Many states' ballot access rules are compatible with being done earlier in the process. This isn't hard.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't check that box because I would rather see that $3 go toward improving our infrastructure, reducing our debt, and a host of other things before I want it to go toward a political campaign. Campaigns already have too much funding as it is, why do they need more?

But it's different when campaigns only receive funding through the general budget. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund checkbox would disappear under these new rules, because it would no longer be funded by choice.

There already exist ballot access rules that regulate whether someone can get on the ballot. Only candidates who appear on a ballot would be provided with campaign funding.

(Besides, the two party system is a problem, not something to cherish.)

VB 6 was still supported, and continued to have service pack releases, for several years after VB.NET was produced.

Sure, but the amount of money required for campaigning is still non-zero. Strict campaign funding rules are needed even if the cost isn't exorbitant.

Someone who could save a few bucks by joining the "Safe Habits Driving Bonus" program.

This is a nice ideal, but money has to be spent (in some form) so long as there is a goal to educate the people about the candidates.

I'd prefer:

1) all campaign funding to be provided from the general budget, equally to all candidates
2) a centralized government website for candidates to specify their opinions, answers, and rebuttals about the major issues, such that (at least some of) the data can be printed and distributed free-of-charge to any voting citizen that requests it... again all funded from the general budget

That's fine until perhaps you get accused of a sex crime you didn't commit. You are on the record as wearing women's clothing in bed? Your case just got harder.

And of course it goes much further than that. A man wearing a skirt or dress would be ridiculed in most of areas of society, no matter how good the guy looks or how manly the skirt/dress is.

I find it interesting that men have just a few more legal rights when it comes to dress (men can show their chests in public) but our society actually gives women many more options... pretty much everything a man can wear, plus skirts, low-cut shirts, high heels, nail polish, makeup, not even to mention that there are not many public places where it would be acceptable for a man to take off his shirt anyway.

Based on the response Microsoft got when Xbox One was announced as online-only, and considering that Xbox One is a lot more likely to exist in an always-connected environment than the thousands of different types of Windows machines, it would require extreme stupidity to try the same with Windows.

I wouldn't worry much about that.

Or, keep using some pink, but stop the stereotype that it's only for girls. Most boys are fine with pink until told that it's wrong.

It would still be the only official source for updates. Windows would almost certainly not accept third-party sources by default.

Well none of what you wrote above that is a slippery slope, or relevant, because Windows 10 is not using a subscription model. This conversation is mostly hypothetical.

You have your opinion, that's fair. Mine is, I somewhat trust them because they currently need to make themselves trustworthy. This isn't the same stale Microsoft from the monopoly days that knew they had no legitimate competition... this is a fresh Microsoft with a new direction, new leadership, and a birth of openness unparalleled in their history.

If it's really your computer, then you'd know how to uninstall an update.

It depends on the subscription license model. For example, with MSDN you get perpetual use licensing where you can continue to use products after the subscription expires. You just do not receive feature updates and you no longer get support.

Slippery slope.

You know what happens? Exactly what you expect, you no longer have support or feature updates. This is no different from what happened to people who are still using XP and never purchased an upgrade.

In fact, you could say that the traditional Windows licensing model isn't terribly different from subscription, but instead of paying a small amount yearly you're paying a larger amount every 5 years or so.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what any of that has to do with synchronization with solar time (which is the point of leap seconds). You'll need to provide more info.

But this would be *gasp* a SUBSCRIPTION plan!!!

The HORROR!!

At least, that's what I believe because I'm from Slashdot and that's what they tell me to believe.