Windows devotees

[12:23:04] <Aoyagi_trashtop> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/19/microsofts_walled_garden_is_no_pleasure_park_for_consumers_says_pirate_party_mep/
[12:27:06] <mota> Aoyagi_trashtop: do you have a point to make?
[12:27:36] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Nope, just sharing MS news.
[12:28:14] <mota> yes, from the unbiased source that also brings us articles titled "Don't want Windows 10 FILTH on the company network? Step this way"
[12:29:45] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Yes, it's one the the least biased sources I know of.
[12:30:10] <mota> Alrighty then. Moo-ving on ..
[12:32:50] <Aoyagi_trashtop> You know, if you weren't so easily offended with every single potential critique of MS products, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself by saying they're biased because of that title. Have you even looked what it is about?
[12:33:15] <mota> I have. And the title is still incredibly biased.
[12:33:24] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Right.
[12:33:54] <mota> But that's the Register for you. I could link worse from them.
[12:34:36] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Yes. Cherry-picking is easy.
[12:35:28] <mota> As your article exemplifies.
[12:35:43] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Exemplifies what? What is biased about that article?
[12:37:21] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Oh wait, you mean that the MEP is cherry-picking? Seriously? :D So people aren't allowed to point out shortcomings?
[12:38:20] <mota> Reg takes a politician no one knows, quotes four sentences from them, and uses this (amid other generally negative articles) to build fear.
[12:42:27] <Aoyagi_trashtop> I'm sorry, what other MEPs -do- you know? How could those senteces be possibly out of context? And again, what's wrong with pointing out some potentially harmful activities or changes? (this is what you call "building fear")
[12:44:03] <mota> Aoyagi_trashtop, I'm simply pointing out that the source has a bias. What's wrong with *that*?
[12:44:15] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Everyone and everything has "a bias"
[12:44:28] <mist> i'm pretty sure that that stuff about blocking hardware & software has been debunked, anyway, as it pertains only to Xbox and the app store
[12:44:58] <mota> Well, the Register has a particularly bad form of it. They'll theorize provably wrong things, and never retract articles.
[12:45:48] <Aoyagi_trashtop> mist: Yeah, that was the part about removing pirated games or something.
[12:45:55] <mota> For instance, this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/31/rising_and_ongoing_cost_of_windows/ ... right next to your article, provably wrong for months, not retracted or even updated.
[12:46:31] <Aoyagi_trashtop> What's wrong there?
[12:46:37] <Aoyagi_trashtop> (didn't read it)
[12:46:59] <mota> read it.
[12:49:24] <Aoyagi_trashtop> I have now. Still don't see anything wrong.
[12:50:08] <mota> The article basically says MS will be charging for service packs in the future. Oh, the author puts in just barely enough qualifiers so he can avoid slander charges, but it is clear what he hopes the casual reader will come away thinking.
[12:50:49] <Aoyagi_trashtop> But it doesn't. Do you understand the difference between "will" and "could"?
[12:51:14] <mota> That's how the Register does things. If you choose to beleive and propagate such crap, well ... fine, that's your choice. But I choose to point out BS when I see it.
[12:51:36] <Aoyagi_trashtop> You still haven't pointed out any.
[12:51:42] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Just butthurt accusations, sorry.
[12:52:00] <Aoyagi_trashtop> That article begins with the word "comment".
[12:52:12] <Aoyagi_trashtop> And it's clearly a speculation.
[12:53:13] <mota> You have your view, I have mine. I don't plan to argue it endlessly.
[12:53:36] <Aoyagi_trashtop> Expressions like "it's possible" "I suspect", "I believe", etc. should give you enough of a hint what's that.