Posts by Trevor_Pott

@Ken Hagan

I still can't say the same for Windows 8.1. Even with a Start Menu replacement, there's still hotcorners making remote support and/or remote access in a windowed client a flipping nightmare. Controls and settings are hidden, illogical and non-unified. Worse, they've replaced menu + toolbar with ribbon bars all over the OS. These are functionality and usability issues that make Windows 8 AND 8.1 a no-go for me.

That's before we get to the aesthetic issues of the Metro UI, especially as it applies to the desktop. Flat, featureless chrome just doesn't work for my brain. I need to see my click/touch targets. The inability to revert Windows 8 to classic mode is a real issue for me: my brain has trouble instinctively finding which button to push to make the necessary events occur, because it's all flat. I actually have to think about where to click and what to click on, something that slows down my day-to-day interaction with the PC.

In the end, there are a bunch of "minor" changes to the UI that cumulatively result in an OS in which common tasks that were so ingrained as to be autonomic take me longer to accomplish than in the previous incarnations of the same OS.

Why the would I pay money for that? 8.1's additional button or no?

Re: I like it but I can sympathise.

"Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ...."

The poxy whoresons took away my up arrow. 5 years of use, and I still loathe "breadcrumbs". End up installing classic shell on all my long-term Win 7 systems just to get the up arrow back.

Re: I like it but I can sympathise.

Amorous Cowherder: I think I'm going to use that comment in an article. Your story is a great description of exactly how software transitions should be managed. Where the existence of choice creates options that lure individuals away from existing installs, not where users are forced without recourse. We may disagree about the utility and usability of Windows 8, but the concept of mobility between systems is important.

Re: @AC 101 06:51

"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux"

"Linux" is a kernel. Technically, every GUI for Linux is a "third party GUI." I believe that Linux supports boast about the fact that the OS they use respects end-user choice...a concept towards which Microsoft is quite openly hostile.

Re: Microsoft and movie sequels

Empire.

Blasphemy!

Empire had the better ending! I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

It is always possible I misread something. The forum gives the fellow the ability to come in and correct me if I misread him. Rereading what he wrote, I still stand by my original interpretation of "status quo good, pro-citizen regulation bad." If that wasn't the view he intended to communicate then I have to say he sucks at communicating.

Subsequently there were no comments by the OP attempting to say "hey, you've misinterpreted me, I actually think regulations that prevent corporations from screwing over an entire nation are probably a good idea." Instead there was a truckload of right-libertarian crazy careening around drunkenly with it's brakes cut.

If I did misinterpret the OP, well shucks, sir, I'm sorry. I'd be interested to know what you intended to write in a better communicated and more detailed post. If, however, my assessment of the OP as defending the status quo is correct, then I don't apologize in the least and I hope he's the first to have his bill raised and his access restricted when ISPs realize they have carte blanche to wreck the market.

Wibble wobble wubble.

Re: These corporate executives take everything if they are not stopped

"We've already got an open accessible internet and we don't have net neutrality regulations."

No, we don't. we have a highly regionalised internet. One in which data from different sources is treated differently, where telcos can - and do - pick winners and losers, where artificial scarcity drives up prices - and barriers to entry - and where both private businesses and nation states snoop on traffic and even censor access to information.

That's not an "open accessible internet" at all. We had an open, accessible internet. It hasn't been such for some time now.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

No, it went more like this:

OP: "Net neutrality is completely unnecessary regulation, as the existing non-"open internet" regulations (which basically gives telcos carte blanche regarding data services) are just fine."

Me: "You are advocating getting rid of - and preventing in the future - regulations that are good for the overwhelming majority of people so that Telcos can erect barriers to entry, create artificial scarcity, drive down quality and reduce innovation...all in the name of profit. That's pretty goddamned shortsighted of you. You should really look at Somalia - a nation with no government regulation - to see how well that sort of idiocy works out."

Several libertarians: "regulation is the devil! It is what causes all of the world's problems!"

Me: "Incorrect. Here's why. Here is what you need to do in order to prove me wrong."

The OP did not call for stronger business regulation at all. The OP called for significantly less business regulation and a maintenance of the status quo...a status quo that is emphatically not favourable to the average punter.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

@Anonymous Coward

You espouse belief in magic: that a lack of government regulation will somehow make everything better...yet you offer no proof...while those who argue that regulation is necessary can offer centuries of economic evidence.

Given this, I fail to see why you wouldn't want to go to Somalia. It is a country that is currently experimenting with your philosophy on a grand scale. There's nothing "moronic" about it; it is currently the best example of a country without government regulation.

If someone told me that they want a nation where religion what predominant and that doctrine superseded science as the basis of decision-making I would tell them that Iran is a great example of where this occurs today. Similarly, there are several other countries in the Middle East they could visit to see how that works out.

Meanwhile, as someone who believes in secular, evidence-based legislation in a society whose goals are based on the tennets of social democracy, I too have exemplar nations. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia and several others.

I then judge economic and cultural philosophies by looking at nations that are the purest examples of those philosophies as currently applied. The current purest example of the libertarian anarchist ideal is Somalia. I hold that up to the current "purest" example of a social democracy (Denmark) and choose social democracy.

You are free to believe in what you wish, though I fail to understand why you believe turning a nation towards Somalia rather than Denmark is somehow appealing.

Nor, for that matter, have you answered any of my questions or challenges to even begin to prove that your libertarian anarchist ideology would not result in Somalia when applied to a nation. You simply call people names and continue to assert that your belief system is true. That's religion, no matter how you dress it up. Faith, not fact.

And since you seem insistent on turning to faith in order to combat fact, then I must declare your faith null and void, as the One True Faith is that of His Noodly Self. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

"it seems obvious that giving every human being on the planet a good quality of life is the most important goal"

The problem is that libertarians don't share this goal. For all too many the goal is to enhance their personal quality of life above that of others, even if - sometimes all the better if - that leads to enslavement, torture, maiming, rape and/or death of those other individuals.

There are people who seek to create a rising tide that lifts all boats and then there are people who seek dominance. Never the twain shall meet.

Given that I've not got a yen for subservience, I think that I'll resist those who desire dominance. No matter what it costs.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

"trev, you don't know what a monopoly is do you? its regulation in favour of a firm or a number of firms,"

No, a monopoly is when one firm has control of an entire market. A cartel is when a small number of firms work together to divvy up a market amongst themselves and act in a concerted fashion to control it. Both monopolies and cartels artificially inflate margins, viciously oppose change and erect massive barriers to entry.

Monopolies can be created by regulation. Monopolies and cartels are far more often created by market forces, as they are the inevitable end result of unfettered capitalism.

"social democracy is merely 50%+1 might is right."

Incorrect. Social democracy observes protection mechanisms to ensure that "the tyranny of the majority" does not oppress the minority. It also attempts to employ mechanisms to ensure that "the tragedy of the commons" is avoided; something libertarian capitalists are adamantly against.

"[Social democracy] can't because it hates heresy or choices."

Social democracies are typically secular, so heresy means nothing to them. (Versus several capitalist nations which are either official or de facto theocracies.) As for choice: social democracy embraces choice in a way that capitalism never can, because it regulates against monopolies and cartels and works to lower barriers to entry into markets.

"How does it drive margins down?"

Social democracies drive down margins by lower barriers to entry into markets and preventing abuse of market dominance via regulating against anti-competitive practices. Social democracies are strongly against cartels; they do not allow companies to carve up a market and act in a concerted fashion to artificially inflate margins or create artificial scarcity.

Social democracies drive down margins by ensuring competition. They work en see that "any kid in his garage with a good idea" can enter a market and disrupt it, even if there is only one real incumbent who has functional market dominance. This is achieved by limiting the anti-competitive measures they can enact as well as government funding of research, small businesses, education and more. Even centralized funding of health care is a massive boon to entrepreneurs as they then do not have to bear that burden themselves.

"Globalization, zero regulation by the state are postive boon IMHO and the last is problem caused by the state's monopoly over money and the financiers utilizing that monopoly to their own advantage."

Then you're an idiot. Globalisation never benefits the proles. Wages go down to the lowest common denominator while prices end up regionalised. Globalisation is all about ensuring multinationals can obtain labour at the lowest rates and materials from countries without ecological regulation (i.e. they have no regulations to prevent tragedy of the commons.)

Nowhere does it bring benefits to the regular punter. That new iPhone made with slave labour and by poisoning a province of China is not cheaper because it was made with that slave labour or because the tragedy of the commons was ignored. No, siree....you pay extra deluxe margin because you live in a "first world" nation (I use that term very loosely when referring to the USA.)

Zero regulation is something we can see the effect of by looking at a real world practical example. The nation is called Somalia. That is a country with no government, thus no possible government interference. It is hardly a juggernaut of economic might.

So I am going to have to conclude that you simply don't know what you are talking about. I am going to leave you with two goals you must meet in order to prove to me that your point of view is anything other than abject lunacy:

1) Prove to me that "tickle down economics" works. This is a fundement of unfettered libertarianism capitalism as the philosophies of zero regulation and globalisation do not allow for a means of addressing the wealth gap other than "trickle down economics." Prove that it works. Not fairly fairly dreams, wishes and beliefs. Cite at least three real world examples that involve populations of at least 15 million individuals.

2) Prove to me that deregulation increases competition in the long term. CIte at least 5 real world examples of industries that achieved commoditisation and then did not undergo natural collapse into a monopoly or cartel. Explain how these industries managed to keep the barriers to entry low and competition was maintained despite increasingly thin margins. History for those markets should cover at least 50 years to ensure that we have a long enough economic sample size to judge to the trends related to commoditisation.

Cheers.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

"I look at this this way. Capitalism is "Winner Economics": Economic Darwinism, in a sense."

I don't disagree. I simply don't believe this is a good way to run a society.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

"Massive competition leads ineluctably to monopoly"

Capitalism is unfettered competition without regulation. Monopoly and cartels become the norm. Capitalism has led to massive amounts of human misery in the form of globalisation; slavery by another name, but wrapped in comforting words like "profit" that make libertarians feel good with themselves.

Social democracy is competition with regulation. It restrains monopoly and encourages competition. It causes producers to drive margins down and down and down...until they reach the lowest sustainable margins possible. That is good for society as a whole.

Things that are bad for society as a whole:

1) Globalisation

2) Zero regulation

3) Massive and increasing wealth gap

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the you. No matter how important you think you are.

Re: @Trevor_Pott: What have you been smoking?

"without regulation unfettered competition screws the consumer."

Bullshit.

Unfettered competition benefits the consumer by driving down the margins of the providers and commoditising their wares. It is only when those providers are allowed to consolidate into a monopoly or to engage in anti-competitive practices that the consumer is screwed. Massive competition benefits consumers. Regulations need to ensure competition and restrict viciously the ability of any company to restrain competition.

"The FTC and regulators should take their duties seriously and when I last looked they were happy with the massive concentration of power in the telco sector."

At least we can agree on something. The FTC are a bunch of weak-kneed chumps with no political will and even less backbone.

"Now, given that the internet has grown for 20 years with no explicit “Open Internet Orders”

Woah, woah, woah. Stop right there. "New nodes have been added to the network" does not mean that the internet's direction has been good in any way. The internet used to be neutral: all packets were the same, no discrimination against any service, individual, region, etc. There was healthy competition at one point...not "Google turns off and internet traffic drops by 40%."

We used to be looking at expanding last mile infrastructure, with companies bringing fibre to the premesis and an overall understanding amongst consumers and providers that everyone would eventually be wired up, no different than the POTS requirements.

Instead, we have a series of emerging monopolies. We can carriers that are fighting tooth and nail to avoid putting in last-mile infrastructure, demanding instead to be allowed to provide third-rate connectivity via wireless. We have the data providers merging with content creation companies and massive legal battles being fought to prevent independent content providers from emerging.

We have artificial scarcity in the form of data caps and we have had continued attempts to play favourites by either making carrier-owned content provisioning immune to data caps or to outright prevent third party companies from providing service. We've also had shenanigans where your last mile providers have tried to play silly-nilly with CDNs in order to thwart independant content providers because they felt they were somehow "entitled" to double dip on carriage charges.

"and bearing in mind the law of unintended consequences every new regulation must be justified."

The internet used to be a network of openness and equality. There are more people on it now, and more services, but that equality has been dramatically eroded in the name of "capitalism." The reason it has been eroded is that your pathetic regulators have allowed companies to engage in anti-competitive practices.

Competition is good for consumers. Repeat that three times. Got it? Good. Now do it again, because you don't seem to be capable of understanding that.

That you feel unfettered capitalism is a good thing while pooh-poohing unfettered competition (capitalism in practice is about the creation of monopolies and consortiums...something antithetical to competition) is why I bring up Somalia. That's where you'll find your unfettered capitalism. No regulations. No government.

I far prefer competition, as competition is good for the people. Oddly enough, I tend to side with the 99%, as you - or anyone else - seem completely unable to prove that bullshit like "tickle down economics" actually works. Allowing megacorporations to run roughshod over the people is never the answer. Competition - good for the people - is.

Re: Seems reasonable to me

If you want a country with no government regulation whatsoever and the pure, unbridled capitalism of an unhindered free market please go to Somalia. That is the land where greed unfettered has been deified, codified and enacted en masse.

The civilized world, on the other hand, prefers fewer monopolists, warlords, bullies and charlatans. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the you, even if the you happens to be a multi-billion dollar corporation. Net neutrality is about the freedoms of the people at large supplanting the freedoms of the plutarchy.

I fail to see a damned thing wrong with that.

Re: Hmm...

"What is in no doubt is that with no bees, we are fucked and with no means to control pests we are as fucked anyway..."

Bullshit. Without bees we are royally, completely, hopelessly, eternally fucked. Without a means to control pests our crop yields will be lower and we will be less profitable.

Do not conflate the two, they are not remotely equivalent.

Re: OY You lot, over here.

That's because the idea of cell phones harming bees is utter bollocks. There is no scientific evidence for it. There isn't even a theoretical mechanism of action! Every hypothesis I've read on the subject is facile and easily debunked.

That's a ridiculous as "cell phones give you brain cancer." And frankly, if you believe cell phones give you brain cancer you know so little about science that I demand you isolate yourself on a lonely island north of Ireland and never interact with humanity again. The ignorance of such an individual is a far greater risk to our species than non-ionising radiation emissions ever will be.

Re: Well of course they are

"Given this would you prefer that corporations were not legal people?"

Yes. Corporations can't go to jail. They only very rarely see the corporate veil pierced and see directors or executives go to jail. Corporations have a long, rich history of committing crime after crime and getting away with it, or getting hit with little more than a slap on the wrist.

When I compare that nonsense to the damage they have been able to do to the US (and frankly, Canadian) political, social and economic landscape through unchecked (and uncapped!) political donations I find that the greatest good for the greatest number is in taking the powers and privileges of personhood away from corporations as it has been demonstrated repeatedly and disastrously that they absolutely cannot use them responsibly. (And now corporations are allowed to have a religion?!? The fuck, what?)

Corporations should not be legal persons. If they break the law beyond what would be considered a minor breach of protocol/paperwork or a very minor misdemeanor (I.E. things that are understandable to have screwed up because our legal system is incomprehensibly complex) then the corporation should simply be dissolved.

Those who run and own the company are to act with honour and the best of intentions or they lose the privilege of running a corporation. Period.

As part and parcel of this, corporations lose their ability to bribe politicians and quangos outright. Any attempt to donate goods or services to a political campaign by a corporation should result in the immediate dissolution of the corporation and locking away the brass hats that run the thing for a very long time.

One vote per natural person. Period. None among us should be allowed to purchase influence with money.

Re: an example....

"corporation tax is unfit for purpose and should be replaced"

Replaced with what? Seems to me the proletariat can't afford more of a tax burden than they suffer now, and there's no way on this earth you'll a G20 country is going to raise capital gains by a meaningful amount.

Tax the proletariat, you mean. After all, it's only fair, right? Goods and services taxes are fair, no? Progressive taxation is bad. Evil! Why should we tax the rich more than the poor? That's discrimination!

Then you can get into the fallacy that the rich will pay more tax in a GST scenario. Though they rarely do. After all, the rich only eat so much, only have so many cars, only need so many clock-radios, etc. And the tax shortfall that occurs when you move to regressive taxation? Just up the rates! After all, it's fair, isn't it?

That person making $20,000 a year should be paying out a good 30% of that - at least! - in goods and services taxes. That person making $2,000,000 a year should only pay out a good 0.3% of that in goods and services taxes. It's only fair!

Businesses are where the money is concentrated. Unless you are willing to dramatically reform capital gains taxes as well as move to a proper progressive system, then saying "no business taxation" is the same as saying "tax the poor, not the rich."

Taxes need to be levied where the money is. No matter how hard you try you just can't tax the destitute enough to keep your roads and sewers and private-terminal-equipped airports running.

Re: Odd asymmetry

Two reasons:

1) The replacements for rare earths don't work as efficiently as rare earths.

2) Rare earths aren't all that rare, nor are they particularly expensive to produce, so there's no rational reason to move to a less efficient process.

Oil will run out in short order. Rare earths will go for thousands of years yet.

Re: U.S. Citizens

War is unnecessary. I do, however, advocate global abandonment of all free-trade treaties with the US and a series of economic blockades be established until they get their shit sorted. Plutocracy is no better than theocracy.

The USA is supposed to put the interests of it's citizens above that of it's plutocrats. That means things like pushing for strong economic protections, sane copyright laws and trade agreements that promote global harmony.

Trade deals like this need to enhance all party nations so that long-term relations are maintained and that the citizens can derive benefit for generations. They emphatically must not elevate the corporate interest of a small group of plutocrats above the interests of regular citizens or harmonious cooperation. That isn't good for the citizens of the USA...and the citizens are the ones who are supposed to be benefiting from all activities their elected representatives - or the appointed staffs they oversee - engage in.

The TPP does not benefit the citizens of any member nation. It benefits only the plutocrats. Why should the citizens - or governments - of any nation support it?

NDP, card carrying for 15 years...but next vote is for Trudeau. I don't care about the "dynasty" nonsense. He's the halfwit I think will do the least amount of damage.

30% of Canadians will vote Tory until the day they die. When confronted with the actual policies enacted by the Tory government, however, over half of those individuals regularly decry them.

The other 70% of Canadians are vehemently opposed to the Tory government and it's policies. Opposition to the TPP treaty is strong in and organized here...but since the Tories managed to gerrymander enough ridings to get a majority, they have carte blanche and we're screwed.

Steven Harper and his government do not represent anything close to the majority of Canadians. We are forced to obey because men with guns make us, not because the majority asked for him to lead us.

Re: Venue

The downvotes are because you are wrong. People choose East Texas because it contains a bunch of highly pro-business hicks. These people are easily bamboozled by the patent lawyers and there is an entire industry built up around understanding the local cultural moores to better appeal to them and get them to "vote" your way.

East Texas is chosen because of the "quality" of it's jury pool. Nothing more.

Re: Fiber Internet

You're funny. That would be good for the customer. ISPs don't ever do anything that might potentially benefit a customer.

Re: Fatboy Dell

"Good argument as long as you accept your initial premise which requires a company to have ethics and care about the customer instead of only the next quarter's bonuses which is becoming rarer and rarer."

...which is purportedly why Michael Dell took the company private, no? To be free of the Wall Street pressures that make this myopic "only this quarter's numbers matter" view such a necessity? I believe that the theory is "Wall Street's demands make it impossible to treat the customer properly, ultimately leading to customer exodus, thus Dell will go private in order to free itself from Wall Street's demands enabling customer acquisition and retention by not being douchenozzles."

Here's hoping they succeed, because I'd love to see Wall Street's chronic economic myopia disproven in spectacular fashion.

Re: Fatboy Dell

No, it doesn't have anything to do with upselling...at least not if it's done honestly and properly. A good example is something as simple as "power over Ethernet."

Way back in the day, I had some PoE equipment installed that fried a bunch of badly designed older hardware as soon as the cable was plugged in. This was in the early days of PoE stuff and a lot of widgetry was not constructed to be able to cope with it. I have been wary of PoE ever since.

Today, virtually all equipment you could find should coexist just fine with PoE, and modern PoE stuff should be able to detect if there's a non-PoE device on the other end and simply not send voltage. A really bad salesman came to visit one day and tried to sell me things involving PoE. It might well have been a decent solution, however, I certainly had an irrational fear of PoE given my previous negative experience. (Which was about ten years prior to said salesman's visit.)

Had the salesman had a decent sales engineer with him, they could have explained the advances in PoE equipment, worked with me to identify all devices on teh network and determine if they'd insta-fry and otherwise put the "myths" that I had accumulated surrounding the technology firmly to bed.

That is the job of the sales engineer. It isn't to sell, and certainly it isn't to upsell. (That's what Mr. Charisma is for.) The job of the sales engineer is to answer the technical questions and get to the truth of the matter.

I hate pushy salespeople as much as the next guy...but I have nothing but shitloads of respect for proper sales engineers. IT weenies are inherently conservative people: change is anathema and they need to understand and control every last element. The sales engineer is the dude that explains the minute details so that the nerd brigade has the appropriate amount of warm fuzzies and will sign off on it.

Good sales engineers are the difference between getting the right solution into an enterprise and getting a bunch of upsold shite that is unfit for purpose...or piles of unnecessary shite that doesn't meet business requirements, but are bought because the nerds want toys.

Now, if you could convince a Dell or an HP to fire Mr Charisma Closer Guy and just run the joint on SEs, that would be awesome. I can dream...

@Ledswinger HP doesn't make money off Enterprise services for two reasons

A) They skimp on the sales staff and support staff training, pay and incentives, leading to poorly trained, lower-quality people

B) They don't invest in R&D or sensible acquisitions, leading to having technology a generation and a half (or more) behind.

Dell thinks they can do well in enterprise, MSP, CSP and government services because they believe that without the pressures of Wall Street forcing them to behave in very proscribed ways they can offer superior quality and service resulting in a slow, but steady building of reputation for being "the best." Ultimately, they hope this will lead those with money to choose them over companies like HP that never will be "the best".

Will that work? Nobody knows. However, that is the great experiment currently underway.