Yes, that was part of what I had in mind.

However, there appears to be a more general problem (and a more deliberate strategy) with Apple than any one device or platform. In theory, there are still updates available for my iPad (an early Retina model) but in practice they are widely reported to perform so poorly that we daren't "upgrade". However, that means we are locked out of various apps or upgrades, because Apple forces app developers to target its more recent versions of iOS only. Need a new app? No problem, upgrade your iOS. New iOS makes your device so slow it's barely usable? No problem, just buy a new device. Want to just use what worked fine before on a device you only bought a few years ago, and run apps that developers would be happy to write for it? Sucks to be you.

With the direction Microsoft has been pushing in for a few years now, with what-was-Metro and RT and it looks like now with some of the Windows 10 integration as well, I'm very wary of being forced down the same artificial-obsolescence path. And at least with Apple you can ignore the prompt to update your system and keep using what you had before. The fact that Microsoft are disabling that ability for Windows 10 Home makes me extremely sceptical about their motivations.

you've cut your costs 50%. So you'll be working 50% less. So you're commuting less.

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

They knew what they were saying. The fact that they had some distastful things in their past, doesn't negate what they set up.

Oh, and the one guy that was perfect, you won't follow either, so unless you are without sin, stop throwing stones.

BTW, Liberals kill babies by the millions, which is much worse that owning a slave IMHO. So can I toss out everything Democrats have supported over the last 40 years?

There is no definition. The court rule that defining marriage is a violation of 14th Amendment. Guess what, polygamists and incestuous marriages are also now legal.

"We hold these truths to be self evident" ...

The responder to my initial post was simply tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Freedom, Liberty are being eroded for group politics; this is evil as the group always has more power than an individual.

Good luck convincing me that groups have more rights than individuals.

Let me know when you accept all versions of "marriage" how anyone defines it, in all 50 states (see plural marriages) We already define marriage and redefining it simply suggests that it isn't really a right.

Gay marriage isn't about sex, or living with someone, kids or anything else they make it out to be, instead it is all about government sanction benefits. I would like to marry my daughter (not for sex, or living with her) so that I can have the same benefits granted to gay people. Until then, you aren't for "marriage equality" you're for redefining marriage as long as it suits your particular version. My version doesn't count.

Very Unstable Herbs!

All true 6 months before release.
3 weeks before release it should be a lot closer to finalized.

They should be fixing bugs and writing documentation for what's going to be in the final release by now, not still deciding what features it should have.

I was commenting specifically on having it operated by teenagers. Do try to keep up.

Driver inexperience + pressure of a random stranger + parts of town they don't know == bad idea.

It has nothing to do with knowing the location of the destination address or the best route there. It has everything to do with not knowing the roads. Not being an expert at merging, not being expert at parallel parking, not being expert at sizing up complex, unfamiliar intersections.

Saying, "no problem they have a GPS" is like saying we should let teenagers fly passenger jets because they have autopilots.

Nice rhetoric. Studies show cab drivers are less crash prone than regular drivers per hour behind the wheel. Teenagers (new drivers) are significantly more crash prone than the average.

Two 'vetted individuals' that have never met before are still strangers.

Because, if we talk about why a woman has three kids of unknown paternity at all, it reflects badly on her life choices and since that is her choice, we as a society must accept it. Anything else is "hate".

As in, this fictitious woman, I must hate her for even mentioning she might exist somewhere, as you have already implied in your post ... " my convenient self-serving narrative is not instantly and universally accepted as true and relevant"

The fact is, there is such a person, somewhere out there. The fact that you can't figure out hyperbole mixed in with my point, is proof that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. Your response is one of pure emotion. (I rest my case)

And there is probably more than one, since similar people are trotted out by the "Living Wage" proponents all the time. So, if it isn't true, then the "living wage" people are lying about it being "normal" and we don't need a "living wage" to help support this non-real person.

The lie is either we accept anecdotal evidence or we don't. Pick one. If it is acceptable for proponent of the cause you support ("living wage") then it is equally acceptable to use that as a case against it.

Please don't try to convince me that the proponents don't use such people in their propaganda.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

FYI, I realize that I violated my own rules on talking to supporters of "Living Wage" because they are simpletons. In simple terms, for my point to be valid, there must exist more than zero people that fit this description, and for your point to be valid there has to be none. Having watched any number of day time talk shows "Who's your baby's daddy?" I am confident that there exists at least one that resembles ...

https://www.google.com/search?...

You seem to be assuming that this is a trade between sitting all the time or standing all the time. Not so. The "ideal" situation is an adjustable desk that will let you sit or stand. You then do each part of the day.

There is definite evidence that switching up your working position has real benefits. You don't have to -- probably should not -- do all of one or all of the other.

This. Mod up.

I don't understand why so many people don't get this. I think many do, but pretend not to for ideological reasons, or are simply afraid of their own shadows, or are power-mongers. Or some combination of the three.

The USSR was a prime example: disagree with somebody in power? Suddenly you're in a "mental health" hospital, being sedated or worse.

Switching positions throughout the day is awesome - for physical and mental health. ... And for the eyes and arms/wrists (RSI) aswell.
Highly recommended. I once worked in an office where everyone had a desk they could electrically lift to standing height. Very cool for quick discussions or standing conding sessions. ... You can do standing excersises and Kung Fu moves at the same time. ... Work on your "Crane Technique" (TM) :-)

Microsoft has been pushing for renewable revenue streams. Switching to subscription is going to kill Windows, regardless of whether or not Windows is subscription. If you look at the moves MS is doing lately, they seem to be offering up a lot of trial balloons for all sorts of various Subscription models. They have decided against Windows (for now) but having paid attention for a long time, I know that is temporary.

My meaning was, it doesn't matter what is actually "subscription", but it is going to kill Windows. And it will likely kill off Office as well.

Having both Office 365 and Google's Docs at work, I can tell you most people prefer Google Docs for just about everything. It is really that much of a better ONLINE experience.