Comment Re:No airgap? (Score 2) 86
And if you're really paranoid or anal, keyboards are cheap to replace -- or randomly cycle different brands/models/styles of keyboards between a set of PCs at random intervals...
which describes every version from Windows 95 until XP 64-bit edition - can run 16-bit apps.
Wrong. Every 32 bit version of Windows, including the 16/32-bit hybrid Win9x versions, and including Windows 8.1 Update 1, can run 16-bit apps. XP 64-bit cannot run 16-bit applications. That being said, there's a LOT of old code out there, still being used by businesses, that's 16-bit, some weird 16/32-bit mix, or pure 32-bit originally intended for Win9x that has problems. These could be mission-critical applications from some company that went out of business 20 years ago, nobody has the source code to anymore, and nobody has come up with an alternative. For these people, Dosbox isn't an option as it would require 1) a license Windows 3.1x or Win9x; 2) Dosbox 0.74 officially doesn't support running any version of Windows on it--and there are serious limitations for applications that you would run on it (e.g. no SHARE.EXE or VSHARE.386 capabilities).
In addition, there are a LOT of 32-bit applications, mostly written in the Win9x era, that will not run on Win XP/2003/Vista/7/8.x 64-bit or may need cajoling. Specific examples include certain
Now, I'm all for Win9 being 64-bit only, but improve compatibility for business users with 16 & 32 bit applications--even if that means running a VM within a VM (e.g. NTVDM under WoW on a 64-bit OS). Yes, we can all argue that MS at some point has to let the past be in the past, but there are valid reasons why companies generally load 32-bit OSes on their PCs...
Right up until they put something in the TV which says "I haven't connected to the internet in a while, I'm stopping working until I do". Kinda like Microsoft was talking about with the XBone.
True, that's likely coming down the road. But there are a LOT of people who's access to broadband is still at work or the local library--assuming they even bother. The reason M$ decided against this, at this time, is because there are a LOT of places in the US (let alone the world) that still don't have broadband, or have crazy restrictions like 2GB/month that you'd associate with cellular networks (e.g. Alaska, Canadian Territories).
And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network
Well, to start off, the smart TV manufacturer would consider buying a bulk contract with AT&T, Verizon, or other nationwide cellular company--your viewing habits are worth that much to them! Of course, in due time, the newest "Smart TV Enhanced" firmware will require you to pay a monthly fee for said "new services & features", especially on your "old smart TV"...
Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties? LG certainly feels it has the right to do this. In fact, it makes no secret of this in its long Privacy Policy — a document that spends more time discussing the lack thereof, rather than privacy itself. The opening paragraph makes this perfectly clear.
To add, even declining the policy still results in non-specified information being sent to LG.
LG's policy of spying on the viewing habits of customers, along with sending filenames of videos stored on USB devices connected to TVs, was previously discussed on Slashdot.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.