Not only a security problem, that's just the surface, but the smothering care of Oracle plus the whole 1999 feeling makes for a combination that made this step necessary years ago.

Even in the USA there are "bribes" paid by businesses. Its called campaign donations, political sponsorship, etc and is quite legal.

Find out how much the companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, Big Cigarette, Media, etc pay as political donations... Bet your bottom dollar there are strings attached.

It is corruption, for in a true DEMOCRATIC government it should be the desires of the voters that dictate the laws and governance moving ahead.

One person one Vote, and not One Dollar One Vote

You are not going to get hammered. I agree, the Windows Phone interface is actually very good from what I felt when I played around with a Lumia. Its other things about the OS that makes me stick with Android.

To be honest, although I myself would NOT be interested in a Windows OS phone, I can see my parents being quite comfortable with one.

Now coming to windows 8.... thats a different kettle of fish! They should have kept a limited aero for desktop use. I completely hate the lack of contrast on the new desktop (I do not mind the metro interface in "metro" world, I just HATE the desktop interface)

It was a paid advert, but for a fictional, made for the film Ericsson JB988 (http://www.007museum.com/ericsson_jb988_james_bond.htm) loosely based on the real Ericsson R320 http://www.gsmarena.com/ericsson_r320-194.php

Is it some proxy? Is it a weirdly labeled block of IPv4 addresses? Is it some DNS level trickery?

The real thing that's turning javascript into the lingua franca of the web are really three things:

1. JS is already supported by all major browsers, modern ones with JIT

1. asm.js - which turns anything from a LLVM intermediate representation into javascript code that runs around 2x the speed of native c/c++ code in supported browsers and as fast as any other piece of JS code in all the other browsers

1. HTML5, WebRTC

It's an inside-out stack.

Remembering the 80's Superman, especially the aweful Superman 4, I think the reboot was a good thing.

(the First was not too bad, and nor was the second, the third was getting a little silly at times, but all of them had a strong stereotypical american view which may have worked then, but is kinda tiring now.)

See the next announcement that Apple is pairing with Microsoft to bring Bing maps in 3.... 2.... 1.....

I can tell the difference between a "beginner" and a "professional" irregardless of what they are using. A professional with a camera phone, will tend to record the moment better than an amateur clicking away with a fancy DSLR on automatic mode that he or she bought at Best Buy to show off!

In fact most pros have a bit of a dont care attitude about their tools, because ultimately its whats in their head, and their skills that make the photo.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter what tool, or the skill of the photographer, if the photo is a recording of a once in a lifetime event.......

Don't get me wrong; I am a DSLR photographer (amateur not professional, its not my day job!).

You are absolutely right about the technical quality of a DSLR, crisp clear photos when used with Primes. Nice fill in flashes. Filters. Large Sensors. nice DOF effects, etc.

However, do not dismiss a cam phone. set up of a DSLR can take time. And it is bulky to carry. A phone is always there.

Remember the biggest aspect of a great photo is actually being able to capture that moment, and sometimes its only with a phone. It doesn't matter how bad the quality is, or anything at that point, as long as you can sufficiently captured that moment.

I think a lot of photographers (mainly amateur, who are just starting out with DSLR) have forgotten that.

If we ask the question: "for how many days in a year is a specific browser/application vulnerable to an unpatched exploit?", then we get awful numbers. There are plenty of applications used by millions of people where that number is more than half of the year.

The 7 day limit is probably a compromise between trying to get the vendor to fix the vulnerability that is actively being exploited and disclosing the information and thus increasing the pool of people who'd use the exploit.

For vulnerabilities where there is no known active exploitation, we should assume that there is. 30/60day delays are unforgivable.

The current mostly advertisement supported model that's dominant on the internet is warping how we interact with each other and how we use services - reminds me of a bad mix of Orwell's 1984 and The Matrix (the part where humans are used as batteries).

I'd gladly pay for a lot of content on the internet, but currently I either don't have the option or the pricing is outrageous - scientific articles and newspaper subscription comes to mind as being way overpriced. We need microtransactions and the first step is building the infrastructure to make it possible. Things like app.net instead of surveillance supported services like facebook are the step in the right direction.

Mozilla suite was not credible for the normal users. Don't get me wrong, I used it as my main browser, hell I even used phoenix as my main browser on my laptop, but I just could not recommend it to most people at the time. Firefox was just right.

Wiping the computer and forcing linux if you have to clean their computer more than 3 times?

Calling a person as "Untrusted" simply because they got a virus?

God you are a piece of work, and you call THEM untrustworthy?

IT is their computer, their right to do what they want with it. IF you don't want to support them, you tell them you don't want to, or charge them appropriately. Don't wipe their computer and install a alternative OS, and treat them as if they are untrustworthy

I hope you were joking when you said what you said above. Even so, I hope this is a joke you dont share with normal people.

If I had mod points, I would award you all of them.

Its easy for some "Younglings" today to criticise what happened then. I personally didn't like IE back in 2000(Active X drive by installs, toolbars, and standards compatibility). Hell, life was bad back then (1997 - 2004) when Nutscrape and Exploder each having their own view of "Standards" (I am ignoring the Mozilla Suite and Netscape 6/7 as both never truly gained critical mass, and were not really for the masses anyway).

Until Firefox was released in 2004, there was no credible standards based browser, apart from the rather good Opera, which was pay ware at the time. Even then it was the surge of appalling viruses and drive by installs on IE, that finally got people to notice Firefox with its better security, and seduced by features such as pop up blocking and tabbed browsing.

Thanks to the efforts by Mozilla, which were then cemented later by Apple with Webkit/Safari, Standards Compliance has become a desirable feature for browser developers, rather than a drag.

Even Microsoft has slowly gotten their act together, and improving their own standards support.

Today we are in a better place, but its easy to forget how bad it was. even though Firefox was released in 2004, it still took a while to overtake IE.

In companies, where they are very much into standard installations and frowning upon installing software, it wasn't until Windows 7 came that IE 6 was eventually replaced together with XP. Therefore coding for the crappy standards of IE6 was the only realistic path available.

Its easy for most of us working in Tech companies to say otherwise, but in other companies like banking, and government, its a different environment.