That's because TFS says nothing about MS requiring others to pay.... you know why? Because Valve doesn't need MS, they're not going to pay MS. Sony doesn't need MS. They're not going to pay MS. So, IOW, it was just another anti-MS strawman rant.
Agreed.... I was right there along with them, as MS was brutally anti-competitive and did a lot of morally wrong things (a super-set of the illegal things they did). There are still things that really bother me about them, especially with Windows 10 telemetry and spying. But I have to admit, as a developer who recently had to start developing software to work with existing Windows only software, the development tools are really quite nice - the community version of visual studio is fantastic, IMO, and the whole concept of.Net language interoperability is a holy grail that MS is closest to achieving.
Another aspect of my job is websites running on Linux; mostly Django based... and with Windows Subsystem for Linux, I can develop my Linux web services in Windows - even having a running LAMP system running on my Windows laptop while developing code in Visual Studio for another project, and then being able to sync it when I get back to the office.
Yes, I could run a VM, but I'm seeing a lot of advantages to WSL, including being able to use my Windows editors for working on my Linux website. All locally.
I'm finding it very difficult to be as anti-MS as I once was. Now this multiplayer game interoperability - it's all a good thing, and yet people are assuming what evils MS is doing this for, making their strawman arguments because they can't admit that MS might be doing something positive for consumers. Yes, they ultimately want money, but if they're doing it by making people happy, I fail to see the problem.
That makes no sense... Cross platform means you can play on your Playstation WITH people on XBox, so you don't have to buy the platform you don't want. Or are you saying it will cost no matter which platform you use? In which case, too bad. The masses have spoken and they want multiplayer and if you don't like it, don't buy the platform.
AFAIR, both Linux and Windows have a method to turn off the touchpad if a mouse is present. It is an endless source of frustration for people that, you know, actually type.
I was offered a Mac mini at work a few years ago. Since I didn't have to give up anything (my existing Linux and Windows workstations), I gave it a go.... a good, solid go. Not an hour or two, but a month. I simply didn't like it. I didn't like the windowing, the lack of mouse acceleration that I couldn't just change, a lot of windowing issues like borders, from where you could resize. Some things couldn't be changed, and the things that were fixable (like acceleration) were either crazily stupid, or you could buy something to do tweaks. And that's the thing about apple users - they just keep paying, and in that case, for features they had in older versions of the OS.
So it really comes down to perhaps being more difficult, but extremely customizable (like Linux... which, while difficult, also has vastly more helpful resources on the net... and also really only difficult if you want to customize the UI because of so many options), to really rigid and easier to use because of it (MacOS), with Windows somewhere in the middle. I simply didn't like it. I don't berate other people's personal choices, though... some people like it, so it's great we have choice.
Now, as far as TFS goes, "So Apple needs to either roll the Touch Bar out to the entire line and convince us we want it, or roll it back and offer more laptop options without it" is just ridiculous. Apple doesn't need to do jack. People that want it, buy it, unwanted features and all. That's what life is like, and if Apple is happy with sales, they don't need some ex-wife telling them how to run the company.
And what does far too many mean? How many out of how many cases? The problem is you seldom actually hear the resolution, you only hear the officer was placed on administrative leave "pending an investigation," and then the media doesn't bother with the conclusion because it doesn't sell. So I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm asking what numbers you are using to conclude "far too many," and from where are you getting them?
Yes, it's obvious you don't get it. Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?
Non compliance is not the same as violence.
Police officers are using tasers on people who are not complying with their instructions, instead of using tasers on people who are dangerously violent. That is a problem.
A little highlighting, in case you missed it. And your thought on the matter makes no sense to me... you are saying they use tasers on people simply being non-compliant (which can mean many things - we're not talking about "show me id," we're talking about "face down on the ground with hands behind your head"
because someone has already shown they are not cooperative). But then you say "instead of using tasers on people who are dangerously violent." Which is absurd - it's quite obviously both, and you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater because, out of millions of arrests made every year, things aren't perfect enough for you, every once in a while something goes south. I say it's a sad consequence of thug life.
Well, I'm not going to alt-right like the AC did, but it indeed does feel like that because of the media. You probably hear about only 1 or 2% of the cases where a taser is used, and it's those extreme cases where the officer might have been able to better deal with the situation. I've lived in high crime areas; thug idiots are not very compliant with police requests.
You completely ignored the posts that were being responded to. Pretty common on slashdot, I know.
Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?
So you're PAST the point of "communication and deescalation." The officer should not have to risk him or herself to subdue such a douchebag unless there are no other options.
Most slashdotters seem to be of the kind that would let violent felon (armed or not) go free with a stern warning because otherwise, you know, police state and all.
Yes, it's obvious you don't get it. Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?
Even if someone is unarmed they can seriously hurt someone high on something, or in a fit of rage; the officers should not be required to subdue the perpetrator by putting themselves in harms way. It's really simple; firearms often result in death, tasers rarely result in death. Choose one.
So, here's your clue for the day: if the police officer tells you to stop and put your hands up, do it. If they say to get face down on the ground. Do it. Resist and you may be lucky to get a taser instead of a firearm - and it may still hurt you really badly or kill you. If it's a wrongful arrest, then you sue the police department later - you can't sue them from the morgue.
OSDs and configuring with the remote don't make the TV "smart." Those things have been around a long time. TFS even indicates willingness for the remote to have what it needs to configure the TV.
I agree with "thegarbz." What you suggest works, but i's all too much... too much to plug in, too many wires, too many devices sucking power on stand-by. Yes, I know, only a watt or two, but they all add up. I've also never found a reasonably priced universal remote that actually does everything I need it to.
Well, it's been evolving to that point. When they first came out, they were new and cool and had all these extra features, so people paid more for them. As time went on, they started making smart TVs more than non-smart TVs. Then it becomes a matter of volume, and any time you make something in less volume, it's production cost per unit goes up. So I don't know what country you're in, but if it hasn't happened already, it will.
Yeah... I remember Christmas a few years back. I was a Sam's Club member. We went the day after Christmas and there must have been a dozen people in the parking lot pushing carts back towards the store with Vizio boxes, and I said "I'm never buying a Vizio." Things may have changed since then; a working Vizio might actually be really good, but why take the chance?
So the discussion has expanded to even more reasons to dislike "smart" TVs. That's how public discourse is supposed to work. If the subject changed to other internet enabled devices, you might have a point.
We know google is collecting information - we're giving implicit permission for it when using one of their devices. We're not giving a particular TV manufacturer any permission, and yet they will do it anyway - even possibly monitoring what we watch OTA. Like built in devices in cars, they get old and out of date and unsupported. You don't buy a new $25k car every few years (well, maybe you do, I don't) because your GPS doesn't update with new maps any more. Far easier to replace a third party gps box or, really these days just update the app on your phone. On my TV, it's far easier to replace the device I'm using for streaming - a new Roku or FireTV or Chromecast than to rely on the built in (usually sub-standard) features on the TV.
So yes, the biggest problem with "smart" is that in a few years they are not so smart, and not so supported. The solution is to just not use those features, it's true, but then you still have privacy implications and, again, I realize you have that with other devices, but in those cases you are implicitly giving permission and,
ultimately, if you just watch OTA, you're not giving any permission at all.
I understand the issues; the problem is then that they shouldn't sell unlimited plans... and then f#@k with the data to suit their needs. The way T-Mobile did it was an acceptable solution because, while some find it annoying that they opt you in by default, you can at least opt out.
No, not really... Ubuntu might be doing that now, but they haven't always. And what are they going to do after Z to keep it alphabetical? The whole concept is kitschy, but moronic.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because TFS says nothing about MS requiring others to pay.... you know why? Because Valve doesn't need MS, they're not going to pay MS. Sony doesn't need MS. They're not going to pay MS. So, IOW, it was just another anti-MS strawman rant.
Agreed.... I was right there along with them, as MS was brutally anti-competitive and did a lot of morally wrong things (a super-set of the illegal things they did). There are still things that really bother me about them, especially with Windows 10 telemetry and spying. But I have to admit, as a developer who recently had to start developing software to work with existing Windows only software, the development tools are really quite nice - the community version of visual studio is fantastic, IMO, and the whole concept of .Net language interoperability is a holy grail that MS is closest to achieving.
Another aspect of my job is websites running on Linux; mostly Django based... and with Windows Subsystem for Linux, I can develop my Linux web services in Windows - even having a running LAMP system running on my Windows laptop while developing code in Visual Studio for another project, and then being able to sync it when I get back to the office.
Yes, I could run a VM, but I'm seeing a lot of advantages to WSL, including being able to use my Windows editors for working on my Linux website. All locally.
I'm finding it very difficult to be as anti-MS as I once was. Now this multiplayer game interoperability - it's all a good thing, and yet people are assuming what evils MS is doing this for, making their strawman arguments because they can't admit that MS might be doing something positive for consumers. Yes, they ultimately want money, but if they're doing it by making people happy, I fail to see the problem.
That makes no sense... Cross platform means you can play on your Playstation WITH people on XBox, so you don't have to buy the platform you don't want. Or are you saying it will cost no matter which platform you use? In which case, too bad. The masses have spoken and they want multiplayer and if you don't like it, don't buy the platform.
AFAIR, both Linux and Windows have a method to turn off the touchpad if a mouse is present. It is an endless source of frustration for people that, you know, actually type.
I was offered a Mac mini at work a few years ago. Since I didn't have to give up anything (my existing Linux and Windows workstations), I gave it a go.... a good, solid go. Not an hour or two, but a month. I simply didn't like it. I didn't like the windowing, the lack of mouse acceleration that I couldn't just change, a lot of windowing issues like borders, from where you could resize. Some things couldn't be changed, and the things that were fixable (like acceleration) were either crazily stupid, or you could buy something to do tweaks. And that's the thing about apple users - they just keep paying, and in that case, for features they had in older versions of the OS.
So it really comes down to perhaps being more difficult, but extremely customizable (like Linux... which, while difficult, also has vastly more helpful resources on the net... and also really only difficult if you want to customize the UI because of so many options), to really rigid and easier to use because of it (MacOS), with Windows somewhere in the middle. I simply didn't like it. I don't berate other people's personal choices, though... some people like it, so it's great we have choice.
Now, as far as TFS goes, "So Apple needs to either roll the Touch Bar out to the entire line and convince us we want it, or roll it back and offer more laptop options without it" is just ridiculous. Apple doesn't need to do jack. People that want it, buy it, unwanted features and all. That's what life is like, and if Apple is happy with sales, they don't need some ex-wife telling them how to run the company.
And what does far too many mean? How many out of how many cases? The problem is you seldom actually hear the resolution, you only hear the officer was placed on administrative leave "pending an investigation," and then the media doesn't bother with the conclusion because it doesn't sell. So I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm asking what numbers you are using to conclude "far too many," and from where are you getting them?
So they should beat people instead? And for the record, if the cop WAS provably wrong, they do get in trouble.
Yes, it's obvious you don't get it. Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?
Non compliance is not the same as violence.
Police officers are using tasers on people who are not complying with their instructions, instead of using tasers on people who are dangerously violent. That is a problem.
A little highlighting, in case you missed it. And your thought on the matter makes no sense to me... you are saying they use tasers on people simply being non-compliant (which can mean many things - we're not talking about "show me id," we're talking about "face down on the ground with hands behind your head" because someone has already shown they are not cooperative). But then you say "instead of using tasers on people who are dangerously violent." Which is absurd - it's quite obviously both, and you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater because, out of millions of arrests made every year, things aren't perfect enough for you, every once in a while something goes south. I say it's a sad consequence of thug life.
Well, I'm not going to alt-right like the AC did, but it indeed does feel like that because of the media. You probably hear about only 1 or 2% of the cases where a taser is used, and it's those extreme cases where the officer might have been able to better deal with the situation. I've lived in high crime areas; thug idiots are not very compliant with police requests.
You completely ignored the posts that were being responded to. Pretty common on slashdot, I know.
Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?
So you're PAST the point of "communication and deescalation." The officer should not have to risk him or herself to subdue such a douchebag unless there are no other options.
Most slashdotters seem to be of the kind that would let violent felon (armed or not) go free with a stern warning because otherwise, you know, police state and all.
Yes, it's obvious you don't get it. Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?
Even if someone is unarmed they can seriously hurt someone high on something, or in a fit of rage; the officers should not be required to subdue the perpetrator by putting themselves in harms way. It's really simple; firearms often result in death, tasers rarely result in death. Choose one.
So, here's your clue for the day: if the police officer tells you to stop and put your hands up, do it. If they say to get face down on the ground. Do it. Resist and you may be lucky to get a taser instead of a firearm - and it may still hurt you really badly or kill you. If it's a wrongful arrest, then you sue the police department later - you can't sue them from the morgue.
Yes... what's up with that? How much does facebook pay my phone company to not let me remove it?
Yes, you could be a billionaire and collect benefits because you're unemployed.
I don't think my local supermarkets and restaurants post "help wanted" signs in their windows to keep HR busy.
OSDs and configuring with the remote don't make the TV "smart." Those things have been around a long time. TFS even indicates willingness for the remote to have what it needs to configure the TV.
I agree with "thegarbz." What you suggest works, but i's all too much... too much to plug in, too many wires, too many devices sucking power on stand-by. Yes, I know, only a watt or two, but they all add up. I've also never found a reasonably priced universal remote that actually does everything I need it to.
Well, it's been evolving to that point. When they first came out, they were new and cool and had all these extra features, so people paid more for them. As time went on, they started making smart TVs more than non-smart TVs. Then it becomes a matter of volume, and any time you make something in less volume, it's production cost per unit goes up. So I don't know what country you're in, but if it hasn't happened already, it will.
Yeah... I remember Christmas a few years back. I was a Sam's Club member. We went the day after Christmas and there must have been a dozen people in the parking lot pushing carts back towards the store with Vizio boxes, and I said "I'm never buying a Vizio." Things may have changed since then; a working Vizio might actually be really good, but why take the chance?
So the discussion has expanded to even more reasons to dislike "smart" TVs. That's how public discourse is supposed to work. If the subject changed to other internet enabled devices, you might have a point.
We know google is collecting information - we're giving implicit permission for it when using one of their devices. We're not giving a particular TV manufacturer any permission, and yet they will do it anyway - even possibly monitoring what we watch OTA. Like built in devices in cars, they get old and out of date and unsupported. You don't buy a new $25k car every few years (well, maybe you do, I don't) because your GPS doesn't update with new maps any more. Far easier to replace a third party gps box or, really these days just update the app on your phone. On my TV, it's far easier to replace the device I'm using for streaming - a new Roku or FireTV or Chromecast than to rely on the built in (usually sub-standard) features on the TV.
So yes, the biggest problem with "smart" is that in a few years they are not so smart, and not so supported. The solution is to just not use those features, it's true, but then you still have privacy implications and, again, I realize you have that with other devices, but in those cases you are implicitly giving permission and, ultimately, if you just watch OTA, you're not giving any permission at all.
I understand the issues; the problem is then that they shouldn't sell unlimited plans... and then f#@k with the data to suit their needs. The way T-Mobile did it was an acceptable solution because, while some find it annoying that they opt you in by default, you can at least opt out.
I don't see how you can say that when the vast majority of movies produced by Disney (especially when you include Touchstone) are for adults.
No, not really... Ubuntu might be doing that now, but they haven't always. And what are they going to do after Z to keep it alphabetical? The whole concept is kitschy, but moronic.