This is a sail boat, not a motor boat. The winds at this latitude blow west-to-east. To sail against the wind, you have to sail in a zig-zag motion, not in a straight line.
1090 posts • joined 5 Apr 2007
That won't work because people are not used to paying a monthly fee to use a device. You don't pay a monthly fee to Apple to get updates for iOS or OSX. Neither do you pay a monthly fee to Google to get updates for Android. The backlash against a subscription Windows will be too much.
I, for one, will not pay for updates out of principle. I would, however, pay handsomely if Microsoft re-introduced Windows 7.
I tend to think the "think of the children" argument for breakable encryption is a red herring. The politicians pushing this are trying to appeal to our emotions to cover up what they really want. I believe that is not about snooping in on the baddies, but snooping in on the private citizens. As the article points out, the big criminal organizations are smart enough to avoid breakable encryption. They can easily fund and create their own unbreakable encryption. We don't have such expertise. I've always believed breakable encryption was to so that the governments can spy on us.
"I would like a Big Mac with a large fry and a large Dr. Pepper."
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you order that. My sensors and telemetry detect that you are obese. This would be the 298th time you ordered a large fry at a restaurant. And the 53rd time you ordered a large Dr. Pepper. You seem to prefer a large Pepsi over at Taco Bell. Alexa informed me that your wife has told you not get the large fry again. I agree with your wife. I am now changing your order, Dave, to a healthier small salad and medium unsweetened tea. Have a nice day."
"Wait, how did you know my name was Dave?"
Microsoft has always envied other companies ideas. MS-DOS, not their idea because they bought it from someone else while being a little dishonest. Windows GUI, not their idea because they copied Apple (who bought it from Xerox). Microsoft Office, not their idea because they copied Wordperfect. Internet Explorer, not their idea because they copied Netscape.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Microsoft has always envied other companies because they have very few original ideas. And when they come up with an original idea -- such as the "ribbon" interface and the Windows 8 start screen -- it tends to be absolute garbage.
Someone needs to tell this so-called Apple expert about a concept called acceptable risk. Using his analogy of the car, we can virtually eliminate all automobile deaths by imposing a 35 MPH speed limit. But we don't. Why? Is it because we want people to die? No. It is because we, as a society, have deemed there a level of acceptable risk. There are huge benefits when you allow us to drive 70 MPH on the highway.
And so it should go with our devices. Yes, we can get virtually eliminate all malware by a walled garden. But at what cost? There are huge benefits when you allow us to install our own apps on a phone or computer. This is an acceptable risk.
You just identified a major problem today with programmers. Since they like, since they understand it, and since it works for them, they assume that you will like it, that you will understand it, and that it will work for you. This attitude has given us Windows 10 with its horrible horrible UI. And then you have website designers where they assume everyone uses Chrome, like them, has a really fast computer, like them, and has really fast internet, like them. If none of those conditions are true, they blithely tell you to switch to Chrome and never think that some people cannot afford fast computers or cannot get fast internet.
Since Cloudfare is an American company, they assume everyone is like them and an American. It is no surprise that their CAPTCHAS solution assumes you are an American because all the programmers today assume everyone is like them. I call it myopia.
I am of the opinion that when a company is fined by the government or loses in a class-action lawsuit that some of the money must come from the CEO's wallet; if it is multi-national company, then out of the wallet of the top guy in that country. And not just a small amount either. The amount needs to be equal to several months salary. If you fine a company, it is just a write-off or the fine is extracted from the customers. But, if you fine the person responsible, then he will make sure not to do this again because it affects him personally.
The only thing I am interested in is for Microsoft to stop sticking their nose into everything and just leave me with an efficient, unbloated, and properly tested OS. My interests will never align with Microsoft's interests. Specially, Microsoft's interest is more money and my interest is "LEAVE ME ALONE AND LET ME GET TO WORK!"
When something is not working and, in fact, has never worked, the logical thing to do is to stop doing that.
"The entertainment industry similarly expressed its unhappiness with the proposal, claiming allowing the legal circumvention of TPMs would facilitate piracy."
So, has anything you've done actually prevented copyright infringement? I will answer for you, no. Everything you do will not stop copyright infringement. The better course of action is to make easier and cheaper for people to get your content. And, make it is easier for people to do what they want for their own personal use with their own legally obtained content. This would require them to stop fragmenting the streaming market. You cannot stop copyright infringement. But you can eliminate the incentive a large number people have for doing it.
I've talked to many tech support companies about their site not working. The answer I get a lot of times is "Just use Chrome". Wrong wrong wrong! I am sick and tired of the myopic attitude "It works for me and I like it, therefore it will work for you and I cannot understand why you don't like it." That plague has infected website creators, it has infected Microsoft, it has even infected Apple.
It was a very bad thing when IE was the dominant browser. And it is a very bad thing when Chromium based browser are dominant.
There has to be a balance.
It is important that someone is allowed a chance to defend himself. It is also important that nobody is ever convicted on the testimony of one person. Men and women lie, and if you have a culture where people can lose their job just because one person became angry at another person and slandered him, that is not good either.
People should not be afraid to report abuse to management. Neither should people be afraid of being reported for abuse to management. You have to be careful that you don't ruin the lives of the innocent, nor protect the lives of the guilty.
What we really need is a special patent court that would handle all matters of patent disputes. This would prevent court-shopping and lengthy trials. The patent court would first determine if the patent applies. If that is true, then the court would then determine if a company knowingly violated a patent. The burden of proof would be on the patent owner. A company who used someone else's patent in ignorance would pay less damages. The patent court decision would be final, no appeal. The judges in the patent court all be trained in patent law and the ones on each case would be trained in the field they are presiding over. And both the patent owner and the one accused of breaking the patent can submit a case to the patent court. If, for instance, "Bob's Shell Company" accused Microsoft of breaking a patent, Microsoft could take the issue to the patent court to resolve the matter.
Of course, in my ideal world, the patent court would determine, before anything else, if the patent is even valid. Is there prior art? Is it an obvious solution? Is it so vague that it could be many different things?
Well, then, Google, explain to me how internet websites thrived in a time when relevant advertising wasn't even thought of? Non-annoying, non-tracking ads worked quite well when the internet went from luxury to necessity. If it worked then, why does it not work now?
I am not sure if this is possible, but what I would like is for the phone providers -- whether landline, mobile, or VoIP -- to provide us an option to automatically block all VoIP numbers that originate outside the country. For instance, if I am in the United States and a VoIP call is made whose source IP is from India, block the call.
Or, better yet, always block foreign VoIP calls except from countries a person has whitelisted or from numbers a person has whitelisted.
A possible benefit to doing this might be to force tech support people to be local, instead of outsourced to India.
Apple has had display cable problems for years, as the Canadian Broadcast Corporation found out in an investigation they did. Someone at the CBC took an Mac laptop to a "genius" bar, and was told that they fix so expensive, he should just buy a new one. They took it to an independent repair shop, who discovered the flaw was a bent wire on the display cable, and fixed it for free.
Don't forget, we have the best government money can buy. And who has more money to bribe ... er "lobby" politicians? Not you or I. Who has enough money to hire many expensive lawyers? Not you or I. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
It would take an outrage so great that the politicians cannot ignore before anything will happen. But for the issue of privacy, far too many have the "meh" attitude. The best thing you can do block it, using Blokada or Pi-Hole.
I agree with this. Keep the UI essentially the same for 20 years is very wise. Far too many companies love change for the sake of change. This includes more than Microsoft. And almost always, the change is a gigantic step backwards.
Of course, you have the obvious regression from Windows 7 to everything after. Not to be overlooked, Apple unwisely removing the home button from the iPhone. TiVo's new UI is very much inferior to the old UI. The same is true for the Amazon Fire devices. And there are many more.
Thankfully, Roku has not been infected by the change fetish. I just hope it stays that way.
Big company buys little company. Over a relatively short amount of time, big company forces out the people who made small company. The energy and ideas that made small company are no longer around, thus the only people working on small company's product are those who are have no personal investment in it and have no idea why small company's product was so successful. Soon, big company ruined the small company's product.
The real evil here is how a bot for a company can be used to suspend someone's account without a real, living, breathing human involved. I don't care if Twitter gets 5 million takedown notices a day, a human needs to look at each one and use proper judgement, something computers are incapable of doing.
If you look at Microsoft forums where people ask for help, often you get boilerplate responses. For example: "My Windows Update no longer works, and I tried (a), (b), and (c) already. Please help!" And Microsoft's first reply would be "We are sorry you are having trouble. Could you try (a). If that doesn't work, try (b). If you are still having trouble, try (c)." Microsoft didn't even read because the first thing they told them to try was what the person already tried!
The reason why Microsoft is forcing the app store (and while programs are now called apps) is because they want you to stop buying programs from somewhere else and start buying them from a place where Microsoft gets 30% like Apple and Google. The purpose of Windows 10 is about making money for Microsoft after the first day. This means unprofitable things like reliability and usability are pushed way into the background.
I helped a friend with her slow computer. She had McAfee installed. After about 2 minutes after login, the computer would essentially freeze. The mouse moved and the task manager worked,if I opened it before the freeze happened, but it would not update every second. This computer was less than 3 years old. It wasn't a powerful computer, but it was good enough. I was able to test the hard drive before the freeze, and it was good. On a hunch I decided to remove McAfee, which I had to do in safe mode. Like magic, the computer would no longer freeze.
McAfee slows your computer down like a large anchor on a small boat. I don't care how good detection is if it slows a computer up this slow.
FLoC correctly stands for "Filthy Lucre is our Choice". You can bet your life that Google will find a way to monetize your browsing habits. This idea of Google is not about privacy, but about doing what cookies used to do while using a new name nobody knows about. Many people have heard about cookies, but this is something new and not easy to remember.
This is real simple: If I am tracked in any way, shape, or form, it is not going to satisfy my privacy requirements.
The scammers I have seen want payment in gift cards. I knew someone who was scammed and paid by gift cards. He was told to scratch off something on the back of the card and read it off to the scammer, who was in India. But since this was an American reading off a gift card for an American business, the douchenozzles in India had to have someone in America cashing in. Another thing that needs to happen is to make sure we can trace where a gift card was used and, if used online, where the shipped products went to.
The first sentence says it all: "Nvidia has no plans to dismantle Arm's licensing-based biz model." Okay, but plans change. Last spring, I planned on buying a new video card but since it is so difficult to find one, my plans changed. A plan is a not legally binding. Considering NVidia's history, I would expect this "plan" to change as soon as they can without major uproar.
I hope government regulators nix this purchase with extreme prejudice.
Every time my mobile phone provider gives me a survey, I always ask them why they are spending money on 5G when they haven't perfected 1G yet. If I cannot use the phone part of my smartphone, what is the point of having one? I am not referring to dead zones in deserts where there is no human structure for miles or in the mountains where the natural landscape blocks the signals. I am referring to dead zones where lots of people live. I would rather these companies invest in more towers than faster towers.
Exactly right. People do not realize that news organization are entertainment. As such, all of them lie, or conveniently not tell you the whole truth. I pity the person who thinks only Fox News lies, but their news outlet tells the truth. Wrong, wrong, wrong. CNN lies just as much. The BBC lies just as much. Everyone of them lies just as much. If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed.
The only time I trust the news is when they say something that goes against their narrative.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021