What part of "will not honor a web browser's 'do not track' setting" did you find so difficult to understand?

Which changes precisely nothing. YOU chose to bundle them and advertise their inclusion as a part of YOUR product. That makes you responsible for them. If you didn't sign a contract with your partners that covered them through the life-cycle of the product, that was your mistake.

If you bought a car and then, while under warranty, a firmware update was released for it that resolved safety issues but also disabled the A/C, would you accept that situation, or would you expect a feature you paid for to be retained? After all, the car manufacturer doesn't make the A/C, they just buy it off the shelf from another company. Why should they have to pay that third party what's required to support the product they chose to build into their own, larger product?

Following your total lack of logic, it's the customer's tough luck to lose that feature. And for that, you, sir, are a moron. (And a deliberately obtuse one who's trying to defend the indefensible.)

The part where "optional" was not a word used in grandparent's post.

Mod parent up. For goodness sakes, I was 17 years old when Windows 3.x first came out, had precisely zero training of any kind, and figured out how to use its GUI all by myself in the space of about ten seconds. It's not just a useless statement, it's also a vast and very obvious over-exaggeration.

Reading comprehension and basic logic: You fail at it. If you didn't want to support those apps for the lifetime of your product, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BUNDLED THEM. You can't expect the app developer to keep them updated for you for free, and the app developer didn't sell them to the end user, you did. Ergo, it is your responsibility and to pretend otherwise shows just what a shiatty company Nvidia truly is. (Which is why my next PC won't include Nvidia hardware, incidentally.)

The only reason the bundler wouldn't love it is because the third party would expect to be paid more. Ergo, the bundler doesn't love it because it cuts into their profit margin -- a profit margin they're inflating by advertising the inclusion of software that is then withdrawn from the consumer without their consent.

In other words, you feel that the poor, poor company should be let off scot free because they only stole from the public. Bless their tiny little corporate hearts.

NO. That is not how it works. They sold a product; if part of that product doesn't work because of changes they made, they have a responsibility to pay the developer whatever is necessary to fix it rather than stealing from their own customers.

And now we hear that they even pull this crap on airplanes - entertainment sections, connected to internet, are connected to same switches like engine control - "firewall will stop things!". Fucking idiots.

[citationneeded.jpg]

Butt dialing happens, by definition, by mistake and without your knowledge. When you close your drapes, they don't randomly open by mistake and without your knowledge. This argument by the court is asinine, and the comparison completely specious.

Couldn't agree less about the layout. It's a disorganized mish-mash on the desktop, and filled with utterly unnecessary fluff like comment boxes that float around the screen when you click on them, forcing you to move your mouse unnecessarily to get back to them and lengthening the time until you can start typing. Support for inlined animated GIFs is hardly something I'd consider a plus, just a way for people to annoy me. And I've never had a single spambot try to add me on Facebook, whereas on Google+ the majority of followers are in fact spambots.

As for why it didn't catch on, that's because Facebook already has achieved critical mass, and so Google+ can't compete with it. Why would you use a social network most of your friends aren't on? You wouldn't, and because you wouldn't, nor would they -- it's chicken and egg. The MySpace comparison doesn't hold water because most people had gotten bored of MySpace and stopped using it before Facebook came along, and even those who were still using it had relatively small, activity-free friend networks. (Speaking personally, I didn't know anybody who had more than 15-20 active friends on MySpace at the absolute most by the time Facebook arrived.)

It's unfortunate, but the chances of anybody beating Facebook without an amazing killer app that can't be easily copied (or a major, major faux pas on Facebook's part) are pretty much zero. Doubly so when their only reason for creating the network in the first place is to mine even more data on their users, which was Google's only reason for creating Google+.

My experience tells me that it's mostly cars from the past five years or so that are vulnerable to this type of exploit. Anything pre-CANbus has pretty much zero chance of having complex interconnections.

You do realize that the earliest iterations of the CAN bus date back to the late 1980s, it has been in the majority of US-market vehicles for more than a decade, and by 2008 was a legal requirement in mass-market vehicles, right?

A heck of a lot more than just the last five years of vehicles use the CAN bus. If your vehicle is made within the last decade it's almost a certainty that it uses the CAN bus.

Exactly. Apple botched its watch from day one by trying to cram in far too much and creating a horrendous UI for it. They completely missed that what the watch is useful for isn't trying to run apps, pan around maps, etc., but for quick at-a-glance stuff -- notifications, very quick messages, etc.

My Android Wear watch -- the Moto 360 -- has the perfect blend of notifications and customizability. I can use apps if I want to -- and the one I use most frequently is a simple "flashlight" app that lights up my watch face so I can see what I'm doing when I'm fumbling with my keys -- but they're not the primary, overriding design goal.

The problem is that the hype mill will inevitably turn against the Apple Watch because it's a poorly-considered design, but because we have short attention spans and Almighty Apple can't be criticized, it will turn into a backlash against smartwatches in general. My fear is that Android Wear will eventually tank not because it wasn't useful and well-designed, but because Apple screwed the pooch and took everybody else down with it.

I'm referring to the hot mess of known facts about the "free" upgrade such as that Win10 will be serving as an advertising platform for Microsoft, will not allow you to opt out of or even briefly defer updates, as well as the fact that Microsoft has point-blank refused to clearly state that there will not be a subscription fee added at some point in the future (which can be taken to infer that there likely will be, at some point.)

And soon you will realize how prophetic the air quotes around "free" really were. Good luck with that hot mess.

...are pretty much zip, because he knows if he does so, he'll be the next one to find himself mysteriously assigned a 400/400 threat rating.

You do realize it's a private company doing the freaking out, and not public sector, right? LORAL has a contract on suburban rail in Greater London and parts of Hertfordshire through next year.

Sure, they're wasting police time and court time, but we normally herp derps only about government waste around these parts. The private sector is infallible, and if you suggest otherwise you get called a lib.