There really is a lot more there, and 10 adds that much more.

But you've got to admit its pretty cool to have it bundled with the OS. Its way ahead of virtual PC; and works well with Microsoft Hyper V server. (with or without "Windows Server").

Making it an officially support part of the OS means that
- a lot more people will actually use them
- you can sit down at any computer and they'll be available
- applications developers will actually support them properly because when push comes to shove its fine for your program to not be compatible with some obscure 3rd party power-user shell extension that some random user is saying conflicts with your application - like dialog boxes showing up on the wrong one or some other annoyance. But not working with a core feature of the OS? You'll actually fix it.

As for what else 10 has... DirectX 12. Resizeable (horizontally) command windows; builtin antivirus that is adequate for me, better multi-monitor support, the aforementioend multile desktops, the netflix app... for some people (not me) the xbox app stuff might be pretty compelling too.

I'm not sure I'd pay to upgrade from 7 or 8.1 to 10, but a free upgrade from 7 or 8.1; it makes decent sense.

Or on a new system with a bundled OS, sure I'll take it.

I'm certainly not planning to dig my heels in to stay with 7. And I'm really not sure why you claim you will... at worst you've said there's nothing in you 'must have' .. and ok... I accept that. But you haven't said what it has that you 'must avoid' either. And given it'll be free, and it's at least a slight upgrade, why not?

And then your post stopped at 7. I take it you weren't in favor of 8 or 8.1 ?

Because honestly 8 was one step forward two steps back. There is some compelling in 8. Client Hyper-V, the new task manager, better multi-monitor support, etc. But it was hobbled with some truly unfortunate defaults.

8.1 is a step forward from 8. Or sideways from 7.

And 10 is step forward from 8.1 or 7. Some time in small ways (command prompt now supports Ctr-V hotkey) and in some large ways ... multiple desktop support (yes its something linux has had for a long time but its still new for windows).

And if nothing else windows 10 will receive support and security updates long after Windows 7 is completely EOL. So even if its "nothing more" than windows 7 its still worth getting... at least eventually.

I've little interest in watching video interviews myself; can't skip around in it, can't easily review it, can't copy and paste from it to reply in a comment, etc, and worst of all I'm stuck listening to it as fast as you recorded it which is glacial compared to reading a transcript. etc.

Frankly I'm truly stunned how many people on the web want video. Youtube videos exist for how to set a browser preference. Who needs a 3 minute video, complete with introduction, just to watch someone narrate while they use their mouse to navigate to a menu item. If I could block those from my search results I would do so in a heartbeat.

The upshot is the transcripts here are much appreciated.

If another language has something useful, English lures it into a back alley and takes it. The idea that English doesn't have a word for something only ever lasts until enough people notice. Then english "suddenly" does have a word for it -- . It might look a little roughed up, and have a foreign sounding spelling but it gets the job done.

What's wrong with the english word "shadenfreude"? ;)

http://dictionary.reference.co...

See the sibling response to your post. I think I win. ;)

I was actually going for the "this should be all but self evident to anybody" with that particular line. And the poster above you STILL managed to mis-characterize what I said.

Um... Cortana is a cheap stripper?

Of the 3 personal assistants -- Apple has the cheap stripper name with Siri. Siri is a Scandinavian girls name.

Even virii are valuable, as we learn a lot from them. And yes, total eradication, while it makes for some short term happiness may ultimately lead to a long term problem. In the case of a harmful virus; I have no objection to active infections being purged, especially when the virus is disfiguring, painful, or lethal - I consistently put the welfare of humanity out front.

However we should probably keep some around in jars or whatever for study. Good to have samples of a "contained" virus to help us compare to new wild strain in the future; to help research new treatments.

Nope. That's just you projecting what you think my argument is.

No. The total loss of a species to study and learn from is a loss. That's not neutral. Its not like one species is dying to be replaced by another; right now were are experiencing decreasing bio-diversity.

My entire argument is centered on what is to the ultimate benefit of humanity. And another respondent even (rightfully) called my position "anthropocentric". I'm not sure what to make of your comment; except to say: "swing and a miss".

I can't tell if your suggesting that's good or bad. I think its good.

That's not anthropocentric. That's personal / self-interested / ego-centric.

That's a strange way of looking at it. They are seeking to learn and recover that which is -lost-. I can't see how not finding that which is lost is somehow doing us any good.

Granted the longer we wait to find that which is lost the better our technology for preserving it is but that is offset by
- a how long do we wait? clearly if we wait forever we never benefit from finding it; and anything else is entirely arbitrary. Searching

- some of what is lost is often slowly and sometimes quickly deteriorating. waiting for the future to find it may not leave us anything to find.

Probably not. Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.

And yes, obviously prior extinctions leading to the evolution of humanity were not bad for humanity.

On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.

Other species co-existent with humanity now going extinct, in the sense that it represents a reduction in biodiversity to draw on and study is also bad for humanity.

Right, it is not good or bad relative to the universe; its not "objectively" bad. Its not immoral. But it is still unversally bad from the subjective perspective of the species going extinct, or the species relying on it.

That, in this case, would be us. Granted we aren't dependent on the galapagos iguana the way we are dependent on chickens or corn, but we are dependent on the existing bio-diversity of earth to advance a wide variety of sciences, and the loss of that diversity is a loss to humanity. Particularly the Galapagos. Both due to its scientific value as a long isolated ecosystem; and culturally for its historic significance.

Is that a "for real" reason not to preserve a species, or are you just trolling? In a world where we use oil to make plastic McDonald's happy meal toys in china, and then more oil to ship to the united states, then more oil shipping them to a landfill after kids played with them for exactly 5 minutes once, the argument against using fossile fuels cost of preserving Galapagos species falls pretty flat.

Not moving them, and having them go extinct would have the same effect.

Have we identified anything else that is being threatened by the volcano ?
When did the next to last colony of pink iguana disappear ?
How is it determined if/when the iguana need to be moved ?
Do we understand enough about them to move them ?
How much support are we going to provide them if moved ?

I am not a biologist. Never mind a specialist in the Galapagos. Ask them.
But if a volcano is looking likely to wipe them out, and moving a number to a zoo to try and preserve them seems well worth it to me.

Can not have WHAT both ways?

I'd argue the Galapagos species are priceless. But I would also agree, that even priceless doesn't mean they have infinite value. There must be a reasonable limit on what we'd spend to save them ... but surely we agree its well above 0.

"seems sad"? Did you even read what I wrote? I gave two separate and specific contexts where extinction is a clear loss to humanity: scientific loss in all cases, and cultural loss in more limited cases. Both go well beyond "seems sad".

Along with climate changes, desertification, habitat destruction, food chain collapse,...

Nobody is arguing that point. A meter striking a major city would be totally natural too. "Natural" is hardly a reason to simply let it happen if we see it coming.

It's still a scientific loss. And its a valuable species; all the Galapagos are particularly valuable to science due to their extended isolation and resultant independent evolution.

The question I'm asking is not whether its natural or not, its whether its better or not in the long run for us not to have access to this species to study?

Its hard to make the argument that we gain any advantage from it being extinct.

We have actual scientists who have an actual scientific basis for being concerned about this species status... but you, without any grounds, studies, or special knowledge of the situation, suspect it will be just fine. So ... lets go with that instead. /facepalm

Yes. And?

Can't have what both ways? The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad. Yes, even when its entirely due to natural causes its still in our bests interests to preserve it. Biodiversity is objectively valuable; because we can learn from it.

Letting a species go extinct is like shredding the last copy of a book. The more interesting and unique the species the greater the loss to science.

Finally, and perhaps tangentially, its also rational to put higher value on the larger / famous species -- the extinction of some obscure spider or toad is perhaps just as much a loss as the extinction of tigers scientifically. But tigers are culturally significant in addition to being scientifically significant. So the extra awareness and priority to them is warranted.