Every hour is excessive. I burn one about once every 2. I could go longer if needed, but management is ok with current.
Smoking the cigarette takes 5. Total time depends on how far the smoker needs to travel to get to the leper colony.
Lol I've upgraded at least 20 machines to win10, all of it went flawlessly and the OS actually reaps performance benefits on older machines
Performance benefits.... like not being able to run smoothly on 2GB RAM? Or like pretending to shut down faster by turning off the monitor while the PC still chugs away? Or like pretending to start up faster by never really shutting down (sleep mode), and STILL taking longer to resume from sleep than a win7 computer takes to BOOT...?
I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now. What is really happening is that people are resisting change. The new thing is different---unfamiliar and possibly confusing. That doesn't mean it's worse, but it does mean people will react negatively.
I highly suspect you of being a microsoft employee.
No, really. This is what they believe is going on in people's heads.
YES, the windows UI has been getting worse over time. 98 was an improvement over 95, and 2K was an improvement over 98, but it's all downhill from there.
That being said, the CORE of the operating system has gotten consistently better, with caveats. Vista was more stable, but fucked gaming performance, and performance overall (my HDD light stayed on so constantly I'm surprised it didn't burn out).
Windows 7, our favorite fucking hero, was an unplanned response to Vista hate. It was basically a fixed version of Vista. Vista SP3. UI was good, but bloated, slow, and candy-coated compared to XP.
Windows 8-- more improvements to the core, which users don't see or care about.... and more dookie UI choices. And how many users got tricked into updating to 8.1 by hearing the rumor that 8.1 "fixed" the start menu...?
Windows 10: This is the Idiocracy version of Vista. Shit performance, it spies on you, and puts ads in the start menu. Installs updates whenever it wants (often when you're working).
If Google oversteps its bounds, the free market will correct it and people will go elsewhere for their searches.
No it won't, and no they won't.
Google is already widely known to be indefensibly reprehensible..... and yet we still use their products.
No we aren't. I run a dozen web sites for myself
Do you pay for a domain? Do you pay for hosting? Were those guys you paid money to huge, soul-less corporations, or neighborhood ma&pa domain registrar and hosting shoppes?
How the fuck do you run a website when you can't THINK?!
Buy domain name: $10-15 a year (depending on which registrar you use) Get a Managed VPS server: $40 a month.*
Good thing you didn't have to deal with any of those soul-less corporations to have the privilege of a web presence.
A more accurate description: Comcast is being paid by you and me to deliver the internet, including netflix. But comcast sells movies, so netflix is a competitor. So they decided to limit the traffic from netflix to their customers, so that netflix movie quality would be terribly but comcast movie quality would be good. Netflix offers free caches to solve this problem, and free peering to solve this problem, but comcast doesn't want to solve this problem, because to them it is a feature. In a free market we could move to another ISP. In my case, I could also use Verizon... who is doing the same crap as comcast. ISPs are a natural monopoly, based on the economics and physics of running cables. With net neutrality, all companies can compete based on quality. Without net neutrality, vertically-integrated ISPs have an major advantage. Now, you may like government picking winners and losers, but I'm a fan of market competition, so I choose net neutrality.
TL;DR-- Netflix wants us to care about their problem.
Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada