Hey this is fun. I'm going to go with 'Kin.

Well that's a bit like saying that since iOS and OS X use the same Xcode tools that there's an advantage. And yes, that is one advantage Apple and its developers can leverage over Android which just has tablets and phones (in volume, along with a handful of Chromebooks, TV boxes, etc...). But it does little for the consumer who still needs to buy apps for both iOS and OS X and learn how to use each (often the apps have very little in common in terms of UI).

But with Microsoft, it's confusing and frustrating to the user when the purchased app for their phone won't run on their tablet or vice versa. One of the reasons the iPad took off was because on day one it could run a bazillion iPod/iPhone apps (in 2X) mode, and universal binaries quickly brought about optimized apps that were "buy once".

I feel bad that I spent all my mod points yesterday. This is pretty insightful.

Actually, I think this extortion plan will have a huge impact. It won't stop torrents, but it will severely set things back a few levels.

I'd expect many free wifi hotspots to shut down, while larger places like Starbucks institute a registration and ban policy.

I also expect that a lot of parents will kid notifications about activity that they will rightfully or wrongfully blame on their children and then lock things down.

I think a lot of fence-sitters will also stop torrenting.

I don't think many will get dropped from ISPs, but look at the warning system. It's something that gets progressively painful. So even someone who is single and in charge of their ISP account will be coerced into changing their behavior.

This is where VPN comes in. I haven't noticed any VPNs raising their rates or marketing based on this new policy, but I'll bet they do see more business soon, as well they should.

VPN for the win.

I've been using Boxpn and it works very well... highly recommended.

There really is no "defense" here. This is entirely outside of our legal system. Your ISP gets a notification, and they take action. You can pay $35 to "appeal" the "violation", but you're appealing to your ISP. My guess is what that $35 will buy you each time is entirely dependent on how much "competition" there is in your area. The ISPs don't want to lose you as a customer, but will take you down the 6 strikes path, especially if you're a heavy data user and not paying the $35 each time.

In their perspective, it doesn't matter if your WiFi is open. If it was, letter one will tell you to close it (along with instructions). If you were hacked or have a virus, your ISP will sell you protection. If your neighbor broke into your house and connected via ethernet, the ISP will gladly take your $35 for each notification.

Heck, if you were just randomly selected for extortion and nobody had even used your internet connection at all, the ISP will gladly take your $35.

What really sucks here is that a lot of free WiFi spots are going to close down. Larger ones like Starbucks may implement some sort of registration and ban policy, but mom and pop shops are going to shut down their WiFi (or sign up for hotspot service providers).

But for anybody who needs a job to pay bills and put food on the table, Facebook is a timebomb waiting to go off.

You make it sound like you can get a (real) job without having a Facebook profile for the HR department to approve.

The problem with the one key DEL as opposed to the two-key Command+DEL, is that with the one key, it would be very easy to accidentally delete files. No big deal, right? You could just recover them from the trash... but that's only if you know you did that. Two-keys prevents that.

I'm also not sure why a single key would be expected anyway, when every other "command" is preceded by the Command key.

Command+s = save
Command+q = quit
Command+o = open
Command+p = print ...
Command+DEL = delete

How, after 45 seconds, did you not get this, especially when the shortcut is listed right there in the file menu?

I'd pay 3X for a 1TB SSD for my MacBook Pro... now shut up and take my money.

Ooops, too bad they aren't $300-ish, but over $1,100

"The reason the graph stops at 128 kb/s is that things become uninteresting at that point -- because nobody's able to actually tell the difference. " "Opus - the Codec To End All Codecs"

Those two statements seem at odds. If I encode all my music at >128kbps, what advantage does Opus have for me that I'd consider switching?

It seems, based on the graph that Opus would have a niche for things like VoIP or mobile streaming radio, but really not so much as Yet Another Codec for music libraries and other uses where the codecs are entrenched and likely to be over 128kbps.

I came here for this. Come on people, where are they?

"Did anybody else feel the "FUD" when XP was announced?"

Uh, no I didn't. Maybe I couldn't hear the FUD through the screams of horror that was caused by Windows ME.

But that's the thing, and what's relevant to the article (and Star Trek).

Windows 95 broke everything, and when accessory vendors and developers fully got on board, it was time for...

Windows 98/98SE, which worked reasonably well and added lots of features users wanted. 98SE was what a lot of people downgraded to when they got PCs that came with...

Windows ME, which broke a ton of stuff, and (unlike Windows 95) didn't add anything of value. When accessory vendors and developers fully got on board...

Windows XP came out and like 98SE worked reasonable well with nice features. A lot of people fell back on XP when they got PCs that came with...

Windows Vista, which broke a ton fo stuff, and like ME didn't add much value. When accessory vendors and developers fully got on board...

Windows 7 came out.

Windows 8 is a little different. It's getting so many negative reviews because of the horrible interface. As a result, people are thinking that there aren't many, if any, features they care about, and there's the risk of breakage, so why bother upgrading to something they won't like based on their first impression?

My guess though is that Microsoft will either weather this out, or revert the interface and either way, it won't make much of a difference.

The problem isn't with unlimited versus neutral in this case. The problem is in charging one price for one set of data and another price for another set of data, which is exactly what neutrality is supposed to prevent. AT&T isn't just saying FaceTime won't be available on unlimited plans, they're saying it won't be available on standard limited plans. You have to pay extra for a "shared" plan, even though you may not have any other device or person to share data with. Even if you are sharing data, the overall expense may be higher than paying individually.

What is that fable about the snake biting the person and saying, "Of course I bit you, I'm a snake!"

The problem isn't AT&T, the problem is with the law. It needs to be fixed. Until then, we'll just see more an more of this.

Here's the loophole AT&T found...

Net neutrality laws don't dictate any software that must be preloaded onto a phone. FaceTime for example, an Apple app, has a software patch that is downloaded and owned by AT&T which allows FaceTime to work over 3G. You get this patch with the new more expensive plans. While technically you could get around this by patching the FaceTime app yourself, you'd be violating software piracy laws, and AT&T could check to see if you were doing FaceTime over 3G and on a phone that did not have the more expensive plan... and then charge you for this.

Complain all you want about FaceTime over 3G, but the larger issue is that AT&T, and everyone else is free to do this with anything.

Tethering obviously comes to mind, but so does any other service.

All a carrier has to do make it so that your device would only work with a software patch that is only given if you pay for it.

Want to use YouTube? Great, AT&T doesn't block YouTube, but they could make it so that the YouTube app only works over 3G when you pay for the plan that includes the YouTube over 3G patch. The same goes for NetFlix or any other service.

In some cases, AT&T would either need participation of the platform or the service, but apparently this hasn't been an issue for them yet, as Apple, as strong as they are, is willing to cave on this.

So many comments here talk about "meh, no big deal, adjust for inflation...Microsoft blah, blah, blah".

However in late December, 1999 when Microsoft hit its peak, it was trading at a PE ratio of about 72 as compared to Apple with a multiple of about 15. In other words, adjusting for DEFLATION, for about $618-622 Billion today, you would have a company (Apple) that makes 4.8 times as much profit as in 1999 (Microsoft).

Or simply applying Microsoft's 72 PE ratio to Apple today, Apple would be worth $3 Trillion.

I totally agree. Amazon's search quality is just amazingly bad, and I keep thinking they're going to improve it some day, but year after year, it just keeps getting worse. I've actually used Google to search for products on Amazon.

However, Amazon search *will* get fixed someday and when it does, everything else about it is a better experience and usually for the best price.

Search is easier to fix, but Google could offer a competitive solution by setting standards and providing a cloud solution for retailers, both for shipping and local.