It's interesting that Microsoft has long been strong-arming hardware vendors into REQUIRING that they sell their machines with an OS(oh, any OS is fine *wink* *wink*). Now apparently they want to make sure you can't take Windows off of the device. This isn't so different from encrypted bootloaders on android devices.

Now that these mobile devices have advanced to being full blown computers in every sense of the word, they are still not referred to as such. They are not even referred to and single-purpose/special-purpose computers. They are referred to as consumer electronic devices or mobile phones. People are used to consumer electronics and mobile phones being proprietary devices, this is normal and accepted. There is still the pervasive idea that with desktop computer or a notebook computer that the machine is the PROPERTY of the OWNER of the machine. "This is my machine and you can't tell me what I can or can't put on it."

They idea of buying a laptop computer that you cannot, WILL NOT, run anything but the operating system shipped with it is just weird. If people aren't thinking of the device as a computer, but merely a telephone or a gadget, this idea doesn't seem weird at all.

How will they be able to stream live video to big brother???

Angry Birds will be running the country.

I find it slightly creepy that the term 'Permanent Employment' is being used.

Because your online persona is always more important than real life security!

Who decided not to pay off the NTSB?

U jelly?

FTA: "Don't just add depth for the sake of it." Bad dum tsss!

In the grand scheme of things Microsoft simply doesn't offer a product that truly competes with GNU/Linux. They bank on implementing proprietary methods and protocols to do things that people have already been doing. If it's put in a nice package and accompanied by some sort of guarantee that it will work (relying largely on clout) out of the box on a level where you don't need actual programmers or systems analysts to make it work, the execs will approve the purchase. Unfortunately what turns out to be a FUD over Functionality sales model ends up making sales.

The SCO vs. IBM debacle was merely an experiment (also in part funded by Microsoft) to see what one could get away with by exploiting a flawed patent system. Why should a company pay indemnity fees (extortion, protection money) to use technology that doesn't contain anything that actually belongs to Microsoft? This is IMPLIED risk if you don't pay up. The stigma and FUD benefits only the ones who continue to push it and in turn impedes technological development through fear and exploitation. In the end the lawyers win, the sharks win, and progress is stifled.

If you want to theorize on a tail wags the dog theory, just look at the multitude of work that is being contributed to the open source community by Google and Microsoft alike. Are they using Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready' business model to poison the genome of their rivals? I'm just going to shut up and put my tinfoil hat back on now.

GeoHot != Criminal

You must live in a VERY small basement.

You won't mind me remotely exploiting your systems and downloading personal files from your devices then would you? I mean, no biggie if you're not doing anything wrong. Right?