When every agency responsible for controlling piracy has clearly and blatantly stated that "profit" is not a factor in determining theft of IP, I find it funny that you want to now call it out here. I'm sorry. Would a price tag of $5 make you feel better or worse about being wrong?

A guy giving away DVDs of the latest movie screener is going to get the same amount of legal attention as the guy selling them, as was the case here. The only thing I question is whether or not the "guy" was employed by HBO to pull this stunt, and I say that only because of their apparent willingness to allow this show to be pirated.

Whoops, yes, I did, thank you for that clarification.

At first I was going to make a comment about how fire ratings should taken with a grain of salt, but I was pleasantly surprised by this article, which basically put the fire rating to an actual test. Nice, thanks for sharing!

OK, so there's one way of looking at free advertising. Sharing is cool. Got it.

Oh, I see. So, as long as you wrap a pretty word like "sharing" around theft, it's cool and considered free advertising...but the minute someone charges 25 cents to cover the cost of the blank media for that "shared" copy, oh they're suddenly now a professional pirate. Throw the fucking book at them.

I sure as hell hope you now see my original point regarding businesses championing piracy, because you couldn't have made the conflict of interest any more clear with your examples here.

Who pays the "marked up" price?

Uh, just curious, have you bought any product made by Apple in the last decade or two? They pretty much have one price they go by, along with every reseller of their hardware.

You want to better understand their pricing model? OK, step into any store reselling Apple products and ask them when they go on sale. You might want to sit down before you hear the answer.

The iPhone 6 is now offered in 128GB models.

Be honest, do you know anyone who was forced to buy that model and has come close to challenging the justification by filling it?

Yeah, me neither.

Point is just how much space do you need on a device that must pair with another device that already has a lot of storage?

As for the wireless, it's the same exact situation. People are failing to realize that an iWatch operates on it's own about as well as a Chromecast works without a TV. You don't really need wireless directly from the watch when most or all of it's functionality proxies through an iPhone.

Besides, as we all know from years of experience, wireless would have killed the battery, which is struggling to last an entire day with the current design.

Gee, I dunno...stand around a bar wondering why he's the only kid under 30 wearing a wristwatch?

Perhaps it will become even more clear to him when someone asks for the current time...which he can't give.

This may be true of the systems you have worked on, but it isn't true of all classified systems.

If a classified system is approved for trusted downloading, then it is enabled for certain data to be passed to and from that air-gapped system, usually via optical drive, but other means(USB, floppy) are not unheard of.

Let's put this another way. Ongoing development that also includes attacks on air-gapped systems would not be ongoing if there were no viable methods of attack. That would be rather pointless.

Hey assholes, either condone piracy, or embrace it. One or the other.

You can't sit here and champion the benefits piracy clearly brings to your business while wanting to attack those same pirates with your infringement legal team.

You likely represent the minority in your age bracket.

The younger generation that never knew life without a smartphone, never understood the value of wearing a wristwatch.

What will really blow your mind is that is now the same individual lining up to pay someone else $500 for the luxury of wearing one.

Talk about brand power.

The funny part about your argument here is people still buy flat-bed trailers...to haul cars around.

That said, a fool and their money are soon parted. The odd part about this is likely 75% of the people buying an Apple watch probably haven't worn any watch for years because they have a smartphone in their pocket. Go figure.

I find it very odd that people are concerned about enabling things like ovens and stove tops to assist with cooking plans.

The people I know who actually take the time out of their lives to use these appliances are not the sort of people looking to shave 3 seconds off every daily process.

The other people I know that are far too "busy" to ever cook for themselves are the ones lazy enough to embrace IoT, but it seems rather pointless attaching it to appliances they never use.

According to those who feel we "need" this tech, yes.

Of course the irony here is the hundreds of hours spend coding an IoT device to save 3 seconds.

If people can be swayed by a sale tag, then I will gladly laugh in their damn face as to the "protest" being attempted.

I don't even know why they have to pass gag laws with the sheep being this easily distracted.

Er, several years?

For a minute there, I thought they were referring to the restore time for a full cartridge.

Capacity isn't really the problem with tape media. It's sitting around waiting for ages if you ever have to actually execute a full restore of that much data from tape.

Not quite sure why it remains a viable solution for that reason alone, especially in this era of the InstaTwitterVine level of instant gratification. Spinning rust in the cloud might be a bit more volatile, but it will likely always be a hell of a lot faster.