Well, that and Edge just plain sucks.
Well, that and Edge just plain sucks.
And thus they gain the functionality that Plantronics has had for five years.
Apple is a jewelry company. When they hired that gay guy as CEO, they lost all real technical innovation- they're followers, not leaders.
The kernel (the thing that you call Windows) hasn't been rewritten from scratch with every new OS iteration.
Nobody calls the kernel "Windows". We call the entire operating system, GUI, system tools, system frameworks, file systems, etc, plus the kernel Windows.
Windows 10 is not the same OS as Windows 7. There are subtle and unsubtle changes in the way it works, some for the better, but some for the worse. Responsiveness on critical widgets such as the Start menu has deteriorated - and the Start menu itself is a complete rewrite, sharing no code whatsoever with the Windows 7 version.
Yes, there are similarities and there's a lot of code that's unchanged or marginally changed, but that doesn't mean someone can't compare one to the other. If you couldn't, Microsoft wouldn't have released it. I mean, what would have been the point?
They didn't earn an Oscar nomination, they bought one.
Which is what EVERY production company does. They take money they already have or can attract from investors. Other people actually act, do makeup, edit, design sets
Mod parent up! This is exactly the same situation as with International House of Pancakes, who likewise will be letting go millions of waitstaff and cooks this year, instead hiring people in India and China to do the same work, at a fraction of the cost. Sure, you'll have to yell your order a little louder so they can hear you in India, and wait 7-14 days for your pancakes to be shipped to you from China, but the 2% cut in prices will be worth it.
I've given it a couple of chances. It's a substandard piece of software. It just doesn't work very well. There's a reason that despite all of MS's efforts to promote it, including fucking with people who use Chrome, it's still used by an incredibly small minority of Win10 users. That's because it's just fucking awful.
It says something about far Microsoft has fallen that not even leveraging their power over the operating system can get them any penetration with their built-in browser. I'd say they have not only lost the browser war, they're no longer in the same browser universe. Part of it has to do with the fact that Edge is truly a horrible piece of software, and part of it is that Google has basically colonized Windows with Chrome.
As much as I dislike systemd, it's hardly the same thing at all. IE and Edge are applications that should be no more or less embedded than any other application. Systemd is a system-level component/utility. The equivalent would be demanding that Microsoft take out, say, the event logging system.
The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
No, the first and primary useful number consideration is, "Now that we're 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and most new jobs are low-paying junk that barely creates any tax revenue, and we have an exploding entitlement spending problem the mere interest on the debt for which will soon displace nearly all discretionary spending
You want to address the X in Y cases of Z disease in given populations? Return to producing the sort of economic health and largess that allows us to spend that kind of money in the first place. Otherwise, it's like a bankrupt person trying to decide whether to buy a new raincoat or an umbrella so they don't get their nice to outfit wet, because, you know, priorities. A house in fiscal order can spend vastly more money on everything from pure medical research to Mars missions without crushing the very economy that underwrites such things.
The list goes on...
'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing - I'm guessing this is a perversion of the Bush and Obama administration's refusal to call IS* or Al Qaeda terrorism "Radical Islamic Terror". But neither regime has said "'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing", they've said that it's unhelpful and likely to help the terrorists' own campaign if you link the words "Islamic" and "Terrorism" because you're implying that IS*/AQ's linking of the two is legitimate, and because many, including Muslims, will take the phrasing as implying we're at war with Islam rather than at war with terrorists.
or like that we can pull out of Iraq and be free of our involvement there - Nobody has ever claimed this, ever.
or like that we can let Russia come in and take control and that won't have a bad impact on the US or our allies - Where? Syria? Because that's not what I've heard at all. Most politicians on both sides of the fence are deeply troubled by Russia's involvement in Syria. Hence the support for a no-fly zone.
or how if we just build schools, hospitals and give them jobs, everybody who would have become a terrorist will instead live a happy productive life without perpetrating any violence, - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe.
or how we should release the bad people from Gitmo because they aren't really bad people they're just misunderstood - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe. The complaint about Gitmo is two fold: one, there are a lot of innocent people there, and two: it's unconstitutional and illegal to hold people without due process (see (1) for the reason why.) Obama was making plans to move prisoners at Gitmo to the US in the early days of his administration, to US prisons, to be processed by constitutional authorities. After Congress effectively made that option impossible, he did the exact opposite of what you claim: he kept Gitmo open, rather than releasing people being held illegally there.
or going back to the Clinton administration how we don't have a problem with terrorists that requires a military solution, we have a problem that requires a criminal justice solution? - congrats, you found something that's correct, but alas, still not something the Obama administration has ever claimed. Terrorism is indeed best treated as a criminal, rather than military, problem. Turning Terrorists from murderous scum into heroic soldiers is the worst thing the Bush administration ever did, and is probably why we've seen an uptick in terror in general, not just in the creation of IS*, but also in groups not associated with Arabs or Radicalized Religious fanatics such as white supremacists.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. All of those 'alternative facts' from Democrat administrations have resulted in the direct and indirect violent deaths of many Americans and other westerners. The Republicans have their fair share, but you can't lay the blame for the problem solely one party.
None of those "Alternative facts" exists. The nearest you got to, that a twenty year old Democratic government might have had a different view of terrorists to the heroic soldiers view you subscribe to, saved lives - it was a conventional law enforcement operation that prevented the NYE attack on LAX from being better known than 9/11. And it was Bush's refusal to take seriously those policies that lead to 9/11.
And, even if any of those alternative facts did "exist", ie Democrats were actually saying them, none of them would ever cause lives to be lost.
Fossil fuels and alternative energy are rather passe. What we really need is ambient, decentralized energy solutions.
The 4chan crowd believes they're superior because they can... well, honestly I'm not sure what the 4chan crowd can do. I'd say they could probably manage a circle jerk, but then I imagine some of them would think an erection required pliers, and it would all go horribly wrong.
There are no games on this system.