Amazon Alexa can be summoned by voice on all Windows 10 PCs

[Unique]

You want proof of monopolies??!!
OK, who supplies your water in the UK? Can you choose who your supplier is?
No, you can't. The industry is monopolised through technology.

Same for MiniDiscs, which aren't really for sale any more, killed off partly by MP3 players and partly by the Sony-Phillips/IBM deal to go with the CD-ROM format for which they'd already started gearing up, instead of the superior Minidiscs.

Companies like Ikea and MFI have pretty much killed off the entire proper solid wood furniture industry, in favour of cheap, lightweight cack. Now you're mostly looking at hobbyists and expensive high-end designers if you want something decent. Even Oak Furnitureland is a pile of guff and tacky ill-fabricated junk.

Payphones are virtually nonexistent now, even though they still have numerous different uses and a good 10-15% of people still don't own a mobile phone of any kind.

Same for all the current oligopoly giants who either force smaller businesses with different options out of the market, or absorb their biological and technological distinctiveness into their own. From car groups (VAG, JLR, etc) to media and retail networks. Google is pretty open about destroying its competition.

Heck, just look at AMD vs Nvidia. You have just two choices there, and with such a monopoly the innovation and development stagnates. They can get away with incremental devleopment and charge a fortune each time. One day, one of them will collapse and then your choice is gone.

It's gotten to the point where we've had to create Competition Law, but still they are able to eliminate your other options.
I can't even phone up my GP for an appointment. I have to use their website.
I suppose you'll just argue that I 'have to choice' to die or not, but again that's not really a choice except in the most tenuous of mentally gymnastic perceptions and certainly not a viable one.

i don't want proof of monopolies. what makes you think i do or even ask that question?

earlier in the thread you suggest i was wrong, i mentioned it was your opinion, but you said it's a fact and i repeated it was your opinion. days later and you still haven't made clear what i've said that you think was wrong and provided proof that what i said was factually wrong as opposed to being your opinion, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what was said. it appears you have issues with the meaning of the word choice

even the choice to live or die is a choice and if you follow the news you will see that some people choose to die. one of the first news articles today was in respect of someone who made that choice, and another one i read was a story of "murder suicide" which appears to be at least one of two other people made that choice. whether you like the choices or not doesn't mean you don't have a choice. not all choices are between things you consider good. your opinion on life appears to be very different to my own. we are ALL going to die at some point, yet some people have hangups about dying and others don't. i don't care if i don't wake up tomorrow. regarding your GP, you have options to change GP, go private, or not use a GP. i don't go to doctors or hospitals when i'm sick. that's my choice. yours is different. you seem not to fully realise that people's wants and needs are different, and that's leading you to believe you have no choice when in fact you do. it's just you don't seem to consider the options or alternatives acceptable to you. that doesn't mean you don't have a choice, it means you do have a choice, and you've choosen one particular option because you aren't happy with the alternative. that option may be to choose not to accept the two main options you have. sometimes not choosing one of two things is making a choice in itself, you've choosen the alternative

on the presumption you live in the uk, we have a relatively free country where people generally aren't forced to do much. it may appear to you to be force, but try watching something like schindlers list and see how people have been treated in the past and literally shot dead if they didn't do what they were asked to do. what you may consider "forced". i doubt very much your 2019 concerns and life are very comparible to the ways those people were treated. once you've seen that you may put things into perspective and see how much choice and freedom you have if you actually think about it

and some of the things you mention like minidiscs, just look on ebay, there's discs and players/recorders. i have 100s of minidiscs and several working players. sometimes you just need to look around a little bit. but on the internet it just takes seconds of seaching to find many things

and before you say i miss your point, i see your point, i just don't agree with what you are saying necesarily. the thing about the world and life is things change over time. what you describe if what you currently observe and understand. 20 years ago that may have been different and again in another 20 years it may be different again. some people call that progress, others don't. i see people moaning about the state of the music industry, but i point out it was only in place for about 100 years in anything like it's current state, and like with many things, they can be of their time and change, so the 20th century may have been the peak of that type of working, and by the end of this century it will be different again. what you prefer is just your view and opinion. there's many things in life, things you may like, things you may not like, and things you don't even think or know about, and that can change on a daily basis as you learn new things and forget or get over others

[Ttaskmaster]

i don't want proof of monopolies. what makes you think i do or even ask that question?

I pointed out the proven monopolising of markets, its role in limiting or eliminating competitive technology, and thus the elimination of choice.
You asked, "what happened? where is the proof?" and got exactly that.

Why, what did you think you were asking for?

days later and you still haven't made clear what i've said that you think was wrong

That the removal of choice by an outside party does not still leave you with choice, as you seem to believe.
If you have no choice, then you have no choice. Even if your choice is impossible, calling it a choice does not make it so. Choice implies decision-making, which is not present when the choice is impossible, thus making it invalid as a 'choice'.
Is that clear enough for you?

even the choice to live or die is a choice and if you follow the news you will see that some people choose to die.

Die, rather than submit to using a computer in order to receive life-saving treatment?
Die, rather than allow Microsoft to install an update of their choosing?
Yeah, OK, I look forward to you trying to argue that one...

regarding your GP, you have options to change GP, go private, or not use a GP.

Oftentimes you do not, as you can be refused on various grounds. Usually living too far away is one, but there may be other reasons.
Also, that option may be further eliminated as more GPs adopt this new system.
As for not using one, again there will be circumstances where that is not a viable choice, likely with legal consequences, following which the choice is usually taken away from you anyway, again leaving you with no choice.

you seem not to fully realise that people's wants and needs are different, and that's leading you to believe you have no choice when in fact you do.

Prove it.
Go to the shop and buy me something that you cannot buy.
If you cannot buy it, you don't have the choice to buy it, either.

what you may consider "forced". i doubt very much your 2019 concerns and life are very comparible to the ways those people were treated.

You don't always need force to force something on someone. Indeed, that is the entire art behind the manipulation of marketing.
As for the film, I saw it when it came out, thanks. Still has no bearing on the topic at hand, though.

once you've seen that you may put things into perspective and see how much choice and freedom you have if you actually think about it

Actually it does more to highlight the far more subtle restrictions that exist today, and provides a lot of insight into things like the suicide rate in spite of the removal of previously popular options. But again, nothing to do with your point.

and some of the things you mention like minidiscs, just look on ebay, there's discs and players/recorders.

But not brand new in the shops, because the choice has been eliminated, as previously asserted.

what you prefer is just your view and opinion.

Yes, but that preference is immaterial and nothing to do with your argument.
Whether or not I have the choice to get what I prefer is the fact, and that fact is determined by people and companies other than me. So again, in either case, I do not have the choice.

[Unique]

I pointed out the proven monopolising of markets, its role in limiting or eliminating competitive technology, and thus the elimination of choice.
You asked, "what happened? where is the proof?" and got exactly that.

Why, what did you think you were asking for?



That the removal of choice by an outside party does not still leave you with choice, as you seem to believe.
If you have no choice, then you have no choice. Even if your choice is impossible, calling it a choice does not make it so. Choice implies decision-making, which is not present when the choice is impossible, thus making it invalid as a 'choice'.
Is that clear enough for you?


Die, rather than submit to using a computer in order to receive life-saving treatment?
Die, rather than allow Microsoft to install an update of their choosing?
Yeah, OK, I look forward to you trying to argue that one...


Oftentimes you do not, as you can be refused on various grounds. Usually living too far away is one, but there may be other reasons.
Also, that option may be further eliminated as more GPs adopt this new system.
As for not using one, again there will be circumstances where that is not a viable choice, likely with legal consequences, following which the choice is usually taken away from you anyway, again leaving you with no choice.


Prove it.
Go to the shop and buy me something that you cannot buy.
If you cannot buy it, you don't have the choice to buy it, either.


You don't always need force to force something on someone. Indeed, that is the entire art behind the manipulation of marketing.
As for the film, I saw it when it came out, thanks. Still has no bearing on the topic at hand, though.


Actually it does more to highlight the far more subtle restrictions that exist today, and provides a lot of insight into things like the suicide rate in spite of the removal of previously popular options. But again, nothing to do with your point.


But not brand new in the shops, because the choice has been eliminated, as previously asserted.


Yes, but that preference is immaterial and nothing to do with your argument.
Whether or not I have the choice to get what I prefer is the fact, and that fact is determined by people and companies other than me. So again, in either case, I do not have the choice.

so the long and short of it is that rather than myself being wrong, i was correct in saying i wasn't wrong and it was only your opinion, and the actual truth of the matter is you are actually factually wrong because you have a different understanding of the word choice from the commonly used dictionary definition

[Saracen999]

And that is the point you keep missing .... or ignoring - context.

If you buy a car and having bought it, it is not a valid choice when the manufacturer suddenly decides yours should have one forward gear and five reverse, to say you could choose a different car ... or walk.

We've just ordered some furniture reupholtery to be done, and went to considerable lengths to order cushions, curtains, etc that co-ordinate, and it's not an acceptable choice for the manufacturer to say, you ordered red but we ran out so here's green .... or to sneak in in 6 months and switch it overnight, and to suggest sitting on the floor is a choice.

Yes, ultimately, we all have choices. Jumping in front of a train is a choice but for most people, not a valid one. Don't lime your boss? Punching him is a choice but not a bright one. We could all choose to never get in a car again because your one down, but they are, while dictionary-definition wise, still choices, they're not relevant to the issue.

I'm aware, for instance, that one option if I don't like what MS do is to not use Windows 10. That decision has consequences, though, because it's exactly the decision I made when w10 came out. I could have upgraded my dozen-plus Windows machines to W10 free, but didn't, because of the way W10 worked. Instead, I went to Linux for some, and stayed with Win7 for others but took them off the internet entirely. Doing that involved a LOT of work, in assessing and testing, assuring I could do what needed doing even if with different software, which meant a learning curve. And sacrificjng cvonnectivity where I needed Windows because of legacy hardware or software.

And all that is fair game. MS are driving a bus and abnnounced they were going to change direction, so I decided the bus wasn't going where I wanted to, and got off the bus. It was an uncomfortable choice, but a choice .... because MS announced what they were going to do, not just did it changing my machines (because I manually updated). They did, however, have a good old try at updating users whether we wanted it or not if you remember.

But even that is very different from just deciding to change the functionality of users machines, whether they like it or not.

Yes, we can all choose ro use Linux. MS have no way to control that, or stop it. We can all choose to give up computing.

But the choice I've been talking about is "do users choose to upgrade to conversational AI, or not" and MS are not planning on giving anyone the choice. The patch will not say "Install AI or Skip", but they could do that.

The notion of having a choice to stop using it is akin to the choice a mugger gives you when they stick a gun in your face and tell you to hand over your watch, phone and wallet. You have a choice alright - do what you really don't want, or get shot. Do you have a choice about being mugged?

Sometimes a choice is really no choice at all.

[Ttaskmaster]

so the long and short of it is that rather than myself being wrong, i was correct in saying i wasn't wrong

Nope.
You were wrong in the contexts of your argument, the basis of your arguments, the application of your arguments to the contexts we've already laid out, your understanding of arguments on both sides, and your assertion of false premises in invalid technicalities. I'm sure there's more, but I'm choosing to keep it short and simple.

and it was only your opinion

As already explained, my opinion has not been a factor in any of this.

and the actual truth of the matter is you are actually factually wrong because you have a different understanding of the word choice from the commonly used dictionary definition

Choice - an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
So when presented with a situation in which there is only ONE possibility, as I already have on several occasions with both hypothetical and factually evident real-event examples, there is no 'choice' to be made.
Dictionary definition, absolute fact, feel free to argue if you so choose, but you'd be arguing against even your own argument...

[Unique]

Nope.
You were wrong in the contexts of your argument, the basis of your arguments, the application of your arguments to the contexts we've already laid out, your understanding of arguments on both sides, and your assertion of false premises in invalid technicalities. I'm sure there's more, but I'm choosing to keep it short and simple.


As already explained, my opinion has not been a factor in any of this.


Choice - an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
So when presented with a situation in which there is only ONE possibility, as I already have on several occasions with both hypothetical and factually evident real-event examples, there is no 'choice' to be made.
Dictionary definition, absolute fact, feel free to argue if you so choose, but you'd be arguing against even your own argument...

so basically i was correct all along and you were wrong, but it's your opinion otherwise

[Unique]

And that is the point you keep missing .... or ignoring - context.

If you buy a car and having bought it, it is not a valid choice when the manufacturer suddenly decides yours should have one forward gear and five reverse, to say you could choose a different car ... or walk.

We've just ordered some furniture reupholtery to be done, and went to considerable lengths to order cushions, curtains, etc that co-ordinate, and it's not an acceptable choice for the manufacturer to say, you ordered red but we ran out so here's green .... or to sneak in in 6 months and switch it overnight, and to suggest sitting on the floor is a choice.

Yes, ultimately, we all have choices. Jumping in front of a train is a choice but for most people, not a valid one. Don't lime your boss? Punching him is a choice but not a bright one. We could all choose to never get in a car again because your one down, but they are, while dictionary-definition wise, still choices, they're not relevant to the issue.

I'm aware, for instance, that one option if I don't like what MS do is to not use Windows 10. That decision has consequences, though, because it's exactly the decision I made when w10 came out. I could have upgraded my dozen-plus Windows machines to W10 free, but didn't, because of the way W10 worked. Instead, I went to Linux for some, and stayed with Win7 for others but took them off the internet entirely. Doing that involved a LOT of work, in assessing and testing, assuring I could do what needed doing even if with different software, which meant a learning curve. And sacrificjng cvonnectivity where I needed Windows because of legacy hardware or software.

And all that is fair game. MS are driving a bus and abnnounced they were going to change direction, so I decided the bus wasn't going where I wanted to, and got off the bus. It was an uncomfortable choice, but a choice .... because MS announced what they were going to do, not just did it changing my machines (because I manually updated). They did, however, have a good old try at updating users whether we wanted it or not if you remember.

But even that is very different from just deciding to change the functionality of users machines, whether they like it or not.

Yes, we can all choose ro use Linux. MS have no way to control that, or stop it. We can all choose to give up computing.

But the choice I've been talking about is "do users choose to upgrade to conversational AI, or not" and MS are not planning on giving anyone the choice. The patch will not say "Install AI or Skip", but they could do that.

The notion of having a choice to stop using it is akin to the choice a mugger gives you when they stick a gun in your face and tell you to hand over your watch, phone and wallet. You have a choice alright - do what you really don't want, or get shot. Do you have a choice about being mugged?

Sometimes a choice is really no choice at all.

i'm not missing the point at all. a choice is a choice regardless of how good or bad the choice is

a better way to sum up the point would be to say that sometimes choices may be little more than take it or leave it, and sometimes one of the choices may result in a disadvantage or loss to the person making the choice, to the degree that only once choice is deemed acceptable or appropriate to them, making them feel like they have no choice when in fact they technically have a choice

putting into context of alexa and win10, there is more than once choice. there's a number of choices. the options aren't so extreme that people have little choice such as take it or leave it

[ik9000]

One day the three billy goats got to the bridge to cross to the other side. A voice came from below the bridge "who's that trip-trapping over my bridge?"
"Us" said the goats "We need to get to the other side"
"well use a different bridge, or I'll eat you"
"this is the only bridge"
"well don't use it at all then"
"but we have to get to the other side"
"then choose to get eaten" said the voice.
"why? For crossing a bridge?"
"yes, because I say so".
"seems a bit drastic, and it's not really a choice is it - we've crossed it before and we paid for it to start with, and now we need to get home. It's the only bridge available."
"well those are my terms. it's your choice".
"but we didn't agree to that when we paid for the bridge"
"well that's the terms now. So suck it up and stop complaining. I've given you enough choice"
<conversation goes round in a loop>

Not really a choice is it? It's not a choice to have to accept MS can unilaterally shove Alexa on your machine without your say-so. It's just grumpy trolls who would say otherwise.

[Saracen999]

i'm not missing the point at all. a choice is a choice regardless of how good or bad the choice is

a better way to sum up the point would be to say that sometimes choices may be little more than take it or leave it, and sometimes one of the choices may result in a disadvantage or loss to the person making the choice, to the degree that only once choice is deemed acceptable or appropriate to them, making them feel like they have no choice when in fact they technically have a choice

putting into context of alexa and win10, there is more than once choice. there's a number of choices. the options aren't so extreme that people have little choice such as take it or leave it

That there are choices like Linux, etc) isn't the point. That MS aren't giving users the choice is. Their process is auto-updates, now deferable by longer than before but still, MS don't offer the choice. Nor, once the update installs do they give the choice of whether or not to install new features -it just does it.

Yes, you can stop it ..... by a level of tweaking that will bemuse many users. But that isn't MS offering the choice .... here's an update, install new features?

You seem to be arguing that because you can stop updates (thereby throwing out the security and bug-fix patches with the bathwater), or switching to Linux (not that MS has a say in that one way or the other, so they certainly aren't giving users that choice) that that is a choice, but it's not what I was saying, which is new feature choice.

We're arguing about different things here. Which is why I keep saying you're missing my point.

So .... where is the option, in the update process (whether auto or not, deferred or not) to not install unwanted feature changes?

That is my point. Feature changes. That you don't want installed. And not 'instalked bt not used', not 'installed but deactivated', either of which can be changed easily, but just absolutely not installed.

[Saracen999]

....

Not really a choice is it? It's not a choice to have to accept MS can unilaterally shove Alexa on your machine without your say-so. It's just grumpy trolls who would say otherwise.

Absolutely .... except the troll bit. That, I wasn't saying.

[Unique]

That there are choices like Linux, etc) isn't the point. That MS aren't giving users the choice is. Their process is auto-updates, now deferable by longer than before but still, MS don't offer the choice. Nor, once the update installs do they give the choice of whether or not to install new features -it just does it.

Yes, you can stop it ..... by a level of tweaking that will bemuse many users. But that isn't MS offering the choice .... here's an update, install new features?

You seem to be arguing that because you can stop updates (thereby throwing out the security and bug-fix patches with the bathwater), or switching to Linux (not that MS has a say in that one way or the other, so they certainly aren't giving users that choice) that that is a choice, but it's not what I was saying, which is new feature choice.

We're arguing about different things here. Which is why I keep saying you're missing my point.

So .... where is the option, in the update process (whether auto or not, deferred or not) to not install unwanted feature changes?

That is my point. Feature changes. That you don't want installed. And not 'instalked bt not used', not 'installed but deactivated', either of which can be changed easily, but just absolutely not installed.

i don't miss your point. you don't know what i am thinking so you base that assumptions on what you read. i just don't necessarily agree with what you say

right now we don't know what the full options are, it's not fully rolled out, you don't know if you can stop/uninstall or whatever. but you can choose to stop using the system, stop the updates, etc etc etc, so there are a number of choices whether you like it or not. you've chosen to use a service that works in a particular way to which it appears you don't like. that's the choice you've taken so far. you then have a further range of choices. until it's fully rolled out you don't know all what the options are

you've repeated the same or similar things several times, yet keep on repeating incorrectly that i don't get your point. i got it from the start. you must get my point surely that i don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean i don't get your point. i don't care or know if you get my point or not. long and short is we have different opinions on the same topic whether we get each others point or not, and we both have choices regarding the issues being discussed. it would appear that your choices may differ from mine. i don't suppose you would care what i choose, and i wouldn't care what you choose either. it's our respective opinions and choices. similarly if the item of discussion was not rolled out, i wouldn't have any problem with it either. i already have and use daily those features

when people sign up to services they usually agree to terms without actually bothering to read what they've agreed to, so MS/virgin/sky/apple/etc have certain rights. even if you take over a second hand machine to which someone else has pre authorised those rights, you essentially take on the responsibilities of what you've purchased. so ultimately MS/apple/virgin/sky have the authorisation to make changes to their service regardless of if you've read the T&C's or not, because you've chosen to take ownership of the item/service

whether anyone thinks it's right or wrong for someone buying something second hand where the T&C's have already been agreed to by a third party, or from the retailer/seller is another discussion, but certainly MS currently have such rights to amend their service once the initial agreement at installation or start of use of the system is confirmed, to which you may get changes you don't want. but in the specific case we are discussing it's quite possible to avoid ending up with the specific feature. it's far from some of the analogies that some have mentioned here

[DanceswithUnix]

Whilst I get the general argument about choice, in this case does it apply?

Cortana is a part of Windows 10, I didn't use the earliest versions of 10 and have always left Cortana switched off but wasn't it always there? Upgrading an existing function seems a reasonable ask in an OS update.

The Alexa thing is an app. Don't want it? Don't install it.

But more generally, Microsoft's policy of how they "curate" (possibly "lash together" would be better) Windows is pretty well established. It's why my main OS is Linux, and has been for some time. Amusingly Windows 10 is tending more towards how Ubuntu or Fedora is released with regular updates. Saracen wants something more in line with how Centos works: A released version gets bug fixes for a decade. If a new package comes out, you have to go to the software install system and choose to install it. But Microsoft is a monopoly supplier of Windows, you don't get to choose a distribution with a policy that suits you. No-one can re-package Windows to fill those niches. Most consumers won't care though, in the same way that most don't choose their car on how good it is as a car, they want new and cheap.

[Saracen999]

Whilst I get the general argument about choice, in this case does it apply?

Cortana is a part of Windows 10, I didn't use the earliest versions of 10 and have always left Cortana switched off but wasn't it always there? Upgrading an existing function seems a reasonable ask in an OS update.

The Alexa thing is an app. Don't want it? Don't install it.

But more generally, Microsoft's policy of how they "curate" (possibly "lash together" would be better) Windows is pretty well established. It's why my main OS is Linux, and has been for some time. Amusingly Windows 10 is tending more towards how Ubuntu or Fedora is released with regular updates. Saracen wants something more in line with how Centos works: A released version gets bug fixes for a decade. If a new package comes out, you have to go to the software install system and choose to install it. But Microsoft is a monopoly supplier of Windows, you don't get to choose a distribution with a policy that suits you. No-one can re-package Windows to fill those niches. Most consumers won't care though, in the same way that most don't choose their car on how good it is as a car, they want new and cheap.

There's some .... confusion .... about Alexa.

I have no problem with "it's an app, don't want it, don't install it" logic. That's fine.

What I'm talking about is, first, the Alexa-alike enhancement to Cortana, using 'always listening', and "conversational AI". I keep referring to that.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's a controversial issue, at least with some people, including me. It may also be something that many people actively want, and good luck to them. Which is why I want a choice, not just to have that kind of thing installed-but-off, but not installed at all .... even if, if it must, san option to uninstall.

Then there's the principle.

Where, if anywhere, is the line between what MS can decide IT wants to install for it's own purposes, that users cannot say "no" to?

Can ir read, archive and store all your data files? That, for a start is an utter non-starter for me because first, I have personal data like financial and medical data) and second, because I often have highly confidential client files, which may onclude board meeting minutes, and even internal discussions on contract negotiattions for new business.

Hence my point. You install an OS because it does A, B and C, and you've checked it's suitability and vetted it, and later, MS can come along and say "we're no longer doing C do we've removed it, we're changing how B works like it or not, and we're adding D through to J, no matter whether it compromises your PCs secutity or not".

Hence, my point about choice.

[Saracen999]

i don't miss your point. you don't know what i am thinking so you base that assumptions on what you read. i just don't necessarily agree with what you say

right now we don't know what the full options are, it's not fully rolled out, you don't know if you can stop/uninstall or whatever. but you can choose to stop using the system, stop the updates, etc etc etc, so there are a number of choices whether you like it or not. you've chosen to use a service that works in a particular way to which it appears you don't like. that's the choice you've taken so far. you then have a further range of choices. until it's fully rolled out you don't know all what the options are

you've repeated the same or similar things several times, yet keep on repeating incorrectly that i don't get your point. i got it from the start. you must get my point surely that i don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean i don't get your point. i don't care or know if you get my point or not. long and short is we have different opinions on the same topic whether we get each others point or not, and we both have choices regarding the issues being discussed. it would appear that your choices may differ from mine. i don't suppose you would care what i choose, and i wouldn't care what you choose either. it's our respective opinions and choices. similarly if the item of discussion was not rolled out, i wouldn't have any problem with it either. i already have and use daily those features

when people sign up to services they usually agree to terms without actually bothering to read what they've agreed to, so MS/virgin/sky/apple/etc have certain rights. even if you take over a second hand machine to which someone else has pre authorised those rights, you essentially take on the responsibilities of what you've purchased. so ultimately MS/apple/virgin/sky have the authorisation to make changes to their service regardless of if you've read the T&C's or not, because you've chosen to take ownership of the item/service

whether anyone thinks it's right or wrong for someone buying something second hand where the T&C's have already been agreed to by a third party, or from the retailer/seller is another discussion, but certainly MS currently have such rights to amend their service once the initial agreement at installation or start of use of the system is confirmed, to which you may get changes you don't want. but in the specific case we are discussing it's quite possible to avoid ending up with the specific feature. it's far from some of the analogies that some have mentioned here

I don't know what you're thinking? Really? That's your line?

I would ask, when in the history of humanity has any one of us ever known what another was thinking? If there's any concrete evidence of mind-reading, it's passed me by.

All any of us can respond to, and in the context of forums it means post on the forum is what they say, and that is what is missing or as I said some time back, ignoring, what I'm saying. And the reason I keep saying it is because you keep putting up arguments, after referencing quotesof mine that aren't about the points I'm making. That is, you keep arguing that people have choices which aren't about the thing I'm saying I'd like a choice about. And I'm not about to jkeep trying to refute straw man arguments about positions I didn't make in the first place.

So keep denying it all you like, but either you're still misding my point, and still not realising it, or keep going off on tangents on purpose.

Either way, I'm doing arguing about it. My point remains what it always was, whether you see it or not, or agree it or not.

[Unique]

I don't know what you're thinking? Really? That's your line?

I would ask, when in the history of humanity has any one of us ever known what another was thinking? If there's any concrete evidence of mind-reading, it's passed me by.

All any of us can respond to, and in the context of forums it means post on the forum is what they say, and that is what is missing or as I said some time back, ignoring, what I'm saying. And the reason I keep saying it is because you keep putting up arguments, after referencing quotesof mine that aren't about the points I'm making. That is, you keep arguing that people have choices which aren't about the thing I'm saying I'd like a choice about. And I'm not about to jkeep trying to refute straw man arguments about positions I didn't make in the first place.

So keep denying it all you like, but either you're still misding my point, and still not realising it, or keep going off on tangents on purpose.

Either way, I'm doing arguing about it. My point remains what it always was, whether you see it or not, or agree it or not.

you seem to have got it now. because i didn't agree with your points, i specifically didn't reference them. but whilst i kept saying i wasn't missing your point, and you acknowledge the fact you don't know what i was thinking, and therefore didn't know if i was missing your point or not, you kept on repeating this. i choose the points i want to reply to

the long and short of the position you are in now is a result of the choices you've made, and moving forwards is based on the choices you make. my point should be clear in that you do have choices, but whether you like the choices or not is another thing entirely. in regards to alexa on win10, i presume you don't yet have it so don't know all the available options, but regardless of that it's possible to keep on using windows 10 without alexa listening to you, which ultimately appears to be what you don't want, and i've mentioned a number of ways you could choose to achieve this - in other words constructive points to help you avoid what you appear not to want

[peterb]

you seem to have got it now. because i didn't agree with your points, i specifically didn't reference them. but whilst i kept saying i wasn't missing your point, and you acknowledge the fact you don't know what i was thinking, and therefore didn't know if i was missing your point or not, you kept on repeating this. i choose the points i want to reply to

the long and short of the position you are in now is a result of the choices you've made, and moving forwards is based on the choices you make. my point should be clear in that you do have choices, but whether you like the choices or not is another thing entirely. in regards to alexa on win10, i presume you don't yet have it so don't know all the available options, but regardless of that it's possible to keep on using windows 10 without alexa listening to you, which ultimately appears to be what you don't want, and i've mentioned a number of ways you could choose to achieve this - in other words constructive points to help you avoid what you appear not to want

And your point was?