TIME windows 10

This Windows 10 Feature Is Creating a Lot Of Controversy

GERMANY-IT-CEBIT
TOBIAS SCHWARZ—AFP/Getty Images A man shows Microsoft's Windows 10 operating system.

Mozilla's CEO, for one, is very unhappy about it

Windows 10 was released earlier this week, and its launch turned out to be very successful, garnering about 14 million users within the first couple of days. There have been a few controversial features so far, including a hidden fee and an unhelpful error message, but the one that people are most upset about is a feature that quietly changes your default browser for you.

When you upgrade to Windows 10, your default browser will automatically be changed to Edge if you choose the “express settings” option, ignoring the preferences that you had previously chosen. There is an option to maintain your old browser, but you have to click the button that says “customize settings,” which is much smaller than the express option, and then click another button later on to actually enable customization (hint: if you put on your reading glasses, you’ll find it at the bottom left of the screen).

You can change your settings after you’ve upgraded to Windows 10, but it’s not easy. Supposedly, it takes much more effort and technical sophistication than previous versions.

Chris Beard, Mozilla’s CEO, is particularly displeased by this “aggressive” action, which is expressed in both an open letter to Microsoft’s CEO as well as a blog post calling for them to fix the issue. He is appalled by Microsoft’s infringement on their users preferences, and writes:

The update experience appears to have been designed to throw away the choice your customers have made about the Internet experience they want, and replace it with the Internet experience Microsoft wants them to have…. Please give your users the choice and control they deserve in Windows 10.

TIME Britian

Chairman of U.K.’s Ruling Party Denies Editing His Wiki Entry and Those of Rivals

Grant Shapps speech
Hannah McKay — AP Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps gives a speech on free trade at the Institute of Directors in London on Feb. 12, 2015

He blames a “smear campaign” ahead of elections next month

U.K. Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps was in an all-out denial mode on Wednesday, after a story broke in the Guardian this week claiming he had edited his own Wikipedia page and those of rival politicians.

The British daily reported that Wikipedia had blocked an account that it alleged was being used by Shapps “or someone acting on his behalf.”

“It is the most bonkers story I’ve seen in this election campaign so far,” Shapps told the BBC on Wednesday.

During the interview with the broadcaster, the politician claimed that his diary proved that he was “elsewhere” when the edits by Wiki user Contribsx were made.

He then went on label the accusations that he was tied to Contribsx as a possible “Labour/Guardian smear campaign” ahead of general elections next month.

The chairman was caught editing his Wikipedia page without revealing his identity in 2012, but claims to have learned from the experience.

“It turns out you should never correct your Wikipedia page,” Shapps told the BBC. “And that’s why I’ve never gone near it since.”

TIME Opinion

Exclusive: Dr. Oz Says ‘We’re Not Going Anywhere’

The physician and TV personality slams his critics and responds to their critiques

I started my show to give TV audiences advice on how to find a good life, not to practice medicine on air. This means celebrating them wherever they are in their search for health, and offering tools to nudge them along in the right direction. In the same hour-long show, a board certified doctor will discuss cancer followed by a celebrity sharing their personal weight loss story and concluding with an audience member learning to manage their money better. I don’t expect all of my colleagues to understand this marriage between conventional medicine and the broader definition of wellness that the show pursues. I expect and respect the criticism of colleagues who struggle with my approach and I try to improve the show accordingly.

But I was surprised by a brazen note as I entered the operating room at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University this week. A small group of physicians unknown to me were asking my dean to revoke my faculty position for manifesting “an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.”

The dean politely reinforced that the academic tradition of all institutions protects freedom of speech for their faculty, and I assumed the matter was over. The surgery went much better than the media fury around this letter. Within 12 hours, most major media outlets had published articles on the note, many mistakenly stating Columbia faculty were trying to oust me. Who were these authors and why were they attacking now?

With a few clicks and some simple searches, a remarkable web of intrigue emerged—one that the mainstream media has completely missed. The lead author, Henry I. Miller, appears to have a history as a pro-biotech scientist, and was mentioned in early tobacco-industry litigation as a potential ally to industry. He also furthered the battle in California to block GMO labeling—a cause that I have been vocal about supporting. Another of the letter signees, Gilbert Ross, was found guilty after trial of 13 counts of fraud related to Medicaid. He is now executive director of American Council on Science and Health, a group that has reportedly received donations from big tobacco and food and agribusiness companies, among others. Another four of the 10 authors are also linked to this organization.

I have spent my entire career searching for ways to lessen the suffering of my patients. The best and safest paths have generally been the traditions of conventional medicine. They are tried and true, well funded, and fast. But there are other routes to healing that offer wisdom as well, so I have been willing to explore alternative routes to healing and share any wisdom that can be gathered. I have done this throughout my career as a surgeon, professor, author and, of late, as a talk-show host. Despite being criticized, I want to continue exploring for myself and my audience. Why?

Because in some instances, I believe unconventional approaches appear to work in some people’s lives. They are often based on long-standing traditions from different cultures that visualize the healing process in very different ways from our Western traditions. They are aimed at chronic conditions like lack of energy, fogginess, or moodiness—which are frequently overlooked or under-treated by conventional practitioners. They are also often inexpensive. With limited profit motive, companies understandably do not wish to invest significant resources into proving benefit, so these unconventional remedies do not undergo rigorous clinical studies. So we have practitioners recommend therapies that they find effective in their own practices. When I interview an unusual or interesting person on my show, often it’s expository or out of fascination—not to tell my audience they should see a psychic instead of their primary care physician.

It’s vital that I drive the following point home: My exploration of alternative medicine has never been intended to take the place of conventional medicine, but rather as additive. Critics often imply that any exploration of alternative methods means abandoning conventional approaches. It does not. In fact, many institutions like mine use the names “complementary” or “integrative” medicine, which is also appropriate.

This can lead to confusion and irritation when analyzed by conventional physicians. For example, another daytime TV show and mine were recently noted in a BMJ article for only having proof for half of what we shared with the audience. A similar figure is often used to approximate the amount of randomized clinical trial data underlying conversations in physician’s offices across America. This reflects that natural gap between what is proven in clinical trials and the needs of our patients.

The BMJ authors were correct in reporting that advising people with the flu to rest or cough into the crook of their arms is completely unproven. But major organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) give rational advice of this nature that isn’t directly linked to a research paper. When there isn’t data, we rely on the non-literature-based guidance of the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as specialty professional organizations and experts. (The authors of the BMJ piece later acknowledged being “disappointed that the overwhelming commentary seems to be that our study somehow proves that Dr. Oz or The Doctors are quacks or charlatans or worse. Our data in no way supports these conclusions.”) The reality of being a healer is that we won’t ever know everything about our chosen field, which is what attracts many of us to medicine in the first place.

So I have traveled off the beaten path in search of tools and tips that might help heal. These explorations are fraught with their own unique peril. For example, my voyage into the land of weight loss supplements left me in a very unsavory place. I wish I could take back enthusiastic words I used to support these products years ago. And I understand the criticism I’ve received as a result.

I discovered problems in the promising research papers that supported some products; the products themselves were often poor quality; and scammers stole my image to promote fake pills. So I have not mentioned weight loss supplements for a year and have no plans to return to that neighborhood.

Other times the topics are controversial, but are still worthwhile, like our campaign supporting GMO labeling. And this brings me back to a motive for the letter. These doctors criticized my “baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops,” which is another false accusation. Whether you support genetically engineered crops or not, the freedom to make an informed choice should belong to consumers. The bill in Congress this month proposing to block states from independently requiring labeling offers a coup to pro-GMO groups.

As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves, but I am worried about why they were created. Highly toxic herbicides would kill crops unless they were genetically modified, but with the genetic upgrade, these plants can be doused with much higher doses, with potential complications to the environment. The WHO believes that glyphosate is “probably a human carcinogen.” Perhaps we are all showing “disdain for science and evidence-based medicine,” but I would argue that unleashing these products creates a real-time experiment on the human species. Sure, we will eventually know if these pesticides are a problem, but at the expense of the pain and suffering and disease in real people. I owe my kids more. And so do you.

I know I have irritated some potential allies. No matter our disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. We will not be silenced. We’re not going anywhere.

TIME Australia

Aussie Supermarket Chain Tries to Brand War Memories, Upsets Everyone

Maybe leave death and suffering out of future marketing plans

Australian supermarket giant Woolworths pulled a controversial Anzac Day campaign Tuesday evening after it drew sharp criticism and ended up being hijacked by social-media satirists.

Woolworths created a website that allowed people to upload images of people affected by war and attach the phrase “Lest We Forget, Anzac 1915–2015.” This was accompanied by the slogan “Fresh in Our Memories” and the Woolworths logo.

The use of the word fresh was none-too-subtle branding. Woolworths brands itself the Fresh Food People, and its regular consumer magazine is called Fresh.

For Australians, the ham-fisted marketing was too much, and Woolworths became the target of public backlash, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“We regret that our branding on the picture generator has caused offense, this was clearly never our intention. Like many heritage Australian companies, we were marking our respect for Anzac and our veterans,” a Woolworths spokesperson tells TIME.

The slogan was predictably hijacked by social media with the hashtag #FreshInOurMemories going viral and netizens contributing mocking posts.

Anzac Day is celebrated on April 25 in Australia and New Zealand and honors soldiers who died serving in the military. The remembrance day was created to recognize the sacrifices made during the Gallipoli Campaign of World War I, which began on April 25, 1915. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the infamous battle.

TIME Television

Jon Stewart Sticks Up for His Successor Trevor Noah After That Twitter ‘Kerfuffle’

Comedy Central's "Night of Too Many Stars: America Comes Together For Autism Programs" - Show
Andrew Toth—FilmMagic/Getty Images Jon Stewart performs on stage at Comedy Central's "Night of Too Many Stars: America Comes Together for Autism Programs" on Feb. 28, 2015, in New York City

"Trevor Noah will earn your trust and respect ... or not"

On Monday night’s episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart stood up for his successor, comedian Trevor Noah, who has been the center of “a large kerfuffle” on social media after some of his tweets were criticized for being sexist and anti-Semitic.

“I can say this without hesitation: Trevor Noah will earn your trust and respect … or not,” said Stewart, according to the Hollywood Reporter. “Just as I earned your respect … or did not.”

Stewart, who will be leaving the satirical news show later this year asked viewers to give Noah a chance.

“My experience with him is that he is an incredibly thoughtful and considerate and funny and smart individual. I think, you give him that time, and it’s going to be well worth it. I’m excited for where he’s going to take the thing.”

[THR]

Read next: Meet Trevor Noah

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Television

Here’s 6 Times the BBC Should Have Suspended Jeremy Clarkson but Didn’t

The British Top Gear host is no stranger to controversy

Has Jeremy Clarkson finally crossed the line?

The 54-year-old auto journalist and presenter of the hit show Top Gear has been suspended by the BBC after he allegedly tried to punch a producer. The broadcaster announced Clarkson’s suspension in a statement released on Tuesday, which read: “Following a fracas with a BBC producer, Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended pending an investigation. No one else has been suspended. Top Gear will not be broadcast this Sunday. The BBC will be making no further comment at this time.”

A pro-Clarkson protest has already broken out, with an online petition demanding that the presenter be reinstated racking up more than 380,000 signatures. That support can likely be chalked up to the Top Gear brand’s massive popularity — with 350 million viewers a week worldwide, the Emmy Award–winning show is one of the most popular television franchises on the planet. The show is known and loved by many for its brand of offensive humor and disregard for political correctness.

Yet this is hardly the first time that Clarkson has caused trouble for the BBC. The often rude and imprudent host has been at the center of many controversies throughout his time at Top Gear, which he first began hosting in 1988. Particularly since the midaughts, Clarkson has been criticized for intolerance, mocking other cultures and outright racism. The BBC has often had to deal with the fallout of Clarkson’s controversies, typically issuing defenses of or apologies for his behavior.

This latest incident marks the first time the BBC has suspended Clarkson, though there have been a number of past occasions where the broadcaster would have been justified in either temporarily or permanently cutting ties with the presenter.

1. Using the N Word
Years ago, Top Gear filmed the presenter choosing between two cars, where Clarkson used the nursery rhyme “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe” to make the decision. In the footage, not used on the show but discovered and reported by the tabloid the Daily Mirror in 2014, Clarkson mumbles the N word while reciting the rhyme.

After first issuing a strong denial, Clarkson released an apology video online. He explained that while filming he had, “mumbled where the offensive word would normally occur.” But after rewatching the footage, he realized, “It did appear that I had actually used the word I was trying to obscure.”

He then added, “Please be assured, I did everything in my power to not use that word.”

2. Nazi Jokes
In a 2005 episode, the Top Gear team discussed a German-built BMW Mini and Clarkson made a series of Nazi references. After raising his arm in a Hitler-style salute, Clarkson mocked the 1939 invasion that triggered the World War II, saying that a quintessentially German car would have a GPS “that only goes to Poland.”

There were numerous complaints, however the BBC Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee responded that while they “agreed that comments about the Nazis and the Second World War could certainly cause more concern than many other subjects,” they “did not believe that, when looking at the audience as a whole, they would have felt that the comments were anything more than Jeremy Clarkson using outrageous behaviour to amuse his audience, and that the remarks would not have led to anyone entertaining new or different feelings or concerns about Germans or Germany.”

3. Using a Slur Against Asians While Filming in Thailand
During a Top Gear special in Burma, which aired in March 2014, Clarkson and crew built a bamboo bridge over the River Kwai in Thailand. Once the bridge was completed, Clarkson said of the bridge, as the camera showed an Asian man walking across it, “That is a proud moment — but there’s a slope on it.” There was a swift backlash, with many calling out Clarkson for racism.

The BBC issued an apology in response to the controversy, stating: “When we used the word ‘slope’ in the recent Top Gear Burma Special it was a light-hearted word play joke referencing both the build quality of the bridge and the local Asian man who was crossing it. We were not aware at the time, and it has subsequently been brought to our attention, that the word ‘slope’ is considered by some to be offensive and although it might not be widely recognised in the UK, we appreciate that it can be considered offensive to some here and overseas, for example in Australia and the USA. If we had known that at the time we would not have broadcast the word in this context and regret any offence caused.”

4. Punching Piers Morgan
In 2004, Clarkson punched Piers Morgan — then the editor of the British tabloid the Daily Mirror — while the two were attending the British Press Awards. Though Clarkson later said he was “ashamed of it,” he didn’t shy away from boasting about the dustup on national television.

5. Insulting Then Prime Minister Gordon Brown
During the fallout of the global financial crisis in 2008, Clarkson called then Prime Minister Gordon Brown a “one-eyed Scottish idiot.” (Brown lost his sight in one eye after an accident playing rugby as a teen.) The insult prompted immediate backlash from Scottish politicians and disability groups. Clarkson issued an apology, stating, “In the heat of the moment I made a remark about the prime minister’s personal appearance for which, upon reflection, I apologise.”

6. Anti-Americanism
Clarkson has become known for his hostility toward the U.S. There have been many times — on Top Gear, in interviews and in his writing for the British newspaper the Sun — that he’s denounced American culture and people. But he perhaps took it a bit too far in 2005, where he wrote in a Sun article criticizing the rescue efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina: “Most Americans barely have the brains to walk on their back legs.”

Read next: Future of BBC’s Top Gear Uncertain After Host Suspended

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Television

Top Gear Host Jeremy Clarkson Has Been Suspended After a ‘Fracas’ With a Producer

He's no stranger to controversy

British Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended by the BBC.

Clarkson, 54, who is known for being outspoken, had already been given a final warning about his behavior after claims that he had used a racist slur during filming two years ago, Reuters reports.

“Following a fracas with a BBC producer, Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended pending an investigation,” the BBC said in a statement on Tuesday.

The U.K. broadcaster reported that he stands accused of hitting the producer during an argument last week.

Clarkson has not commented on the suspension.

Sunday’s episode of the current season will not be broadcast and it is uncertain whether the remaining episodes will be shown.

Top Gear is one of the BBC’s most successful television programs and is watched in more than 200 countries.

READ MORE: Here’s 6 Times the BBC Should Have Suspended Jeremy Clarkson But Didn’t

Read next: Julie Andrews on The Sound of Music at 50 — And That NBC Remake

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton Asks for Some of Her Emails to be Released

The former Secretary of State looks to get ahead of a brewing controversy

Hillary Clinton, embroiled in a controversy over her use of personal email during her time as Secretary of State, said late Wednesday that she’s asked the State Department to release her some of her correspondence.

“I want the public to see my email,” Clinton said in a tweet Wednesday evening. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

The likely 2016 presidential candidate’s aides reportedly turned over more than 50,000 pages of emails over to the State Department in compliance with new rules passed late last year. But it was subsequently revealed by the Associated Press that Clinton also used a private email server registered to her family home in Chappaqua, N.Y., which would make it more difficult for her online correspondence to be accessed by court orders or public requests. And her tweet made no mention of releasing emails her aides reviewed and then declined to hand over to the State Department.

“The State Department will review for public release the emails provided by Secretary Clinton to the Department, using a normal process that guides such releases,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement. “We will undertake this review as quickly as possible; given the sheer volume of the document set, this review will take some time to complete.”

TIME

There’s An Escalating Neighborhood War Over The Hollywood Sign

USA, California, Los Angeles, Hollywood Sign
Chris Cheadle—All Canada Photos/Getty Images The Hollywood sign in Los Angeles, California.

There are tensions between those who live nearby and tourists who visit

It’s one of the most famous icons of the U.S., symbolizing the promise of money, fame and new beginnings. But now it’s also the site of physical injuries, public urination and sex. The Hollywood sign is inciting growing tensions between its wealthy neighbors and the tourists who journey there.

Jeffrey Kleiser lives in the closest house to the sign and calls it “a disaster waiting to happen,” according to the Hollywood Reporter. He describes the reckless pilgrims to the sign: “It’s late at night, they fall down, knock on your door and go, ‘I’m bleeding. Can I use your phone?’ It’s more drama than you want when you’re leading a peaceful life.”

The drama between the eager, sometimes aggressive tourists who come with their cigarettes, selfie sticks and condoms and the neighborhood residents is escalating. Heather Hamza, who lives in the neighborhood by the sign, told the Hollywood Reporter, “There is rising, palpable tension between the residents and visitors. Everybody is infuriated. I shudder to think if any of these people coming up here have weapons in their cars. One of these days someone will get shot — it is that bad.”

[THR]

TIME Books

Video Blogger’s Ghostwriter Says She Had ‘Issues’ with Girl Online

YouTube blogger Zoe Sugg, known as Zoella, poses during a photocall for her debut novel "Girl Online" in London Nov. 24, 2014.
Luke MacGregor—Reuters YouTube blogger Zoe Sugg, known as Zoella, poses during a photocall for her debut novel "Girl Online" in London Nov. 24, 2014.

Author breaks silence to defend herself and the book

The author who has been described as the ghostwriter behind YouTube star Zoella’s New York Times best-selling young adult novel Girl Online said she had issues with the way the project was managed that she is barred from discussing.

The Sunday Times of London named British Young Adult writer Siobhan Curham as the likely ghostwriter of the book by Zoella, whose real name is Zoe Sugg. Curham, along with author and editorial director at Penguin U.K., Amy Alward, were mentioned in Sugg’s acknowledgements for Girl Online — but many people criticized Sugg for not explicitly crediting a ghostwriter.

On Monday, Girl Online‘s publisher Penguin told TIME in a statement that, “The factual accuracy of the matter is simply that Zoe Sugg did not write Girl Online on her own. For her first novel, Girl Online, Zoe has worked with an expert editorial team to help her bring to life her characters and experiences in a heartwarming and compelling story.”

Despite the online backlash that erupted against Sugg, Curham had stayed quiet on the controversy. But on Wednesday, Curham posted a defense of both herself and Sugg to her blog. Writing that she had signed on to help Sugg with the book not to become “famous” or “rich,” Curham said that she’d agreed because she loves writing and “helping others write books.” She did, however, note that it wasn’t an entirely enjoyable process, saying:

I did have some issues with how the project was managed. Issues which I expressed on more than one occasion. Issues which I’m afraid I’m not allowed to go into. And issues which have nothing to do with Zoe. I’ve seen at first hand how caring and considerate Zoe is. I’ve been very impressed with how she finds ways to use her (completely unexpected) fame to help others, whether that be through her vlogs, blogs, books or becoming a digital ambassador for the mental health charity MIND.

Curham also noted that she couldn’t reveal the precise nature of the work she did on the book, for “legal reasons,” though she did say, “Zoe Sugg chose to create a storyline that dealt with [issues such as cyber bullying, homophobia and anxiety] out of a desire to help her fans. And, when I was offered the opportunity to help Zoe, I also saw the opportunity to help get important and empowering messages across to her incredibly huge fan-base.”

And, perhaps proving that she really is a fan of the perpetually optimistic Sugg, Curham also found the bright spot in the whole ordeal. “By breaking sales records — because of Zoe’s humungous fan-base — book stores such as Waterstones are ending the year on healthy profits,” she writes. “Thousands of young people across the world have been tweeting excitedly about reading a book!”

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com