Don't lose the gear, you can land that thing in a crosswind at the crab angle because of the gear.

FTFA:

No he didn't. Unless the exploration of the game space was exhaustive, there's no proof. A bunch of people playing the game and failing to solve it isn't a proof.

I left out a lot of the evidence listed in the criminal complaint because it was too verbose to retype here, and some of what I left out indicated that specific prices were discussed and set together by the publishers with Apple's consent. If the DOJ can actually back up what they've put in the complaint, this looks like a slam dunk for them.

Go read the actual criminal complaint and not just my excerpts. These companies are screwed. This is the kind of thing that leads to prison time for executives.

More text from the complaint suggesting that DOJ has hard evidence:

"Beginning no later than September 2008, the Publisher Defendants' senior executives engaged in a series of meetings, telephone conversations and other communication in which they jointly acknowledged to each other the threat posed by Amazon's pricing strategy and the need to work collectively to end that strategy. By the end of the summer of 2009, the Publisher Defendants had agreed to act collectively to force up Amazon's retail prices and thereafter considered and implemented various means to accomplish that goal."

"The Publisher Defendants directly discussed, agreed to, and encouraged each other to collective action to force Amazon to raise its retail e-book prices."

"Publisher Defendants took steps to conceal their communications with one another, including instructions to 'double delete' e-mail and taking other measures to avoid leaving a paper trail."

"They received assurances from both each other and Apple that they all would move together to raise retail e-book prices."

"All five Publisher Defendants agreed in 2009 at the latest to act collectively to raise retail prices for the most popular e-books above $9.99. [Then quotes internal email]."

"Apple concluded that competition from other retailers, especially Amazon, would prevent Apple from earning its desired 30 percent margins on e-book sales. Ultimately, Apple, together with the Publisher Defendants, set in motion a plan that would compel all non-Apple e-book retailers also to sign onto agency or else, as Apple's CEO put it, the Publisher Defendants all would say, 'we're not going to give you the books'."

"As it negotiated with the Publisher Defendants in December 2009 and January 2010, Apple kept each Publisher Defendant informed of the status of its negotiations with the other Publisher Defendants. Apple also assured the Publisher Defendants that its proposals were the same to each and that no deal Apple agreed to with one publisher would be materially different from any deal it agreed to with another publisher."

"Each publisher defendant rquired assurances that it would not be the only publisher to sign an agreement with Apple that would compel it either to take pricing authority from Amazon or to pull its e-books from Amazon. The Publisher Defendants continued to fear that Amazon would act to protect its ability to price e-books at $9.99 or less if any one of them acted alone. Apple supplied the needed assurances."

"Near the time Apple first presented the agency model, one Publisher Defendant's CEO used a telephone call, ostensibly made to discuss a marketing joint venture, to tell Penguin USA CEO David Shanks that 'everyone is in the same place with Apple'."

"On the evening of Saturday, January 23, 2010, Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed his boss, Steve Jobs, and noted that Penguin USA CEO David Shanks 'wanted an assurance that he is 1 of 4 before signing'."

There's about 20 pages worth of evidence, with email and telephone conversations quoted. This will be a big case. It looks like Steve Jobs and the publishing companies' CEOs were personally involved in the conspiracy.

It sounds like the DOJ has evidence that collusion occurred. From the complaint filed today: "As a result of discussions with the Publisher Defendants, Apple learned that the Publisher Defendants shared a common objective with Apple to limit e-book retail price competition, and that the Publisher Defendants also desired to have popular e-book retail prices stabilize at levels significantly higher than $9.99. Together, Apple and the Publisher Defendants reached an agreement whereby retail price competition would cease (which all the conspirators desired), retail e-book prices would increase significantly (which the Publisher Defendants desired), and Apple would be guaranteed a 30 percent "commission" on each e-book it sold (which Apple desired)."

Case information, including the complaint, is here.

That's exactly how it worked, prior to Apple's entry into the market. Apple forced the change away from the model you describe.

It actually is legit. Here's an article from 2010 giving the same budget numbers, and saying that it will be ready by 2011 at the earliest. Getting close to ready in 2012 then seems about right. Story

I have two offices, each with a different desktop (WinXP on one, OS X Lion on the other), two MacBooks (Lion on one, Leopard on the other), and a home Linux system (Ubuntu/KDE). I find all systems to be fairly usable, and for the most part, I don't really care which one I'm using. I just want to be able to use the computer, so trying to push one type of system over another seems pretty pointless if they're all ultimately usable. The differences among the systems end up being pretty minor:

Linux:
- Easy connectivity to remote systems/servers.
- Easy to find, install, and uninstall software via apt-get, with reasonable assurance that the centralized repositories aren't hosting malware.
- I never think about licenses, everything is free [beer].

OS X:
- Easy connectivity to remote systems/servers.
- UNIX with a pretty GUI (though KDE is pretty nice nowadays).
- Many applications have easy installs/uninstalls, just drag the folder into /Applications or from there to the trash. (Though having to remember which applications uninstall with a drag to the trash and which need to run an uninstaller is annoying).

Windows:
- Usable as long as I can stay away from the start menu (which I find cumbersome).
- Needs a real command line that lets me ssh & scp. Having to use a GUI program to scp annoys me.
- No customizability. For example, I can't figure out how to have the clock on the taskbar also list today's date.
- Installing software via downloads of .exe's from random websites is worrisome.

Or their issue from the first week of September, 2000: "Terrorist extremely annoyed by delayed flight".

I'm amused that the ACLU's map has given West Virginia back to Virginia.

The majority of people in the US don't vote because they don't feel that any of the candidates have their interests in mind and because they feel that no matter who they vote for, they're going to be screwed over anyway. The inconvenience of having to walk/drive to the polling place isn't the issue, and solving that isn't likely to dramatically improve voter turnout.

Oh, gotcha. The application's toolbar is in the title bar now. I've never even noticed that toolbar, as I've always just assumed that titlebar buttons control the window layout. For as many times as I've clicked the Office roundel in 2007, I'd never even noticed the save button to the right. My brain just ignores titlebar buttons when thinking about the application inside the window.

Oh, gotcha. The application's toolbar is in the title bar now. I've never scanned those, as I've always just assumed that titlebar buttons control the window layout. For as many times as I've clicked the Office roundel in 2007, I'd never even noticed the save button to the right. My brain just ignores titlebar buttons when thinking about the application inside the window.

Find undo.