I have three laptops since Windows 10 came out (one for work, one for home, one for my son) that all came with Windows 10, but I've also upgraded my desktop, my son's desktop, and my wife's desktop. I have an older work laptop I'd love to upgrade to Windows 10, too (it's currently 7). I realize I'm in the minority here, but I actually like using Windows 10 (when I need to use Windows at all, anyway, most of the ones I use dual boot).
Like I said, it's a trade off, and I've not given them any information that I'm not comfortable giving them. Why do I care if they scan my email for keywords? I don't care if they know what restaurant I'm going to... in fact, I happily set my home and work locations to make things even easier. If someone wanted this information, it'd be fairly easy to figure out anyway. Like I said, I wouldn't put financial or personal medical information in a gmail.
I have comcast for internet service, and when their DNS went down I switched to google. Someone from comcast contacted me (through their forum) and said "you know google tracks where you're going?" and I responded "1) I'm not going anywhere without DNS, and 2) so does comcast."
As I stated, I know this stuff isn't "free," and if there was something I wanted to keep private, I wouldn't be using these services, but otherwise Google is far more convenient than paying for, setting up, and maintaining a handful of alternatives that "promise" to protect my privacy, but also with no guarantees.
I disagree.... they still make things, but a profit driven company (which is pretty much all of them) cares about getting people to give them money, that's the way it works, and that's the incentive for making things. I fail to see the problem.
It's pretty easy to hit that milestone when you force people to upgrade without their consent. Don't get me wrong - I have Windows 10 on both my desktop (dual boot) and personal laptop; I have it on one of my work laptops (the other is Windows 7/Linux dual boot). I'm probably one of the few people who like it, but I don't pretend like what MS didn't wasn't disgraceful.
It's not worth it (for me, anyway). That's the point. I realize what the trade off is, and it's worth it to me. It's not that I don't value my privacy, it's that the kind of information Google is getting from me is fairly innocuous, and if I had anything important; data I didn't want shared, proprietary things I need for work, for example - then I wouldn't be using Google.
Some areas accommodate bicycles just fine, though. Where I grew up riding bicycles was relatively safe compared to where I live now, where I wouldn't let my kids out of my neighborhood on their bikes. And the problem is not the bikes, it's the drivers. I do get what you're saying, though - if there's no room for a bike on the road, it shouldn't be there because it just screws everybody up, but there's no reason that, if we can have sidewalks for pedestrians, we can't have bike lanes.
We do live in a car-centric society, but I also think people are waking up to the problems this has caused and believe, on the whole, especially as time goes on, more and more people are dialing it back, taking public transportation, moving closer to work, telecommuting. At least, I hope we're waking up to the fact that it's caused more harm than good and wastes huge amounts of our personal time.
The problem is with the word "need," which we use far too loosely. If we "need" cellphones at all then we are a pretty sad society. Just because something is extremely useful doesn't mean we "need" it. If apple never existed, if google never existed, if we only had the cell phones of 15 years ago, we'd somehow manage. A better question would be "the loss of which one of these companies would be the most disruptive to your life?"
Tell me about duckduckgo's email service, and calendaring system, and cloud document services. I'm interested in switching. I could easily live without Google's search service.... I could live without Google at all, but we're really talking about current levels of reliance on any of these companies, and I don't think you get as much "for free" from anyone else (I know it's not free, I know I'm the product, but I'm OK with that trade off to the extent that I use the service).
But you're looking at it through historical context - we've lived without internet, without cellphones, even without cable TV, and managed to actually survive! But if you're looking at it in the context of today, you've likely started relying heavily on one or more of these companies and it would likely be extremely inconvenient, if not impossible to do your job, without one or several of them.
I'll agree that facebook is the most useless one there, and if facebook disappeared from the face of the planet, the lives of hundreds of millions of users worldwide would actually likely improve.
I've come to rely on google for a lot of things. Certainly searching the internet is one of them, but gmail, google voice, sharing calendars and documents with my family has been extremely useful. So, on a personal level, losing Google would hurt the most - although I'd manage.
As far as work goes, we work with proprietary software (and I'm not complaining, as it includes great API access for us programmers); it only runs on Windows. I would love to see a port somewhere else, but that's not likely. We also rely a lot on Microsoft's cloud services and office products to share things (the way I do in my personal life with Google). If MS were suddenly to cease to exist, we'd switch to products on Linux (we've evaluated them, and they just weren't ready for prime-time yet, but we'd learn to live with them if they were the only option).
I also use Amazon a lot - I have prime, and I've never looked back. I'll take free two day shipping over wasting gas, causing extra pollution, adding to the traffic problem, and spending a couple of hours going to the local big box store and choosing something from a much more limited selection. I don't care about sales tax. I'd be paying that locally anyway. Prime videos and music are a nice added bonus.
So there's none of these companies I couldn't live without, but I don't think that's really the question. We use the word "need" very loosely these days, and it depends on context. I don't "need" internet service at home... but I do "need" internet service at home if I want to work remotely. But I don't "need" to work remotely, it's just a perk. I don't "need" any of these companies. I "need" them to do some specific things that I don't really "need" to do.
And slashdot actually has polls, so WTF would someone go offsite to take this survey? Unless, of course, you like being the product. Wondering how many ads are on the linked page.
They shouldn't. I bought a pretty full featured laptop last summer for $550 (including a discrete NVidia card), and that was the regular price, not a sale, and installed Linux on it just fine. I'm sure you can go a lot lower than that and still get a laptop that runs Linux, I actually had pretty high demands w.r.t. graphics and screen resolution (not for games). Many Chromebooks can install Linux, too. So then I suppose you google "laptops that can be set to legacy boot." Or are you saying you want to dual boot, which is a different can of worms? Even still, several variants of Linux are able to install on UEFI (particularly Ubuntu and variants).
It's not a good thing, but I think it really just shifts things around. They will succeed because some people who don't know any better will live with it. Others will pay the premium (was it $50 to start?) for the unrestricted version. They win on both sides - first by locking in those who don't switch, and second by eliminating the middle man from OEM licensing they do now in order to charge consumers directly (and more than OEMs were paying, probably). I don't know where all the hate is coming from - MS never pretended to be our friends, they are a business and we have choices.
Again, though, I think they will succeed despite themselves. They continue to make consumer unfriendly decisions and yet still succeed by the leverage of their marketshare... but now people who understand the "walled garden" of 10 S might be inclined to go ChromeOS, and perhaps Fuscia might even work better for some people. But I somehow doubt any significant number of consumers will flock to alternatives over this. As usual, it depends on what software you want or need to use.
If 10 S gives it to you, so be it, otherwise you pay the premium or find an alternative.
If it's not true, then what is? I've worked with vendors from Poland, the Netherlands, and France (the worst... although it was just one company, so not passing judgement). I just shrugged at the notion and thought "I never heard that."
Yeah, but really... I have always thought that, when I missed the semicolon at the end of the line, and the compiler told me "missing semicolon on line whatever," my first thought is "if you know that's the problem, why don't you just fix it, then?"
You simply can't do anything without it. I think even most states require it for drivers licenses to have them accepted as valid ID from the federal government. You can't open a bank account (even just a savings account), you can't get any kind of credit, you often can't even get medical services without at least being asked for it.
The point of not having all your eggs in one basket is to mitigate the damage when the basket is dropped. It's no different with this; maybe it'll be really secure, really difficult to crack, nearly impossible.... but not entirely impossible, because nothing is, even if it ends up being user stupidity (writing down username and password on a card in your wallet that also has your RFID or other secure card). Once it's broken, you lose EVERYTHING, not just one thing.
He gave a talk at my school nearly 30 years ago. I don't recall being repulsed at all. He seemed like the typical hippie nerd type, which was pretty common at the time. He accepted donations and I gave a couple of bucks, but he seemed put off that he didn't get more (from working students.... he shouldn't have been surprised). I happen to agree with pretty much all his points, but also realize we make trade-offs in order to accomplish things. People like him keep people like us in the middle, instead of getting too far to the other side.
The ability to skip commercials on their "DVR" service would cost an extra $20 (expanding your hours from 50 to 200, also). So now at $60/month for commercial skipping where you don't even get some of the best current shows, it's really just a waste. The promise of streaming services is failing - it's still far easier to deal with a nightmare like comcast and their DVR service than to get 5 different online streaming services, all with different UIs and restrictions, to legally get all the content you're interested in. In some cases it's just not possible - like AMC, where I don't think there are ANY legal, commercial free offerings at any price.
Slashdot Mirror
I have three laptops since Windows 10 came out (one for work, one for home, one for my son) that all came with Windows 10, but I've also upgraded my desktop, my son's desktop, and my wife's desktop. I have an older work laptop I'd love to upgrade to Windows 10, too (it's currently 7). I realize I'm in the minority here, but I actually like using Windows 10 (when I need to use Windows at all, anyway, most of the ones I use dual boot).
Like I said, it's a trade off, and I've not given them any information that I'm not comfortable giving them. Why do I care if they scan my email for keywords? I don't care if they know what restaurant I'm going to... in fact, I happily set my home and work locations to make things even easier. If someone wanted this information, it'd be fairly easy to figure out anyway. Like I said, I wouldn't put financial or personal medical information in a gmail.
I have comcast for internet service, and when their DNS went down I switched to google. Someone from comcast contacted me (through their forum) and said "you know google tracks where you're going?" and I responded "1) I'm not going anywhere without DNS, and 2) so does comcast."
As I stated, I know this stuff isn't "free," and if there was something I wanted to keep private, I wouldn't be using these services, but otherwise Google is far more convenient than paying for, setting up, and maintaining a handful of alternatives that "promise" to protect my privacy, but also with no guarantees.
I disagree.... they still make things, but a profit driven company (which is pretty much all of them) cares about getting people to give them money, that's the way it works, and that's the incentive for making things. I fail to see the problem.
It's pretty easy to hit that milestone when you force people to upgrade without their consent. Don't get me wrong - I have Windows 10 on both my desktop (dual boot) and personal laptop; I have it on one of my work laptops (the other is Windows 7/Linux dual boot). I'm probably one of the few people who like it, but I don't pretend like what MS didn't wasn't disgraceful.
It's not worth it (for me, anyway). That's the point. I realize what the trade off is, and it's worth it to me. It's not that I don't value my privacy, it's that the kind of information Google is getting from me is fairly innocuous, and if I had anything important; data I didn't want shared, proprietary things I need for work, for example - then I wouldn't be using Google.
Some areas accommodate bicycles just fine, though. Where I grew up riding bicycles was relatively safe compared to where I live now, where I wouldn't let my kids out of my neighborhood on their bikes. And the problem is not the bikes, it's the drivers. I do get what you're saying, though - if there's no room for a bike on the road, it shouldn't be there because it just screws everybody up, but there's no reason that, if we can have sidewalks for pedestrians, we can't have bike lanes.
We do live in a car-centric society, but I also think people are waking up to the problems this has caused and believe, on the whole, especially as time goes on, more and more people are dialing it back, taking public transportation, moving closer to work, telecommuting. At least, I hope we're waking up to the fact that it's caused more harm than good and wastes huge amounts of our personal time.
Not anymore. Now the enlightened segment of society protects the idiots.
The problem is with the word "need," which we use far too loosely. If we "need" cellphones at all then we are a pretty sad society. Just because something is extremely useful doesn't mean we "need" it. If apple never existed, if google never existed, if we only had the cell phones of 15 years ago, we'd somehow manage. A better question would be "the loss of which one of these companies would be the most disruptive to your life?"
Tell me about duckduckgo's email service, and calendaring system, and cloud document services. I'm interested in switching. I could easily live without Google's search service.... I could live without Google at all, but we're really talking about current levels of reliance on any of these companies, and I don't think you get as much "for free" from anyone else (I know it's not free, I know I'm the product, but I'm OK with that trade off to the extent that I use the service).
But you're looking at it through historical context - we've lived without internet, without cellphones, even without cable TV, and managed to actually survive! But if you're looking at it in the context of today, you've likely started relying heavily on one or more of these companies and it would likely be extremely inconvenient, if not impossible to do your job, without one or several of them.
I'll agree that facebook is the most useless one there, and if facebook disappeared from the face of the planet, the lives of hundreds of millions of users worldwide would actually likely improve.
I've come to rely on google for a lot of things. Certainly searching the internet is one of them, but gmail, google voice, sharing calendars and documents with my family has been extremely useful. So, on a personal level, losing Google would hurt the most - although I'd manage.
As far as work goes, we work with proprietary software (and I'm not complaining, as it includes great API access for us programmers); it only runs on Windows. I would love to see a port somewhere else, but that's not likely. We also rely a lot on Microsoft's cloud services and office products to share things (the way I do in my personal life with Google). If MS were suddenly to cease to exist, we'd switch to products on Linux (we've evaluated them, and they just weren't ready for prime-time yet, but we'd learn to live with them if they were the only option).
I also use Amazon a lot - I have prime, and I've never looked back. I'll take free two day shipping over wasting gas, causing extra pollution, adding to the traffic problem, and spending a couple of hours going to the local big box store and choosing something from a much more limited selection. I don't care about sales tax. I'd be paying that locally anyway. Prime videos and music are a nice added bonus.
So there's none of these companies I couldn't live without, but I don't think that's really the question. We use the word "need" very loosely these days, and it depends on context. I don't "need" internet service at home... but I do "need" internet service at home if I want to work remotely. But I don't "need" to work remotely, it's just a perk. I don't "need" any of these companies. I "need" them to do some specific things that I don't really "need" to do.
And slashdot actually has polls, so WTF would someone go offsite to take this survey? Unless, of course, you like being the product. Wondering how many ads are on the linked page.
They shouldn't. I bought a pretty full featured laptop last summer for $550 (including a discrete NVidia card), and that was the regular price, not a sale, and installed Linux on it just fine. I'm sure you can go a lot lower than that and still get a laptop that runs Linux, I actually had pretty high demands w.r.t. graphics and screen resolution (not for games). Many Chromebooks can install Linux, too. So then I suppose you google "laptops that can be set to legacy boot." Or are you saying you want to dual boot, which is a different can of worms? Even still, several variants of Linux are able to install on UEFI (particularly Ubuntu and variants).
That's why you put the make and model and "linux" into google search for the laptop you want to buy, not for the one you just bought.
It's not a good thing, but I think it really just shifts things around. They will succeed because some people who don't know any better will live with it. Others will pay the premium (was it $50 to start?) for the unrestricted version. They win on both sides - first by locking in those who don't switch, and second by eliminating the middle man from OEM licensing they do now in order to charge consumers directly (and more than OEMs were paying, probably). I don't know where all the hate is coming from - MS never pretended to be our friends, they are a business and we have choices.
Again, though, I think they will succeed despite themselves. They continue to make consumer unfriendly decisions and yet still succeed by the leverage of their marketshare... but now people who understand the "walled garden" of 10 S might be inclined to go ChromeOS, and perhaps Fuscia might even work better for some people. But I somehow doubt any significant number of consumers will flock to alternatives over this. As usual, it depends on what software you want or need to use. If 10 S gives it to you, so be it, otherwise you pay the premium or find an alternative.
I know; I used it correctly. You failed at trolling.
You're why we can't have nice things.
If it's not true, then what is? I've worked with vendors from Poland, the Netherlands, and France (the worst... although it was just one company, so not passing judgement). I just shrugged at the notion and thought "I never heard that."
Yeah, but really... I have always thought that, when I missed the semicolon at the end of the line, and the compiler told me "missing semicolon on line whatever," my first thought is "if you know that's the problem, why don't you just fix it, then?"
You simply can't do anything without it. I think even most states require it for drivers licenses to have them accepted as valid ID from the federal government. You can't open a bank account (even just a savings account), you can't get any kind of credit, you often can't even get medical services without at least being asked for it.
When pushing Social Security on the U.S. public, government officials promised the number would only be used for the purpose of Social Security.
I was at an event yesterday where Berlin was described as the Silicon Valley of Europe.
The point of not having all your eggs in one basket is to mitigate the damage when the basket is dropped. It's no different with this; maybe it'll be really secure, really difficult to crack, nearly impossible.... but not entirely impossible, because nothing is, even if it ends up being user stupidity (writing down username and password on a card in your wallet that also has your RFID or other secure card). Once it's broken, you lose EVERYTHING, not just one thing.
You make a living writing software that subjugates others.
Had to laugh at that one. Thanks for the chuckle.
Well, I don't want to get involved in your personal arguments, but being gay != being sterile.
He gave a talk at my school nearly 30 years ago. I don't recall being repulsed at all. He seemed like the typical hippie nerd type, which was pretty common at the time. He accepted donations and I gave a couple of bucks, but he seemed put off that he didn't get more (from working students.... he shouldn't have been surprised). I happen to agree with pretty much all his points, but also realize we make trade-offs in order to accomplish things. People like him keep people like us in the middle, instead of getting too far to the other side.
The ability to skip commercials on their "DVR" service would cost an extra $20 (expanding your hours from 50 to 200, also). So now at $60/month for commercial skipping where you don't even get some of the best current shows, it's really just a waste. The promise of streaming services is failing - it's still far easier to deal with a nightmare like comcast and their DVR service than to get 5 different online streaming services, all with different UIs and restrictions, to legally get all the content you're interested in. In some cases it's just not possible - like AMC, where I don't think there are ANY legal, commercial free offerings at any price.