Nice way to hint that you are definitely being sarcastic, because cmd+something+3 surely and clearly is no way intuitive, contrary to the use of dedicated Print Screen key on Windows.
Just to point for the unfamiliar, the "hotkey" defaults for screen shotting are user configurable on macOS, in System Preferences/Keyboard/Shortcuts. In fact, shortcuts can be changed not only for all actions, but also menu items in any/all programs can be remapped to desired key combos, or indeed added for menu items with default hotkeys. This is actually staggeringly powerful, and frequently overlooked.
Many professors in our department have a MBP, and their LaTeX presentations look bad, just because macOS is bad. I notice it every single time, and sometimes (without me even saying, I just tolerate it, don't make a sound) they themselves do, too, asking themselves whether they've grown that so old or something.
I only have the leftovers of my girlfriend, 2015 MBA, as a macOS device. The PDFs look like crap on Preview and many other ".app"s I have tried. SumatraPDF running on Wine works properly though. Yeah, I'd say Preview simply does not work properly at this point. Shame, but also fun to watch from the Windows's side.
I am clearly blaming Gmail for discontinuing IMAP support, which seems to me clearly as a foul practice of abusing dominance over the market via introduction of non-standard ways, while also halting support for the standards. They would perish if they were to do this as a small company, and make benefit out of it by "pushing" their products as a bundle, just because a sizeable amount of people are dependent on their services.
I have things still happily using IMAP, in fact gmail on my iPhone is still showing IMAP-like folders, further more the gmail help still shows the IMAP configuration procedure[1].
I've got another thing to become suspicious about, which again involves VPN.
I live in Turkey, I use VPN (on AWS at Ohio) not to circumvent anything else than the imposed restrictions of my own country, and not some other countries' or companies'. Along with countless others, Wikipedia and Imgur are some well-known websites that are made unaccessible from Turkey. With Windows 10's VPN client, you don't even recognize that you are on VPN. The overhead is so low (relative to the basic internet speeds), that I don't even notice that VPN is on most of the time. I usually open it when I want to visit some Wikipedia page, and turn it back off after recognizing delay/lag on the games I'm playing online. Not even videos load recognizably slower, not on my VPN on AWS at least.
I wanted to give both the anime and the Microsoft Store's video section a try, and did nothing more than just opening the Microsoft Store, finding the content, getting it for free and watching the first episode. My guess is that this might have been the problem.
If this really is the case, then I could not possibly know I was fooling Microsoft Store:
- I did not and still do not know if the content was not available, free or paid, from Turkey. There were no indications of the content being unavailable to Turkey on the Store page.
- Microsoft Store did not ask me if I am from Ohio, I never said I was from Ohio. I regularly use VPN for personal reasons, unrelated to this matter. I did not use VPN to make Microsoft Store think that I am from Ohio. Microsoft Store itself may have falsely assumed that I am from Ohio, and granted me the right to watch a content for free. It is Microsoft Store's fault for immediately assuming my location from the way I connect to the Internet.
If my guesses are true, then Microsoft's Microsoft Store is the culprit for being overly presumptuous about my location, not asking me for approval, hence not putting me responsible, and giving me free access to some content as a result. I may not be put responsible for Microsoft's presumptions that I haven't approved.
> I wanted to give both the anime and the Microsoft Store's video section a try, and did nothing more than just opening the Microsoft Store, finding the content, getting it for free and watching the first episode. My guess is that this might have been the problem.
I agree. It's very likely that, by using a US VPN, you circumvented geo-restriction in the Microsoft Store. You could test that by creating another Microsoft account, under a fake name, using a commercial VPN service with a non-US exit. Then try to get the Dragon Ball Z episode from Microsoft Store. If you need help, feel free to email me.
It is my personal over-10-years-old account. I merely bought a university package that is for sale on Microsoft, using this account after getting registered to my university.
I would still see if I could get the university involved. A request from a university will get more attention than from an individual, since a) Microsoft wants to be responsive to education b) they are selling anywhere from several hundred to several thousand of licenses (depending on your university's size).
No, I have graduated by the end of last Spring semester. I purchased the product while I still was a student last year. I will become Master's student once again in within two months.
I did not use my account for any commercial purposes, and I don't have much to say for the rest, read them like "you are a poor customer, who won't be able to afford, and should not afford a lawyer to recover your $100-300 loss, for your own interest". Sad that this is reality, or someone perpetuates this fact in such an acceptant manner.
I don't endorse this behaviour at all I'm merely stating the facts (probably as outlined in the contract you've entered with Microsoft). If you feel you've been wronged you should certainly hire a lawyer. At the very least then you'll know what it is they think you did.
Another option would be talking to a consumer organization (not sure if this is applicable because a university licence might not qualify as a consumer licence).
Other than that: Caveat emptor. I know this sounds trite and doesn't really help in your current situation but when you entered that contract you very likely agreed to the terms Microsoft now uses against you.
> Other than that: Caveat emptor. I know this sounds trite and doesn't really help in your current situation but when you entered that contract you very likely agreed to the terms Microsoft now uses against you.
Yes of course, he should have simply not used e-mail.
But for some unusual but binding decisions applying the Fed Arbitration Act against consumers, situations where it's not cost effective to sue as an individual can be cost effective with private attorneys general, i.e., a class action attorney. Lacking that your only recourse may be your state equivalent to my state's division of Agriculture and Consumer Services or the FTC, neither likely to be effective or satisfying.
This account had been my oldest digital property, which I had been using for probably over 10 years now. I haven't been using it any differently than before, so now I am left absolutely clueless with a sizeable digital property of mine being lost. I could have kept a copy of everything and not got all-in to the OneDrive with the On-Demand feature, but I don't know what I could have done to not lose 3.5 out of 4 years of pre-paid (required) Office 365 University service, because Microsoft simply does not tell.
Email the office of Attorney General of your state with a grievance - you paid for it, it was yanked from you, no one is picking up the phone. This is what AG is for - protecting consumers from all kinds of snatch-and-run, big and small.
Now you might think the AG won't have time for you, but the AG is not sitting there reading the incoming email and deciding to act. The AG clerk on duty will check that basic facts and dates are present in your email (make sure to include them), and ask the BigCo for their side of the story; all that before anyone even looks at the merit of the case. The BigCo will now face a choice - continue corresponding with the office of AG (which is billable lawyer time plus a drain on management brainpower), or shut you up by giving you back your stuff (which is free).
Sending/receiving emails from it on Hotmail. As a cloud storage to my files on OneDrive. To prepare documents, tables, presentations on Office. To listen to music when there was Groove. Logging into my two Windows 10 computers. To purchase/download software to my convenience on the Store. While signing in to other websites, either using my email, or via Microsoft sign-in.
Yes. I refuse to go to Windows 10 because of that sort of thing, but some day, Windows 7 will no longer be usable. Running my Android phone without a Google account keeps getting tougher with each update. The jaws are closing.
Of course, Linux has a different set of problems. I just spent most of a day getting audio to work again on Linux after accidentally turning on HDMI audio. This is the 16-step procedure for fixing "no sound" problems in Ubuntu Linux.[1] It's a cut and paste of ten years of hacks for fixing sound problems.
(I took a stab at writing a sane audio troubleshooting procedure.[2] It doesn't have to be that awful.)
There are other distros out there, I'd take Debian or OpenSuse over Ubuntu any day. Switching audio outputs from HDMI to analog and vice versa isn't a nightmare in normal Gnome (its usually 2 clicks), but it looks like Ubuntu has heavily modified Gnome to match their theme, and perhaps their modified Settings panel didn't bother to include that.
I didn't get to that stage, for now at least. I am still thinking of just starting a new Microsoft account, which unfortunately will not be my namesurname@hotmail.com this time, that was priceless.
Another $80 is still less than many other cloud providers for 4 years, and going down the Linux road is way too rocky for my preferences, though, may change.
The important difference here is that this platform claims to be an encyclopedia, and any random vandal may not simply make an edit on an article of the conventional encyclopedia.
It would only be natural for us to take this resource as not-so-reliable, for that it is as easy a man to spit on the floor to infiltrate Wikipedia with false information. Yet, we usually don't. We usually just go ahead and trust what we see on Wikipedia, and maybe that's because it looks so convincing and reliable.
If Wikipedia cannot handle vandalism, maybe it should then warn it's users to realize that there is some higher chance than they might expect that the article they are about to read might have been compromised in terms of correctness, or has never been correct to begin with. Instead of displaying full-page banners, perhaps they should spare a couple of lines to such disclaimer statistics.
... which pretty much catches nobody's attention unfortunately. If Wikipedia does have the goodwill, then something has to be made to bring the average user's perception of trustworthiness down to the level of how much trustworthy they really are, and maybe even less. In the context of trust, false positives are worse than false negatives, since an individual may simply build up trust by referring to other resources and relieve their scepticism.
I'd say Wikipedia is really to blame for creating this false sense of trust on their platform. Not that they are completely unreliable, but they are less so than they seem to an average user.
You are manufacturing an absurd allegation. Wikipedia put the wikiness of their model right in the name. If an "average user" doesn't bother to research their resources [0] or understand modern language then the problem lies somewhere in our educational system, not in the number of disclaimers on internet websites. It takes a special kind of curious person to want to find information on a subject but not wonder where it came from.
> It would only be natural for us to take this resource as not-so-reliable
But that is not what the author of the comment did. They regularly messed it up, and then complained that other people didn't clean it up fast enough. It's like throwing out trash every day out of the window, and then feel offended that there's lots of trash on the street. Of course it is, you made it! Stop doing it, and there would be less trash out. Start cleaning up, and there would be even less.
I'm ok if the person just has complaints, but if he has complaints about the thing he himself actively tried to break - no, you should not feel entitled to complain about that.
It is fascinating that some people talk about global topics like climate, evnvironment, etc. and then can't even resist messing up things that is under their nose, given to them completely free and extremely easy no to mess up - just use it as a normal person and enjoy! But no, he needs to vandalize it and then complain it wasn't cleaned up quickly!
You are complaining about basically some graffiti and likening that to environmental polution and the cause for bigger polution happening and not being cleaned up. Is that right?
No, I do not. You completely missed my point. My point is that people worry about global things, but not only do not contribute to more local - but no less important - things, but actually mess them up. Maybe if they did care more about local things, it would also be easier to make progress on more global things.
I didn't miss your point by much, I just didn't mention it because I didn't know how to express any better that a lack of respect is often symptomatic for a lack of insight; because in this case, a juvenile gray hat hacker spirit was at work to gain insight, even if approaching from the wrong end because of some bias. And I don't see any assumption of that bias in your post either. I suppose it's the assumption that they can't do no harm and are being hilarious. I don't see how it's not. I'd argue the harm was local, but the fun was global, to put it in your terms. You seem to think the opposite.
I would argue that anyone who takes wikipedia at face value and trusts everything they read there without further verification, research, or compatible pre-existing knowledge is not a very discerning individual. Wikipedia is not being coy about their identity, I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's edited by strangers on the internet. If you want an encyclopedic source you know you can trust then buy an encyclopedia.
> I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's edited by strangers on the internet
I can assure you that there are at least some who are unaware that even they can edit a Wikipedia article. My housemate (a computer engineering student) didn't. My girlfriend seeking her doctorate degree didn't. My 2 roommates who managed to get to the first 100 at our national examination, also didn't.
Who did they think wrote Wikipedia? I'm not sure that much concern should be taken for people who don't care at all about the sources of the things that they reference; not that it's not bad that they'll be confused by bad information, just that if people aren't concerned at all about sources, they're going to be confused by a lot of things, not just Wikipedia vandals.
Printing something in a book doesn't make it true, and putting it on a website also doesn't make it true, no matter how professional and authoritative-looking the css is. You trust something because you trust the motivations and expertise of its sources.
Can confirm, many do not know. Even more people never actually think about it and certainly do not think about it in a way that they may be part of the project and take part of the responsibility on themselves too. It is a pity, since there are many communities with awesome self-organizing cultures that achieve great things, and free open knowledge is one of those things that most of people, otherwise of different opinions and persuasions, can agree on.
You can see the "File usage on other wikis" section to see Wikipedia pages in which any commons file is being used. I see a list of couple pages for the particular resource linked there, and verified that the resource exists in those pages.
Nice way to hint that you are definitely being sarcastic, because cmd+something+3 surely and clearly is no way intuitive, contrary to the use of dedicated Print Screen key on Windows.