Ask me how I know...
With all due respect, I'd rather you kept that to yourself.
Ask me how I know...
With all due respect, I'd rather you kept that to yourself.
I'm sure there are always going to be people who can rip someone off so they will, but I suspect that won't change much either way. I also suspect you're right about these people not caring that much about the quality anyway.
However, for those who pirate because they want to watch a movie and simply haven't been given an attractive legal option for doing so, this new idea sounds like it could be worthwhile.
I sympathise with your problems with sound quality. My hearing is still, thankfully, pretty good, but it drives me crazy that particularly the big movie studios keep releasing movies on disc that have an audio mix designed for a full theatre. Play that same mix through a private system that isn't a full home cinema with 7.1 surround sound speakers and all that jazz, and often you'll get a movie where the action scenes are deafening yet the dialog is barely audible. It's an amazingly obvious problem once you've become aware of it, and some discs do provide alternatives that are more suitable for a typical twin-speaker or 2.1 home setup, but far from all of them.
I just realized they they are trying to make up revenue from the loss of at least 3 movie tickets (i.e. 2 adults and a child).
My wife and I often enjoy different types of movie, so when we do go to a cinema, it is often with friends who enjoy the same types of movie that each of us does. But mostly we don't go to the cinema at all, because the experience at many of them is so much worse than home viewing (and don't even start on any showing involving kids). That revenue for "at least 3 movie tickets" was never there.
I could imagine that early access at a reasonable price might cut piracy significantly for big name movies, and I could see myself watching several movies a year that way if the deal was sensible. However, the equivalent of $50 for a one-time home viewing is off-the-charts crazy for me. I've always somehow managed to contain my excitement and wait a year or so to watch blockbusters on disc or streaming service or TV before. I'm pretty sure I can do the same in the future if any new early access offer comes with the traditional screwing-you-out-of-your-money feeling of going to a cinema.
WHY did Intel need AMD? Really!!!! WHY???
performance was shown to be abdominal.
Well, at least performance wasn't thoracic.
That may be true, but we have not yet discovered how to make a system that is truly, 100%, absolutely guaranteed secure. That means real world security is all about risk management: what risks can we identify, and what can we do to mitigate them?
Unless you are capable of building literally everything you need, from the most basic hardware components or the first line of code on up, at some point you will come to a decision between trusting some partner organisation and its staff to do what they say and looking elsewhere. And if you really need something big and you can't build it yourself, there are probably only so many potential partners to work with before you run out of options.
So, maybe no amount of assurances from Microsoft would reassure you, but if you're in charge of a hypothetical multi-year, multi-billion dollar R&D programme and you need a desktop OS to run your software on, who would you allow to reassure you? Apple? The Debian security team? A few hundred specialist developers you just hired to build you something from scratch on top of FreeBSD?
The real world doesn't work like that. Having independently audited the source code from a big provider, there isn't much difference between having your own background-checked people building it and having actionable assurances from senior executives at your supplier that their technicians with the same relevant background checks and security clearances have built it properly. At some point, there is always a level of trust in the individuals involved and a level of oversight in how the product is made and deployed, regardless of whose name appears on the payslip of those people.
I'd guess they'd get told telemetry was optional but would be necessary for certain support functions/p>
I'm fairly sure that if you'd told them that, all of the banks I'm thinking of would have required either the ability to permanently disable all such telemetry code before going into service or, in some cases, a custom build of any relevant software with all such telemetry code removed.
or turn some automated functions (like software updates) into manual, downtime-required functions.
No-one in the environments I was dealing with would have been installing any sort of automated updates anyway. We're talking about the kind of place where taking anything out of service, other than special emergency procedures in some cases, typically requires a sign-off process that could last for weeks. Usually that would include significant amounts of lab evaluation before being put into production for literally any hardware or software change. It was also normal to require sufficient assurances to satisfy them that for large-scale deployments, what was later delivered in volume would be absolutely identical to what they had evaluated under lab conditions.
Obviously this is at the opposite end of the spectrum to "Just install it, I don't care". I'm just pointing out that in organisations with serious security or reliability concerns, this kind of thing does happen. I've encountered a similar abundance of caution in plenty of back office environments as well, say places like communications providers or the infrastructure used by big online retailers, but banks seemed like a good example here because they do also have large numbers of regular PCs accessible from front-office locations and running regular desktop OSes.
I think we're talking about different things here.
I'm talking about buying a new PC from a major vendor that comes with Windows 10 pre-installed but lets the customer replace that (legally) with Windows 7 or 8.1 post-sale. This is still allowed if the vendor offers it, but they aren't allowed to supply new machines with 7 or 8.1 preinstalled any more, only 10. I can't immediately find a reference, but I've seen reports that similar moves by Microsoft will prevent even selling new machines with those downgrade rights in a year or so.
I suspect you're talking about more general provisions under enterprise licensing agreements or some sort of developer programme. There are other schemes that Microsoft runs that let people do all kinds of things, but they aren't necessarily available to someone who just went to dell.com and bought a new XPS laptop.
OK, that might be possible in some cases. But given the huge amount of potentially relevant information about compatibility and dependencies for an update to a system deployed as widely as Windows, that could be a mighty big database you're talking about downloading there.
Yep, for now there are still options to buy new PCs and run older versions of Windows (legally), though only if you're willing to jump through a few hoops at this point. There will be more serious questions when that possibility is also removed, which isn't far away now in business planning terms.
In the serious editions of Win10 used by larger organisations, telemetry mostly is a non-issue. They don't have the same compulsory phone-home behaviour as the Pro/Home editions used by small businesses and home users do.
Well, if you want Microsoft to automatically determine which update(s) are relevant for your system, obviously you're going to have to share some level of information about what you have installed already. If that counts as telemetry, then yes, of course the update tools won't be able to work properly if you disable it. I'm not sure how relevant this is for Enterprise users, though, since the odds of individual users managing the updates on their own systems in an environment running Enterprise must be pretty low to start with.
However, that kind of telemetry is a far cry from functions like search boxes or Cortana automatically and silently sending details of what you're doing back to the mothership even though everything else involved is local to your system. This is the kind of privacy problem that most people objecting to the increased telemetry in recent Windows versions are concerned about.
egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space. -- unix manuals