensing not exist in Germany, then, and everything over there is bought and sold through total ownership? I'd be all for a secondary marketplace in Steam, but I'm curious how such a licensing deal would be unenforceable in Germany.
Something people need to understand is the writing has been on the wall for DirectX for some time now. This is not unexpected news to those of us invested in the platform. What I interpreted from this is that DirectX isn't going to evolve (and that XNA is effectively dead, but we've known this for a long time), but that doesn't mean Direct3D, what most people tend to consider when they think of DirectX, is going anywhere. There will always be a need for high performance graphics rendering and it isn't likely going to be OpenGL on the Windows platform.
They've been turning Direct3D into a typical windows component without any extra special treatment since 2011 when they merged it into the Windows SDK. It's just one small piece in the cog of platform technologies.
I can't say I'm pleased with this turn of events, but I can't say I'm particularly surprised, either.
Slashdot Mirror
General concerns you've no doubt heard about a million times aside... Can't we just disagree with their business practices?
Of course what he likely means is spraying an otherwise lethal dose of glyphosate on the crops, as that is how you actually use Roundup on Monsanto GMO crops.
In the US, or at least in certain parts of the US (I don't know how widespread this is), receiving stolen goods without knowing they were stolen does not guarantee the item will be taken away from you if found. If you knew or should reasonably be expected to know the item is stolen, that is another story (buying a $2000 stereo for $200 for instance).
You don't think the market can shift even a little bit between 1989 and now?
Likely a good deal of people.
That does not change the fact that it was functionality provided by default in Windows 7 and then removed in Windows 8
Well, Metro is a big point of contention, but that aside, the UI looks like a mess. Preference of Aero or not; the classic theme was also removed. The Windows Store is of trivial usefulness. They removed stock ability to play DVDs. XP mode was removed. The ribbon interface in explorer is annoying. The start menu was removed; replaced with a full screen interface that wastes a lot of space per item and while it might be decent on a tablet, really doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a regular PC.
There is other things, but these are personally my reasons for preferring "Windows 6.1" over "Windows 6.2"
You realize you can disable that extension, right? Without it enabled in chrome, it won't work anywhere, in or out of chrome. Fairly certain if you wanted to "uninstall" it completely, you can delete the file the flash extension is stored in.
AppleTV, the PS3, iOS devices all support Hulu without needing Flash.
So, in order to escape Flash, people should pay hundreds of dollars? I don't think that's really a step up.
You didn't need Microsoft's permission in the first place, and not because you could just disable secure boot.
San Diego resident here. This is indeed quite alarming to hear.
This has nothing to do with Kickstarter, yet.
Nothing.
It would charge more than that. On non-data plans, you get charged a surcharge just to start using data that day. It's a couple bucks a day, plus a rather exorbitant amount per megabyte of data. If gone unchecked, it could easily go beyond the $30/month data plan cost just by letting small amounts of data trickle through each day during the month activating the daily data surcharge. Just on surcharges to activate the daily data mode, a month of service could be between $50-$90 a month.
He's also wrong, as T-Mobile won't force you into a data plan automatically if you use a smartphone. In fact, when I first activated my smartphone, I intended to use only wifi. I disabled 3G but part of the old 2G stuff wasn't disabled proper, so a tiny amount of data was leaking out as part of how Android does its business, and it incurred charges against me. After talking with T-Mobile and making my data intentions known, they wiped the $15 or so I'd already incurred (there's like a $3/day data usage fee if you don't have a data plan or something), and that was the end of any trouble I had.
T-Mobile does not do this. I have a smartphone without a data plan through T-Mobile. The only mention of a data plan was a notice on the phone's specs suggesting a data plan. As long as you disable data capabilities on the phone, you will never incur a charge nor have your plan upgraded against your will.
It's not a case of affordability. It's a case of not wanting to pay for something you have no intention on using. Just because you have a phone that can technically do something doesn't mean you want to do it. Thankfully, T-Mobile understands this and doesn't do this bullshit.
I recently got a smartphone without a data plan from T-mobile replacing my old razr2 (am in a contract with them so it was a free upgrade), and all T-Mobile did was tell me on their site that if I want to use data at a reasonable price, I needed a data plan. The first thing I did was disable data capabilities on my phone outside of direct Wifi. I made a mistake, because there was a special setting you need to flip to disable all data completely, so I ended up with an extra $15 in charges the first month, which T-Mobile was happy to remove after I explained the situation and my intent not to use data. Now my phone is essentially a dumbphone unless I'm home or at a coffee shop or something. Perfect for my uses.
Because that's what Kickstarter is for?
You were typing file:/// instead of File:///
That's how I felt about the one between Aero and Murphy Canyon Road. Damn thing lights up like Christmas even when it seems like no one is crossing any lines.
And you do feel the same way regarding coffee, soda pop, activities that cause your body to release endorphins, and other such socially acceptable stimulants, right?
Right?
... that is if you use Steam with DRM for online distribution (a good idea) then they disallow you from having a physical copy without Steam (bad idea) or from using alternate online distribution means. (some games use Steam to distribute w/o DRM though)
This is not true, or at the very least is not part of the stock deal between Steam and developers. Developers may be able to negotiate a lower fee for use of Steam for extra concessions, but it is not an outright requirement.
So does licensing not exist in Germany, then, and everything over there is bought and sold through total ownership? I'd be all for a secondary marketplace in Steam, but I'm curious how such a licensing deal would be unenforceable in Germany.
Something people need to understand is the writing has been on the wall for DirectX for some time now. This is not unexpected news to those of us invested in the platform. What I interpreted from this is that DirectX isn't going to evolve (and that XNA is effectively dead, but we've known this for a long time), but that doesn't mean Direct3D, what most people tend to consider when they think of DirectX, is going anywhere. There will always be a need for high performance graphics rendering and it isn't likely going to be OpenGL on the Windows platform.
They've been turning Direct3D into a typical windows component without any extra special treatment since 2011 when they merged it into the Windows SDK. It's just one small piece in the cog of platform technologies.
I can't say I'm pleased with this turn of events, but I can't say I'm particularly surprised, either.