So Apple want $40 a phone for a few cosmetic and convenient things they were the first to bring to market, like tapping a number or bounceback when you over scroll - but they baulk at paying $2 a phone for stuff that *makes the phone actually work* like 3G/4G, WIFI, etc. etc. How the hell is that ok? And if you want to say those 3G patents Samsung hold are FRAND and essential for phones, fine - but Apple still wasn't even paying the FRAND amount. So why can't Apple's innovations be considered essential and ubiquitous to normal mobile phones, now and also be forced to be reasonable??

Genuine thanks. I have one of these models in my office, where there's just a couple of us. Never even thought about it, as we don't use it for anything other than establishing PPPoE on ADSL. Turns out we had those features all turned on, too. No disks attached - but still.

Or... they could just not build insecure systems directly connected to the internet?

Ok, ok, I know that nothing is ever totally safe and the Natanz reactor in Iran was hacked without being connected to the internet but surely, better design, better systems management and better monitoring, etc, would reduce the need for such an astronomical number of heads, just sitting in a chair all day watching logs or looking for bugs in code? And you can be quite sure some idiot will still run an out of date flash or java on their IE browser and plenty of small areas will still get subcontractors in to manage domains, scripts, small programs etc and they'll be under the radar.

Sounds like the modern equivalent of the industrial revolution - just pay a huge number of plebs to do menial tasks. Somehow I doubt this will stop a bugged monitor cable, supplied by the NSA, from doing what it does.

I'm sure it's great and all but in Australia, you might as well mail the data to me in individual bits per envelope, for the speed that Vimeo buffers down here...So pretty much at that point, I lost interest and decided this is basically Pulse or Flipboard.

I'd fully refute that. Triple J is barely recognisable to me, these days, and I was 100% immersed in the music scene in the 2nd half of the 90's. It's all dance and rap now - a very different sound. It's not "wrong" or "worse" but to claim it's in anyway oriented at the 30 something's, like me, is way off; it's just aimed at people who are younger than I am. It's aimed firmly at the uni student age, and always has been. Even their news articles lead with stories like rises to student fees, etc.

A friend of mine was asked this back in uni, when he applied for a graduate role at some company. He replied "in your chair".

He did not get the job.

I would assume the simply tendered out the process and got a bunch of quotes (tender responses) from companies on the government preferred supplier list. Any companies not assumed "big enough" were discounted out of hand. Then they would have had 2 or 3 left over (because at the very start of the process, they would have decided to immediately short list down to 2 or 3 people at most because bigger numbers than that is too hard to comprehend) and had some presentations from them about their success stories and then asked themselves "who was the cheapest?" and "who have I heard of before?".

That's how it works here in Australia, anyway.

They already have - but they just called it Google.

"You are now being followed by @greatwhite"

I'm actually with you on this. Hadn't tried it before - gave it a shot and I don't hate it. Fairly apathetic on the issue - I can handle either designs but the beta isn't bad.

Fibre to the home might be common in Melbourne but it sure as hell isn't in Perth. We have several areas that can't even get ADSL and about 2 or 3 suburbs *in total* that can get cable.

I would have thought Intel held the standard for the best SSD in terms of quality? I absolutely only use Intel SSD in servers as they're the only enterprise grade SSD I trust. As for OCZ, I have 8 in a pile on my desk at the moment (all 60GB ones) and I know 2 of them don't work and 6 probably do - but I can't be bothered trying to figure out which is which. They have been pretty bad, I would agree.

Not really sure what you mean, sorry? In any case, "Be Fruitful and Multiple" (pru urvu) is a commandment. It's one of the 613 commandments (mitzvot) Jews are obligated to live by (and the Torah is, after all, a Jewish text).

"Be fruitful and multiply" *is* 100% a commandment. It's the first of the 613 commandments mentioned in the Torah (see item 125 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments).

And as for the guy you're responding (geekoid) to's assertion that having too many kids is bad, I would ask him what he instead recommends? Would he have it that all those lives never existed and all the potential those children bring with them never exist because those children aren't as worthy as he is? His parents had less kids and he has more material things so his life is somehow worth more than theirs?? Should we go to South East Asia where there's massive over population (and, I point out, very little western religion) and explain to those kids they should never have been born, so other kids can have a nicer life? I'd argue kids in poverty stricken areas probably do a lot *less* damage to our world than us entitled 1st worlders, in the grand scheme of things.