Saturday, April 02, 2016
Friday, April 01, 2016
Windows 10 adoption by users. July is a deadline for a free "upgrade."
Where Win10 leads after July is unclear; per Ars, here, this thought:
" . . . baring some extension from Microsoft" is hedging language.
Windows 7 has been fine, as was Windows XP before it.
Microsoft is a for-profit firm, so a reasonable question is how does a "free" "upgrade" foster such an aim?
Where's the hook?
Over 270 million users have either upgraded to Windows 10 or bought a new Windows 10 PC since the operating system shipped in July of last year, a number that Microsoft says outpaces Windows 7 adoption by 145 percent. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says that the operating system is the "fastest growing version of Windows for both consumers and enterprises," and Windows and Devices group VP Terry Myerson says it has been used for more than 75 billion hours.
[...] Of course, Windows 10 adoption has also been helped along greatly by the fact that the operating system is available as a free download to all Windows 7 and Windows 8 users (in a handful of cases, it has been installed on systems whether users wanted it or not). The free upgrade is scheduled to end in July barring some extension from Microsoft, so we may see this relatively brisk adoption rate drop off after that.
" . . . baring some extension from Microsoft" is hedging language.
Windows 7 has been fine, as was Windows XP before it.
Microsoft is a for-profit firm, so a reasonable question is how does a "free" "upgrade" foster such an aim?
Where's the hook?
The All Writs Act. A distant statute that aguably allows the government whatever some judge chooses to allow.
Ars Technica reporting. With links.
This link, the statutory text, sure reads as if open season is declared on governmental abuse and overreaching.
Reader reflection on how the words "necessary or appropriate" may be limited in scope may prove informative.
Would your federal lawyers ask for it, if "inappropriate?" Would your federal judges issue an "inappropriate" writ?
A "trust me" statute if ever there was one.
This link, the statutory text, sure reads as if open season is declared on governmental abuse and overreaching.
Reader reflection on how the words "necessary or appropriate" may be limited in scope may prove informative.
Would your federal lawyers ask for it, if "inappropriate?" Would your federal judges issue an "inappropriate" writ?
A "trust me" statute if ever there was one.
One complaint leveled by Clinton supporters against Sanders is that he is less fit on issues of foreign policy. That he is not as able to understand nuance and policy balances.
This video, demonstrating that extreme sophistication and sensitivity in defining bounds and practices of foreign affairs is an absolute necessity to accompany the power, with power and responsibility being for persons that can be trusted and who have shown themselves to be the most sagacious of persons in the serious business of exercising great national powers in past conduct.
That brief video was earlier in time to something more recent: Weapon transfers? What weapon transfers? I know nothing of weapon transfers? Ask somebody else.
Yup. Bernie would have trouble spieling out the implausible deniability; a character defect for certain. Not as with self-anointed foreign affairs mavens.
UPDATE: Could Bernie understand compartmentalization? Left hand not - claiming not - knowing what the right hand is busy doing, in an admittedly hot spot? Could Bernie sufficiently compartmentalize foreign policy, CIA here, State Department there, same Libyan city, blocks apart? Could he handle a question about that kind of put-on without showing abject shame in lying?
That brief video was earlier in time to something more recent: Weapon transfers? What weapon transfers? I know nothing of weapon transfers? Ask somebody else.
Yup. Bernie would have trouble spieling out the implausible deniability; a character defect for certain. Not as with self-anointed foreign affairs mavens.
UPDATE: Could Bernie understand compartmentalization? Left hand not - claiming not - knowing what the right hand is busy doing, in an admittedly hot spot? Could Bernie sufficiently compartmentalize foreign policy, CIA here, State Department there, same Libyan city, blocks apart? Could he handle a question about that kind of put-on without showing abject shame in lying?
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Drazkowski rhymes with "hemorrhoid symptoms."
Well, not exactly a true rhyme, but in the cosmic sense of things, call it a congruence.
UPDATE: Neither MPR nor Burns at MPP give a bill link. The Draz be-a-hemorrhoid-to-unions bill this session is HF 3585, and at present no Senate parallel bill link is given. Draz might have gotten a Koch brothers audience, in return for his hearing their dog whistle. My district rep, Abigale Whelan, is up to her own mischief this session, readers can guess about what, but that is grist for its own separate post on how she differs from Jim Abeler in that Abeler is an adult, acting like one.
FURTHER: Not a short bill, not as long as the end of session sausage bills; one can say the Draz is in the details.
FURTHER: At the time/date stamp for this post, the bill was that of Draz alone; no co-sponsors having signed on. Reader help is requested: If any reader has a bill link by another author or authoring/sponsoring group; please in a comment give a link. It would astound if only Draz can hear the Koch-ALEC dog whistle. (What's the Kiffer doing these days to stay who she is?)
FURTHER: A further bit of legislative online record search: Again with no Senate cognate bill, but with one equally reprehensible co-author on this one; HF 2103 is aimed at impacting every public employee in the entire State; not merely employees of the State itself.
Isn't it a wonder how the small government contingent can surprisingly want to mandate all kinds of heavy planting of the central planning boot onto others, in what, unique circumstances?
It goes to show, one man's central planning is okay; if it's the Draz's; others', well no and case-by-case need not even be followed?
Or is this reading things wrongly?
UPDATE: Neither MPR nor Burns at MPP give a bill link. The Draz be-a-hemorrhoid-to-unions bill this session is HF 3585, and at present no Senate parallel bill link is given. Draz might have gotten a Koch brothers audience, in return for his hearing their dog whistle. My district rep, Abigale Whelan, is up to her own mischief this session, readers can guess about what, but that is grist for its own separate post on how she differs from Jim Abeler in that Abeler is an adult, acting like one.
FURTHER: Not a short bill, not as long as the end of session sausage bills; one can say the Draz is in the details.
FURTHER: At the time/date stamp for this post, the bill was that of Draz alone; no co-sponsors having signed on. Reader help is requested: If any reader has a bill link by another author or authoring/sponsoring group; please in a comment give a link. It would astound if only Draz can hear the Koch-ALEC dog whistle. (What's the Kiffer doing these days to stay who she is?)
FURTHER: A further bit of legislative online record search: Again with no Senate cognate bill, but with one equally reprehensible co-author on this one; HF 2103 is aimed at impacting every public employee in the entire State; not merely employees of the State itself.
Isn't it a wonder how the small government contingent can surprisingly want to mandate all kinds of heavy planting of the central planning boot onto others, in what, unique circumstances?
It goes to show, one man's central planning is okay; if it's the Draz's; others', well no and case-by-case need not even be followed?
Or is this reading things wrongly?
It says, "Your message has been sent." Hopefully, it has been received.
 |
| https://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=email_al |
The image and link is given in case you've any message for Al. I called attention to the new top sidebar item, in my contacting the Senator's office staff via that convenient web page. Message sent. That's been confirmed.
Message received? Perhaps readers can add a voice?
UPDATE: LeftMN, here, here and here. There is no mystery to good sense. Aside from its all too frequent absence.
FURTHER: Bluestem Prairie, here, saying something akin to let them know - more - they already are feeling something.
FURTHER: Kos here. While not pretending to have studied Nietzsche's "Of Men and Supermen," but having read Ayn Rand (really all 8177 pages of Atlas), the thought intrudes that somehow both would have difficult, troublesome thoughts for us on our DFL delegates and superdelegates, where We The People might feel a cold breeze. One smelling of Wall Street. Of cash. That old "bull market."
FURTHER: Where I'd first read of it, but not then decided to post, Salon here where I retraced steps to find the item again:
Rep. Collin Peterson told Forum News Service that his superdelegate vote will reflect the will of voters in his state who voted for Sanders 62 percent to 38 percent for Clinton.
“I’m voting my district,” Peterson said. “I’m going to vote for Bernie.”
While the founding member of Democrat’s Blue Dog Coalition, formed to promote fiscal conservatism, rarely attends the DNC, he said that if his superdelegate vote would make a difference, he would make the trip to Philadelphia to cast a vote for the Democratic Socialist despite their obvious differences on tax policy. “He’s got something going,” Peterson said of Sanders’s support with young voters. “He’s tapped into something.”
[link in original] Old Blue Dogs can learn new tricks.
We got dogs in the Senate and the Guv mansion too; in CD8, etc. (even R.T.); and each seems to require suitable conditioning.
More from that Salon item:
After Sanders won the Alaska caucuses by commanding margins over the weekend, Democratic Party vice chairman Larry Murakami officially pledged his superdelegate vote to Sanders.
“I think it’s totally appropriate if we’re over 80 percent for one of us to step forward and say, ‘yeah, I’m voting for Sanders like everyone in my district, like most of the people in my district and most of the people in Alaska,'” Murakami told Politico.
Democratic Party chairman Bert Marley echoed Murakami and the Sanders campaign, telling Politico that, “I felt like super delegates should reflect for lack of a better term the will of the people so when the results were so overwhelming in Idaho it was the natural thing to do,” and pledging his vote to Sanders, who won Idhao’s caucus. Utah Democratic Party chairman Peter Corroon also pledged his superdelegate vote to Sanders after his state picked the Vermont senator 79.3 percent to Clinton with 20.3 percent.
All superdelegates committing to Sanders in recent days come from caucus states that have overwhelming favored Sanders. This still leaves Sanders, who trails Clinton by more than 400 superdelegates, at a clear disadvantage.
[links in Salon excerpts are from the original item]
FURTHER: In haste, only noted above is the link to the latest Bluestem Prairie item giving mention to Collin Peterson's recognition of how Sanders has captured the imagination of many wanting better; with this being Sorensen's original post on topic. Please follow that link, she has other sourcing for the coverage besides the links already given here. That includes a link here, to a story of merit that has grown its own legs.
It being a slow morning, over coffee, a speculative websearch . . .
Search = ted cruz repulsive
A search that for clear reasons suggested itself.
With the search engine used, this return.
That the top return item, per whatever search algorithm was used, turned out to be a Salon item was not surprising.
Linking to that item, the sidebar was interesting with a number of silly seeming things listed.
Before getting into sidebar commentary, it seems noteworthy that the "Ted Cruz Repulsive" theme's first item dates back to Dec. 2013; with repulsiveness to some growing with prominence of popular "news" commentary as the individual seeks to convince people he should be chief executive of the federal government. Dissing Raul Castro seemed a theme of the item, but it took paragraphs to get to that; however, highlighting allowed scanning to the gist of the thing. Did not read it. It seemed stupid.
A sidebar item that was of salacious interest, " Why Ted Cruz’s sex life matters: The GOP’s toxic 'family values' charade deserves continued scrutiny - - Yes, privacy is important—but not as important as exposing hypocrisy from those whose policies harm the vulnerable". The gist there, if the National Enquirer thing has truth to it, then Cruz deserves scrutiny. Fair enough to say that, but the way it was said seemed to ring a bit artificial. As if presuming a fact not truly in evidence, a questionable allegation from a questionable source not identified that way up front, a spin of gossamer, and a late paragraph with the "if true" caveat.
Bad writing? You decide. Did the item meet its apparent purpose, and was that purpose legitimate?
Salon should do better, but all of Mainstream Media should, and compared to FOX Salon is like a gold standard.
Compared to FOX anything is better. FOX sets the dross standard that all else online proves to better.
FOX makes Salon's approach look "high road." Is that good? Are we well served or ill served by the mainstream? By potentially (possibly, likely?) Faustian contracts to one-up the opposition?
A suggestion is that Crabgrass readers take time to peruse the Salon sidebar stuff; with the further suggestion being the most compelling of the items is this one, " We must smash the Clinton machine: Democratic elites and the media sold out to Hillary this time, but change is coming - - Neoliberals, D.C. careerists and the pundits lined up this time. They won't be able to rig contests moving forward".
From my personal perspective, which is of course biased, that single item was the one I wanted to access and agree with, since the thought had already set itself in my mind. Readers might favor other items, or be repulsed by all of Salon and how it presents itself online. However, the thought that sustained itself through more than the first cup of morning coffee: How absolutely ill served the public is by those "thought leaders" in our media. They really to a large measure are a clown show. Offering a buffet of stuff, where you can gravitate to whatever online resonates with your existing biases; that seems to be the gist of web offerings in our U.S. of A. And, with Google doing user profiling to tailor return lists to user past search histories; use of that search engine over others, with profiling as done by Google by default, is arguably a wrong practice not doing for you a maximum good service. Arguably: An unhelpful thing. A bad thing for minds that already may be like a steel trap; once sprung never letting go, never to be sprung to other prey.
A search that for clear reasons suggested itself.
With the search engine used, this return.
That the top return item, per whatever search algorithm was used, turned out to be a Salon item was not surprising.
Linking to that item, the sidebar was interesting with a number of silly seeming things listed.
Before getting into sidebar commentary, it seems noteworthy that the "Ted Cruz Repulsive" theme's first item dates back to Dec. 2013; with repulsiveness to some growing with prominence of popular "news" commentary as the individual seeks to convince people he should be chief executive of the federal government. Dissing Raul Castro seemed a theme of the item, but it took paragraphs to get to that; however, highlighting allowed scanning to the gist of the thing. Did not read it. It seemed stupid.
A sidebar item that was of salacious interest, " Why Ted Cruz’s sex life matters: The GOP’s toxic 'family values' charade deserves continued scrutiny - - Yes, privacy is important—but not as important as exposing hypocrisy from those whose policies harm the vulnerable". The gist there, if the National Enquirer thing has truth to it, then Cruz deserves scrutiny. Fair enough to say that, but the way it was said seemed to ring a bit artificial. As if presuming a fact not truly in evidence, a questionable allegation from a questionable source not identified that way up front, a spin of gossamer, and a late paragraph with the "if true" caveat.
Bad writing? You decide. Did the item meet its apparent purpose, and was that purpose legitimate?
Salon should do better, but all of Mainstream Media should, and compared to FOX Salon is like a gold standard.
Compared to FOX anything is better. FOX sets the dross standard that all else online proves to better.
FOX makes Salon's approach look "high road." Is that good? Are we well served or ill served by the mainstream? By potentially (possibly, likely?) Faustian contracts to one-up the opposition?
A suggestion is that Crabgrass readers take time to peruse the Salon sidebar stuff; with the further suggestion being the most compelling of the items is this one, " We must smash the Clinton machine: Democratic elites and the media sold out to Hillary this time, but change is coming - - Neoliberals, D.C. careerists and the pundits lined up this time. They won't be able to rig contests moving forward".
From my personal perspective, which is of course biased, that single item was the one I wanted to access and agree with, since the thought had already set itself in my mind. Readers might favor other items, or be repulsed by all of Salon and how it presents itself online. However, the thought that sustained itself through more than the first cup of morning coffee: How absolutely ill served the public is by those "thought leaders" in our media. They really to a large measure are a clown show. Offering a buffet of stuff, where you can gravitate to whatever online resonates with your existing biases; that seems to be the gist of web offerings in our U.S. of A. And, with Google doing user profiling to tailor return lists to user past search histories; use of that search engine over others, with profiling as done by Google by default, is arguably a wrong practice not doing for you a maximum good service. Arguably: An unhelpful thing. A bad thing for minds that already may be like a steel trap; once sprung never letting go, never to be sprung to other prey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)