so basically just the hackers to come up with this workaround :D

aren’t perfect either

You misspelled “are fucking morons” :)

When individual copyright violations are considered “theft” by the law (and the RIAA and the MPAA), violating copyrights of billions of private people to generate profit, is absolutely stealing. While the former arguably is arguably often a measure of self defense against extortion by copyright holding for-profit enterprises.

Big red button might help, but when I’m “in the zone” with coding, normally I forget everything around me :) One moment I’ll be browsing the web on my leisure time, and then I have an idea for one of my work projects, switch to that and “wake up” 8 hours later with lots of stuff done and no idea when I “clocked in” - that’s usually when I do “ls -lR” on my project folders and check file timestamps :D

Thanks! I could have sworn it had a relation with Perry Rhodan - and sure enough the printhouse is Pabel / Rastatt, same as for Perry Rhodan - they probably shared illustrators who worked for commission across different novels :)

The problem is working on different computers & sometimes switching back and forth between private time and work time. That’d require actual button presses or something to “clock” in/out

As someone who works atrocius times of their own volition & has to create a clean timesheet every end of the month, this is a great idea -buyt there are too many special rules to consider imo - also I never properly track time (keep forgetting) but reconstruct work times from emails, chats & calendar entries :)

But they don’t have to make any OS “office-wide”. All they have to do is

1. move from a centralized micro-management of every workstation to a scenario where users can be provided a prepared workstation, but may configure one themselves
2. transition to a security policy that assumes every single workstation is insecure, and regulate the network traffic to allow only those protocols that are required for the business, protecting each machine from the next (this would prevent so many major security incidents where a single machine gets compromised and then the whole network is affected)
3. provide central infrastructure as open protocols - IMAP (or POP3/SMTP), HTTPS, FTPS + file & printer sharing as desired
4. enforce open formats within the enterprise

If necessary (assuming you have really irresponsible users), before authorizing users to set up their own machine, they can do a qualification check - or have the user’s line manager approve the “individual setup”.

This would enable power users productivity and even if you don’t change anything for the vast amount of users, it would pay off rapidly. If you can move regular workstations away from the bloatware that is Windows, you would boost the overall productivity immensely.

Specifically, what I am arguing against is:

• locking users into an eco-system for any kind of service (e.g. MS Exchange servers, MS Active Directory)
• outsourcing your IT competences to Microsoft (because let’s be real, that’s the actual reason IT departments go for Microsoft: corporate IT is outsourced as a service, this means lowest bidder, and the lowest bidder will happily take Microsoft’s offer to take care of any “real” issues and only provide a really, really dumb and helpless first level support)
• having tons of services listening on every workstation that no one ever needs (just open your windows control panel (while it’s still around) and check out all the running services, of which you could disable > 50% if Windows would let you, without impacting the operational state of your machine) and each one presenting a vulnerable interface to the network

You have zero reading comprehension. Good job wasting your time on a pointless rant.

Do I sense some inner tensions due to frustration with using Microsoft’s sorry excuse for an OS?

Well - I thought I’d mention that it could look like that - but of course it really depends on the personality / financial situation of your friends whether that might have influenced them

Is that a tip jar on the table? Even if not, just the association is enough for people to feel like they have to contribute financially for the food. While that isn’t an outrageous thought, for people who are tight on their finances, it might be an uncomfortable situation where they’d rather skip on the food than take it and not pay a share.

Gold medal of tautology. At this point, people still using windows voluntarily don’t deserve any better. And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.

which is basically what we do using ublock origin - and then they inject ads directly into the video stream, and a custom UI wouldn’t help.

While I don’t disagree with Stallman, how would that solve this problem? This is about a major video hosting platform having market shares and injecting ads into their streams / UI. I do not see - even if every line of youtube’s software sources were public - how that would solve the issue that the hosting platform can insert ads anywhere - honestly, as much as I hate ads, I can’t even blame youtube for doing something morally questionable - they are providing a service, they are not a public institution obligated to making information accessible.

Capitalism. No.

and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?

But you asked exactly that - and I gave you examples of women that “were hunting and thus using their skill” and there was no patriarchy in some of those systems - even into the present.

Also - let’s be real - most men nowadays who talk about “men hunting” are fat slobs who couldn’t hunt a chicken with a limp ;)

There are tribal people that live in matriarchy. If that answers your question. Also, the amazons are not just a myth.

I think you went off on a tangent. This is not what I was complaining about. Also, I do not have a problem with “gender stuff” - I just have a problem with a lack of objectivity.

The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female’s ability to hunt.

Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.

“It holds” - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.

I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.

The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging “all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists”.