Well, yes, if all we ever did with a Windows 8 laptop was turn it on to test our (pre-installed) application, then Windows 8 would have absolutely no problems. As such, our usages would constitute approximately 2% Windows and 98% our application.

And if Microsoft were to base their UI design goals on those use cases, they might as well have a machine that boots directly to the app and forget the Windows UI, entirely.

Which is to say, mods, that parent is about as informative as if I told you the desert would be very wet if only it rained.

If Microsoft (or whatever company) wants to do business in China, then yes, they are obligated to, and they have been compelled to do so in the past.

The best way to avoid this is to not do business in the US, which is a route many small businesses take.

Now, if say, a hypothetical online service provider was a complete non-US entity with no business ties to the US, and their only link to the US is that they currently have US users, then there's no obligation to follow US law. Of course, anybody employed at this company would be wise to stay away from the US, and may want to avoid countries with extradition treaties as well. Yet, somehow, I'm almost positive if this service gets too popular and annoys too many powerful people, the US will somehow find a way to get rid of it.

This is the one thing I simply don't understand with Metro (actually I do understand why they did it, but how they thought it'd fly is completely beyond me). There's something called a desktop. It does exactly what every phone interface does. With a bit of modification (expand the icon size and make it a widget of sorts), it does exactly what Metro aspires to do.

There's something called Programs (or All Programs) in the start menu. It lists every program out there with an icon and some text. Give it its own button outside of the start menu, and make the list show up on the desktop, and that's pretty much feature parity with every other mobile OS.

There's something called the taskbar. It can auto-hide. It also has a system tray to hold commonly-used icons. Google put a search box in the Windows taskbar. It's charms without the mess.

Sure, lock down the Programs menu so that only there are only links to applications and not to help files or pdfs. Sure, lock down the system tray so that only three or four of the most important system tray icons only show up. Or better yet, let the user decide whether they want to see the Microsoft-approved minimal interface or the customized clusterfuck interface.

But it's all there. Everything that Windows 8 purports to do, everything that's "different" about it, is just more of the same. Windows 8 hasn't redefined the interface goals. It's not revolutionary in what's exposed and what's hidden away. It's just harder for the user to get to the same places. And different. And harder. And incomplete, which makes it even harder to use. And the thing is, Windows doesn't need to change. It just needs to do what it's doing, but better. But they went ahead and changed it anyway. And it's worse (what would you expect?).

And here's what gets me. Why go through all this fuss about Metro? Why completely turn the Windows world on its head (by removing its namesake from the paradigm)? Why risk losing that userbase? Why test how strong Linux on the desktop currently is? There's a lot of risk for very little to no reward.

Is the few dollars made on integrated web services worth the entire Windows userbase taking a good hard look at Libre/OpenOffice on Linux? Is the few extra bucks on app royalties worth alienating a whole industry of device makers and PC builders, not to mention application developers who suddenly now have to pay the Windows tax? They had enough trouble getting people to upgrade from XP to 7 (let's not even bring up Vista). How did they think creating an inferior operating system with negative adoption incentives would stop or even slow OSS adoption? Did they think that the non-adoption of Winodws 8 was somehow going to lead to anything other than a non-adoption of Windows Phone? If anything, the stink from Windows 8/RT (especially RT) is spoiling Windows Phone.

Windows ME sorta made sense (old DOS codebase with 2K look and feel). Vista sorta made sense (XP but everything upgraded). Those two failed in the execution, but at least they had a noble purpose. But Windows 8 is just schizophrenic. They changed everything that shouldn't have been touched. They kept all of the UI aspects that should have been changed. They nailed everything down that should've been left customizable. And they allowed customization to the things that should've been nailed down (who the fuck thought it was a good idea to let app developers run wild with the Metro tiles?).

They should've scrapped Windows 8. Disowned it. Buried it in a landfill in the middle of the desert. Burned off its branches in the repository. They've done it before (Windows Phone 7, Windows Phone 7.5, PlaysForSure, hell, even Windows RT). Revert to 7 and patch the good changes from 8 and call it 9. Sticking with the dysfunctional aspects of 8 just because they've suddenly become too stubborn to admit a mistake, that'll be worse than if they had used Microsoft Bob as the UI base of XP. Hell, they'd probably have better success using Microsoft Bob as the UI base of Windows 9. The way things are going, the year of Linux on the Desktop won't be too far off.

I use bash.org to store my passwords.

One statement does not follow the other. 2 cannot exist between 0 and 1. It is impossible. So your example is not relevant to the point you're trying to make.

If something is possible, it is probable. Given an infinite number of universes, the probable is reality in at least one (but likely more than one) of them. You cannot put limits on infinity.

You're trying to say that just because something is possible and therefore probable does not mean it'll happen. That's only true under the assumption of a finite domain.

No, they're just hiding. Like ninjas.

You're attributing far too much value and putting far too much importance on money.

Police offices can be hospitalized for even minor injuries, largely because of liability concerns. Just because they're in a hospital doesn't mean they had limbs amputated or third degree burns or severe trauma or some such. It could very well have been whiplash or cuts and bruises or smoke inhalation or even concussion-like symptoms.

Michael Bay will get the movie rights.

Wake me up when they make smart pocket watches.

The worse thing that could happen to a view screen is that it gets so smashed up you can't resolve fine details through all the cracks (actually, the absolutely worse thing that could happen is that it ceases to exist, but at that point you've got other problems). But the fine details are hardly necessary for flying and landing.

The worse thing that could happen to a video feed is that the feed goes completely dead, in which case you will be literally flying blind. In that case, your only chance of survival is to eject.

I can't speak for London, but you'd be surprised about how backwaters the U.S. can be, especially in government organizations. When contracts are dragged out far beyond the initial bid (or even estimate, in a no-bid situation), it's more cost effective to do nothing and stick with paper and pencil. Check out the CityTime project if you want to see what happens to government contracts. It's an extreme case, certainly, but similar things happen on all scales, from the union workers to the contractor all the way up to management.

IANAL either, but I suspect there's a bit more to the word "generic" than merely commodity hardware. My understanding is that a generic computer is one that can be programmed to virtually do any task. So any software that runs on a CPU (or even a GPU these days) would be running on a generic computer, but hard drive firmware would not.

This reading would be more in line with some of the other cases, as it means that software by itself cannot be patented, but software that's tied to specific hardware and is specific to the way the hardware functions, can be patented.

But IANAL, so maybe the actual legal definition will be a little different.

The bombs were not for the Japanese. They were expected to fight to the last man. The bombs were dropped as a show of force to Russia. With the European theater concluded, Russia was moving troops to the east in preparation for an invasion of Japan.

That the emperor of Japan used the bombs as an excuse to curb his generals was a huge bonus. it kept Russia out and the U.S. from having to invade.

There are parts of your rather thoughtful assessment that I agree, and parts that I disagree with.

I'm not sure that's the fear. A unified Korea, assuming from the South, would no longer require U.S. troop presence. And if the South managed to unify Korea, they'd be more likely to kick the U.S. troops out than to keep them there. The only reason the South Koreans tolerate the U.S. is because that keeps North Korea out. Keep in mind that South Korea (and Japan) are not grateful for the U.S. presence. They tolerate it and only because they have to. Taiwan is the only one who's amicable to the relationship, and they're growing closer and closer to the mainland every day (they'll still like Americans, but they know the money's in China). But there's no U.S. base in Taiwan either.

You have to understand that China's need is economic growth at the moment. China is afraid of North Korea provoking war against the South. They're not so afraid of a unified Korea under the North regime if it just ended there. However, if the North ever took over the South, the next logical step would be to attack Japan. And this is especially true if North Korea had nukes. There would be absolutely no restraint from the rabid war dogs in the North against Japan. You do not understand hatred until you speak to a Korean about the Japanese (even the South Koreans, who are friendlier than their batshit crazy cousins up north).

Such an action (the war, obviously) would destabilize the region enormously. The U.S. would be involved. China would be involved. Russia would be involved. Even India and much of Western Europe would be dragged into the conflict. That's the last thing China wants to see, because there's a lot of risk there with little to no reward. The risk is greater U.S. or Soviet--I mean Russian--influence in the area after the war concludes, or even of MAD.

Even if North Korea magically discovers the ICBM and hits the U.S. with nukes, China would have lost, because the U.S. is really fueling the majority of China's economic growth. Now, when China has entered a period of economic self-sufficiency, their tune with regards to a nuclear North Korea may change. But for now, North Korea is a massive sore point for China.

After Bush put Iran, North Korea, and Iraq in the so-called "Axis of Evil", are you surprised? Iran is also seeking nukes. And don't forget Pakistan, which is probably more unstable and more hostile to the U.S., was not included in this list for one very big, radioactive reason. The survival of the North Korean (as well as Iranian) state does depend on it. Hell, if Libya or Egypt or Syria had nukes, the western powers would have been helping the government, not helping rebels fight against it.

I'm not sure you get how other countries feel about the U.S., in particular those under the "Axis of Evil" label. The only way North Korea will not seek the bomb is if the U.S. implodes and collapses on itself. Full stop. Same with Iran.