Re: Fork of IE?
4573 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
Can I turn Cortana off and just enjoy it as a streamlined web-browser?
>>"I was aware of that and, since MS is no longer interested in ARM platform, I asked politely if manufacturers can now be allowed to let us disable SecureBoot on ARM devices so we can install other OS on them.
>>You failed your second attempt too!
MS only this week announced a Windows version for Rasberry Pi (an ARM platform if you're not aware) and are most certainly building OSs on ARM so you're clearly wrong that "MS is no longer interested". Secondly, MS is not preventing manufacturers from selling ARM devices with undisablable Secure Boot anywhere I'm aware of so you should really be directing your question to the OEMs. What device is it you think MS have caused it to be locked on - specific names, please. Because if you're talking about MS forcing the hand of OEMs you plainly can't mean the Surface RT / Surface 2.
"Failed my second attempt?" Seriously? You're the one who launched in here with one-line off-topic posts wrapped up in snark about how many fingers you were holding up, not me.
>>People have asked me: "Mr Coward - just what is the difference between Microsoft Surface 2 and Microsoft Surface 3?" And I answer: "1".
Funny, I got 86.
>>"On ARM ? Are you sure ? Look at my hand, how many distinct fingers can you count ?"
You realize that the entire point of the article you are commenting on is that MS have shifted the latest Surface off ARM and onto x86? How many fingers can I count on your hand? Six, probably, based on your evidenced intelligence.
Similar, but I got a Linx tablet. Very good value. However, the Pen on this device could be a really big plus. Great for both taking notes and for meetings where you want to whiteboard things and just hit save at the end.
Yes. Enter the UEFI BIOS and slide "Secure Boot" to the "Disabled" or "Off" position.
If you can't do that, you probably shouldn't be turning it off.
Not sure if deliberate or accidental, but I gave you a thumbsup for "effluent South".
If that hotel concierge was mentally linked to all other staff at all other hotels and had perfect recall of everything you did in any hotel for the past ten years, yes - I might find that creepy.
>>"3. Both 1 and you may want, $DEITY forbid, to look up the location of a pub on your PAYG mobile without having to take a passport, driving licence or credit card to the mobile store to prove that you are over 18."
This has happened? What idiotic network provider did something this stupid and intrusive?
>>"if they had other talents/passions/better ways of making money, wouldn't they be doing that instead?"
Not necessarily. The lead in to many careers becoming profitable can be quite long. Quite a few women under the age of 25 do modelling work to help get through university, internships, etc. Also, you're a lot more likely to end up looking after a young child if you're a woman which can put paid to a lot of careers until the child reaches school age. Part-time modelling work can be lucrative and fit in with this. Do not presume that someone is unintelligent or even uneducated because they are doing modelling work.
I've read through most of the comments here and some I agree with and some I disagree with but whether they're pro or anti- the presence of "booth babes" I don't think any of them are as offensive or stupid as you calling someone in the picture "a fat beef". For one, whether people are in favour of their presence or not, pretty much everyone here regards the booth babes as people. Except you, apparently. They're hired to engage attention, be friendly and project some energy about their employer. That doesn't mean they're there for you to dehumanize or insult them.
I think any further responses from you on this topic should be accompanied by a recent photo of you in a skin-tight outfit of your own so we can all see your perfection.
It's a free standard and actually a good one. What is their reason not to use this?
>>"Think MS ended mainstream support for Windows 7 in January this year?"
Worth clarifying what is meant by "mainstream support". That ends this year, but MS will continue to supply security fixes and bug fixes until 2020. End of "mainstream support" just means the standard support to end users. You can still purchase extended support packages for quite a while as well. It came out six years ago, but it's not like its suddenly abandoned.
I have one of my monitors in portrait mode. Not sure if that will help but it works really well for word processing.
That's a lot of words none of which address the fact that you claimed
Insert tab -> Equation button
was less intuitive than
Insert Menu -> Object -> New -> Equation Editor 3.0
You demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. You further demonstrate it with your reply. "Inflexible waste of space". By default it will hide itself and just reappear when you go to it. It also actually takes up around the same amount of height as the original icon and menu bars, it just looks bigger because it's one row rather than several. Don't believe me? Here is a screenshot comparison:
As to your comments about being able to add a button short-cut if you wanted - you can customize the Ribbon just as easily, even putting anything and everything into a single ribbon tab if you want. It's easy, even creating an entirely new tab if you want and spend the rest of your life with only that if you find multiple ones so confusing. It's no less customizable, you just have a bias and are making statements that don't stand up.
>>"they'd just retained the semi-logical menu structure and hadn't ditched it for the utterly useless ribbon. That way, if I wanted to insert an equation I'd have gone to the insert menu, not had to rummage through pages of dull flat meaningless icons or make my request in writing to Microsoft"
Click on the Insert tab and right in front of you is a big Pi symbol with "Equation" written underneath it. You can't seriously find that difficult or unintuitive.
In pre-Ribbon Office, you go to the Insert menu option. Within the fold-down menu, find "Object". Select the "Create New" tab and select "Microsoft Equation 3.0." Click "OK."
Read both those scenarios back to yourself twice. Consider. Admit that you are at best arguing from a basis that you are personally familiar with an old way of doing things so have a skewed view on what is easy; and more realistically just haven't bothered to ever actually give the Ribbon a fair assessment.
>>"Does it load faster than the Office XP that I'm still rocking?"
Well my 2013 version of Office does, so probably.
>>"It's been years and I still can't find a damn thing with the ribbon"
Rubbish. You're either lying or an idiot.
People should also put aside specifics that colour their judgement and realize that the category that Ofcom has just allowed this usage for is not "women giving blowjobs" but "things that the reality TV audiences find entertaining". Anything you do that is embarrassing or which others will laugh at or be titillated by is now fair game if caught on camera. They just have to make a token effort to obscure your identity.
The cameras should not be there to catch people's errors so that your typical Big Brother viewer can find it funny. It's a quick bit of cash for a CCTV company and years of misery for those pilloried on television.
>>It's a sad state of affairs that the default assumption is that of law enforcement "causing you problems"
Sad perhaps, but true nonetheless. Few if any have the power to ruin your life with impunity that the government and law enforcement of your company do. Any random person could kill you, but they could not do so without grievous consequences.to themself. The government can lock you up, prevent you getting jobs, all manner of things without anyone making those decisions risking any reprisal to themself. No body has so much power over you with so little risk from using it, than your own country's rulers. The rulers or people of other countries are no threat by comparison.
If the OP wonders why they're being downvoted, it's probably because many readers regard the whole "no smoke without fire" style of rumour-mongering a dirty trick and see the OP as perpetuating it (rightly or wrongly). Is it possible that Kapersky has been suborned by the Russian government? Of course it's possible. Do we have any particular evidence? No, not that I am aware. What we DO know for a fact, is that Kapersky do actual serious-level security research and recently exposed a major and highly sophisticated US malware-based spying system. And that means that they will have majorly pissed off various high-ups in the US power-structures. Would we expect some retaliation in the media for that? Very probably.
I'm not going to go on record saying Kapersky don't do anything wrong - how would I know for sure? But you can't start throwing mud without evidence. I recently had to assess anti-malware solutions and Kapersky and TrendMicro were the two with consistently the most comprehensive cover. Several others weren't bad, but those two were the leaders in my research. So until someone who is both less biased and has actual evidence (at least one of these would be nice), I'm going to carry on recommending it.
...which I am entertaining just for hypothetical argument, you would need to consider who you were most threatened by as an ordinary citizen. Assuming a Western reader living in a Western country, the chances of Russian Intelligence or law enforcement causing you problems is pretty much zero - you're simply not their concern. In comparison, the chances of your own country's law enforcement or government causing you (or your loved ones) hassle, is considerably higher.
Assuming that Western firms are compromised by Western governments (which we know happens) and Russian companies by theirs, which company would you logically wish to be informing on you?
>>"The Luddites were on to something"
They were, but it wasn't anti-technology per se, despite how they are portrayed. It was that the profits from the technology came only to a select group. The looms meant actual starvation or the poorhouse for many of those workers. (If you want to know what the "poorhouse" was like, read Dickens).
If someone invented a looming machine or a tractor or whatever and said, "everybody work a little less hard for the same money", few would mind. But what actually happens is "you and you, work even harder, you other dozen you have no jobs".
So far, humanity has been able to just about keep racing ahead of the technology curve managing to upskill fast enough be useful - though every decade you need more skills and education to preserve the same level of success (outside of niche cases). There's no guarantee that we will be able to keep running forever. It may reach the point where the looms are so advanced that we are all luddites (except a small portion of owning classes).
I increasingly get the feeling with Worstall's articles that they're a reply to someone who's said something he's objected to and I'm hearing one half of a conversation.
>>"Was this an arranged marriage? My colleagues in India tell me that these days "love marriages" have grown quite common and arranged marriages are less and less common."
Given that she probably would have worked out he was an idiot long before this if they were dating, I'm thinking "Arranged Marriage" is a pretty safe bet in this case.
>>"prefer to look stupid for 15 minutes"
15 minutes? This is person is going to be the one that got dumped because they were too stupid for their bride for the rest of their life.
I think I'd rather get married than appear that stupid in front of a crowd.
>>"Errm... you don't. You can have as many as you want and should have as many as you need. For example, I have two for one of my email addresses--see below."
Your use case is where you have different keys for different recipients / contexts. It makes no sense to have multiple keys for a single recipient / context. And in the case of a platform key there is only one "recipient" - the public. You asked why there is only one platform key on a device - because you can do everything needed with only one and a second would be redundant.
You're really talking about two different scenarios. The correct comparison is where you have two private keys for signing and both are known to the same audience. You must understand that this would make little sense and if you understand that, then you should realize that platform keys are the same scenario. The attempt to prove Secure Boot is an anti-Linux measure is getting ridiculous. It plainly has real security uses. It also equally plainly is not harming Linux.
You are also following the familiar pattern of discarding all counter-evidence and honing in on one part of an argument and hoping to try and find some weakness in that and presenting that as the whole case. Just admit that you are wrong. Or don't - but if you take a look at what you're saying and realize that you are now down to arguing on the basis that there aren't multiple platform keys (despite there being no benefit to such), then you really should acknowledge that you are.
>>"...pretty much all phones with very rare exceptions - are locked with a single OS in mind... There, I fixed it for you! Who was Microsoft afraid of when the decided to lock ARM tablets, prey tell us ?"
I don't see that you've fixed anything. I do see that you've shifted ground once again. You responded to my point about Secure Boot on x86 (where it is by far most relevant seeing as the criticism were from people saying it discriminated against GNU/Linux distros) by demanding to know abour ARM because that's what the majority of phone OSs ran on. I responded to that and now you've shifted to ARM tablets. But most Windows tablets are x86. The only ones that weren't were the now discontinued Surface RT and Surface 2. As to who "Microsoft are afraid of", I don't know but I can see you're determined to find some niche whereby you can prove that Secure Boot is an attack on Linux despite the fact it provides real and actual security benefits against attacks that are actually out there in the wild today. But of course to you this can't be the motivation, it must be an attack on Linux. Even if you have to retreat to a sub-set of a sub-set to find reasons to support this.
But to answer your question - "Apple." That's who Microsoft were "afraid" of. The Surface RT was a show-case for Windows 8 as a touch-OS and it was locked just like the iPad which was its competitor. Not GNU/Linux.
>>"Yes, very useful technology because it makes sure no other OS can't be booted unless Microsoft allows it."
That's provably false. You can turn Secure Boot off as you well know. And doing so is as easy as switching a boot device in the old BIOS. It's even, as shown, a requirement that a user be able to turn off Secure Boot. These are not debatable facts. Your statement is wrong.
>>"Can you please explain why there's only one Platform Key stored and even though end-user can add keys, only one (coincidentally Microsoft's) can be used as a master ?"
Yes, I can explain. There can only be one platform key and this can't be modified because that's how the technology works - the OEM creates a single key for their device. One might as well ask why you only have a single PGP key for a given email address. Yes, you could design it so you had more, but being able to say "my email is valid if it is signed by any of my three private keys" serves no purpose and in fact weakens security. These are at base the same technologies on the same principles. What would be the point in having three private keys for your email and signing your outgoing emails with different ones just because? Nothing. Same thing here with the Platform Key. It's not a conspiracy.
As to why Microsoft have a key in there, because they paid to create and maintain one. Any GNU/Linux distro could do the same if they wish. However, given that GNU/Linux doesn't have the capability to use Secure Boot currently (you can sign Grub or whatever other bootloader you wish, but it doesn't do any OS verification so there's no security advantage here), they don't bother. Only RedHat and Ubuntu do and that's really for trivial gain and in RedHat's case at least, they actually just outsourced key creation and maintenance to MS because MS already had the infrastructure set up for it. But as I say, RedHat and Ubuntu are only signing the boot loader which does an unverified sign-off so it's largely pointless.
>>"Sure, you can disable Secure Boot but Microsoft will guffaw and point any government or large enterprise that the machine is insecure and can't be trusted."
Relevant part is bolded - you are agreeing with everything that I have claimed: that Secure Boot doesn't stop anyone using GNU/Linux. As to the rest, you're claiming that Microsoft marketing will try to show their OS is more secure than others. Well, duh! Same as everyone else. And are you going to actually try and deny now that being able to verify that the OS you're booting hasn't been altered isn't a useful security feature now? Because you'd be wrong about that, too.
>>>>>"The Windows 8 requirements even mandate that for >>an x86 device<< to be certified the user must be able to disable Secure Boot if they wish."
>>So what. In the mobile device market, no one cares about x86
Well I didn't bring up Secure Boot. It was given by someone who believed it was some sort of attack on Linux. It isn't. That's all that I was answering. I referred to x86 because that's where all the excitement about Secure Boot took place, what with Red Hat commenting on it, Ubuntu users criticising it, etc. It's pretty much a non-discussion in the mobile area because everyone - iPhone and Android OEMs and Blackberries and pretty much all phones with very rare exceptions - are designed with a single OS in mind and that's what they run.
Also, I'd contest this article that MS "fans" are seething about this. I am probably one of this forums noted MS "fans", and I don't see a problem with it - it doesn't affect me as a WP user. MS have always tried to promote projects on their own even cross platform. Heck, they released their touch version of Office on iPad first, simply because that had larger market share.
>>"That their pushing for Secure Boot could certainly be regarded as anti-linux."
Secure Boot is not "anti-Linux". It's useful technology that protects against actual threats in the wild right now. GNU/Linux can just also take advantage of it - it's a UEFI technology, not a Microsoft one. MS are a member of the UEFI consortium but then so are a dozen others including all the big hardware players like Samsung, Lenovo, IBM, et al. There's no conspiracy here. The Windows 8 requirements even mandate that for an x86 device to be certified the user must be able to disable Secure Boot if they wish. Which is a simple option in UEFI as easy as switching the boot device. Secure Boot has never stopped anyone from installing a Linux distro.
The hysteria about Secure Boot was massively overblown and a lot of people fell victim to FUD about it.
If Apple ever make a table it will be 2" high and the tech news sites will praise it for its thinness.
>>"How to you make a manifesto to please a libertarian free-marketeer like Worstall and an ex-Labour northern working class lefty/protectionist?"
This is easy. The former are interested in actual policies and details and will read them. The latter are interested in positive sound-bites. This means you can easily please both groups. You must have noticed that whilst UKIP is populist in their image and slogans, their backers are largely wealthy and upper-class. The dichotomy is unnoticed by the masses and useful to the party backers, and thus is consequently deliberately perpetuated.
Perhaps they could do a lady's model with David McCallum.
>>"I don't think he's arguing that you "should" do that. I think he's arguing that people "do" do that."
But he's also arguing it without any context of whether it is a good way of advertising ones wealth or not. The point was made earlier that nature is filled with frivolous resource usage to attract mates - the example of peacock tails was given. However, human beings are the most intelligent animals we know (cynical jokes can be inserted here if you wish). Even when we are extravagant we require rationalizations for ourselves. Someone could demonstrate their wealth by setting fire to $17,000 dollars in front of other people. That would not earn them respect, they'd be derided for it and considered crass by the huge majority of people including other wealthy people.
When someone orders a £500 bottle of wine or spends £5,000 on a TAG watch, it's accompanied by some waffle about how great and brilliant the quality is in some way. This quality may or may not justify the actual expense but there is a rationalization that is used. Even if the fig leaf is quite small sometimes.
The point is that yes - conspicuous consumption exists, but it is best done in a direction where society will be impressed because you are obtaining something that most of the rest can't afford but would like. Spending it in a direction where the rest can't afford but don't care - that doesn't net you the same returns. And it is my contention that the iWatch falls into this category. It blatantly does not compete with true luxury watches as a luxury watch itself. Similarly there are other products out there that are better than it as a fitness device (Microsoft's Band is demonstrably better in this regard) or a wrist computer (the Android devices have the edge here, imo). That leaves design aspect and as jewellery, it very definitely loses out to more classic luxury watches.
TL;DR: You could demonstrate your ability to throw around money by buying a Segway to ride around on, but rich people don't try to look cool by doing this. It matters not only that you show off your wealth, but how you do it.
What has happened to Worstall recently? I used to agree with mist if his articles but the last three I've read have all been a pile of conjecture back-up with post-conclusion analysis.
Yes, displays of wealth can help a man get laid if that is what he's after and he feels the need to pay money to obtain this. But that does not mean all displays of wealth are good investments in that regard. Apple are not a brand name for luxury watches or jewellery. An equivalently expensive traditional watch with an appropriate brand name would display wealth more effectively and look a lot more high-status. The $17,000 iWatch looks more like Chav-bling style wealth display. Which might work in certain circles, but not outside of them.
To everyone else it looks like you spent $17,000 on something that will be obsolete in two years time. I suppose it could convey that you have cash and are easily parted from it... But that's mire likely to make you appeal to conmen than women.
>>"May Huey Lewis, and Devo haunt you for eternity for your blasphemy against the 80s."
They can moan and rattle their chains all they like. Just so long as they don't sing.
>>"In the US Constitution, it states that copyrights should only be for a brief limited period of time!"
Ah that would be why people primarily pirate older stuff rather than the latest releases - they're
protesting against the copyright terms being too long.
>>"Putting a person in jail for 10 years because he copied a movie that he paid for is a crime against the people"
Firstly, the 10 years isn't for a casual download of a few movies, it's for major league and probably commercial piracy. The typical pirate who is convicted gets a fine. Secondly it's your contention that most pirates are downloading things they've previously bought? Because that's rubbish. Before making arguments based on someone receiving 10 years in prison for downloading a movie they've already bought, see if that matches up to reality, because that's not what's being talked about here.
Logically any artist that is "pro-piracy" can forgo signing a contract and just upload their music for free. If they believe that unrestricted public sharing is the best thing for them, current law doesn't prevent them in the slightest. The converse, if piracy is tolerated is not true, you're removing the ability of artists to choose how they want to sell their work.
TL;DR: an artist being in favour of free distribution is not an argument in favour of changing anything - they already have what they want.
>>"It might not be the best definition, but there's still an important difference between depriving someone of a thing they have (theft) and potentially depriving someone of something they might have otherwise had, but currently don't."
The thing someone "might have otherwise had", is called "income".
>>"You are correct when it comes to everyday usage, but in a Court of Law, the legal definitions of the words are important and cannot be ignored"
One thing we can all be pretty certain of, is that El Reg. is not a court of law. ;) Here the definition works as follows: pro-piracy, "theft" does not include copyright infringement. Everyone else - familiar with the common English language meaning and gets it.
>>"Do just the management go down or are all the shareholders also guilty of profiting from the crime?"
Management unless it can be shown that investors knew they were funding illegal behaviour. Which is as it should be. Would you like to buy some shares in a company and then go to prison unexpectedly a couple of years later?
But prison is rare - generally the company is fined which again, is beneficial as that way you get restitution and prison usually only serves to drain our taxes and harden people. You have to do something like fraud to get the prison sentence usually. Licence violations rarely produce such a result. Which is pretty much the same as personal copyright infringement. It's an odd case you'll get a prison sentence for downloading movies - there would have to be some special circumstances attached. Generally you get a fine, same as the companies that do it.
>>"You distributed to 10,000 people so it should be dealt with the same as selling 10,000 physical copies."
Obviously this would be bad. Or maybe it's not obvious, so the reasons it's bad are broadly speaking (a) you are not the only seeder / participant. It's a collective act you are participating in so if 10,000 people downloaded from you, you're still not responsible for 10,000 actual distributions. You have facilitated that number so you still share a portion of the blame, but it wont be one for one. (b) It would be trivially easy for someone to go far beyond their ability to provide redress. A £5,000 fine is a very nasty thing but it's something you can overcome. Even for those on low-income. Courts set repayments at a level that typically you can afford. You'll be regretting it every time you pay your £15 part-payment, but it's not going to destroy your life. Charing 10,000 x £15 per movie - yes, that would. And what you want to achieve is stopping people doing this and some restitution for damages, not destroy lives. So just like your participation in the piracy was only a part of it, so your part in repayment should be only part of it.
And I think, to some extent, that's where we're going. The talk of ten year sentences is highly unrepresentative. That's for massive commercial scale piracy, really.
>>"It is like allowing all your friends to copy the CD you just bought from the market stall, but on a larger scale"
And that's essentially why things are changing. Piracy types used to be some Del Boy type at the market flogging home copies... And it was fought as such. A copper might nick the seller, they'd get a fine typically. Wash and repeat. But now you get people able to do the same thing from home on a vastly larger scale and sometimes not even thinking of it as theft. Actions which are only mildly damaging when done occasionally, can be a major problem when done on the large scale. People used to have home fires in London when their were fewer houses there. As times changed, London became so bad that you got "pea soupers" where people would actually die prematurely from how bad the smog was. So the law shifted and you got the Clean Air act. It seems to me that piracy law is settling towards punishments being worse than shop-lifting due to the distribution aspect of torrenting, but not crippling in degree. Though obviously the ceiling is pretty high for the big commercial pirates or those who are First Sources for content.
Pretty much. If you are some regular, small scale home downloader who logs on, gets a movie they want and stops their torrenting afterwards, you'll likely get something a little bit more than going into a shop and stealing those movies. Your first instinct is to think that the fines you've heard of are a lot more but then realize that when was the last time you heard of someone only ever having downloaded one movie or song, instead of a dozen or more? Twenty... thirty movies. That actually adds up to quite a lot of shoplift equivalents.
But in the example you talk of, seeding a library of movies 24/7 on a fat pipe, sure - you could well find yourself facing a £5k slap down for it because you've been effectively distributing, not just stealing.
h4rm0ny "what is this kidding you speak of?" uh... h4rm0ny.
As with many things, technology results in old definitions no longer being the best definitions. When that definition was created, there was no such thing as digitally reproducing content exactly the same, because there was no digital content. The "permanently deprive the owner of it" was simply a way of distinguishing it from cases where the taker was going to or did return the property afterwards. Something that I don't believe ever happens with illegal downloads. This hang-up some people have with the word is pretty much only done as a deflection tactic from criticism.
Also, the word predates legal definitions. If you want to pretend every time someone uses a word they're using a term from English law, go ahead. But you know that they wont be.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018