I get those same features from Amazon on my PS3. My friend's TV plays Netflix, but cannot choose subtitles/languages. What device you're using makes a big difference, as different ones have different feature support.

It doesn't. New legislation will ensure it.

Research on seemingly unimportant connections that have curious correlations is how breakthroughs are made. It's done to try disprove a link as often as it's done to prove it; the point is to find out for sure, one way or the other.

As for who does it, there's tons of people who want these types of research done - marketing, policing, data mining, etc. In this case, it was likely either commissioned by a company or group with vested interest in social media, or was done by a grad student for a thesis.

The difference is that you've started buying into the "phone = console" mentality, when it should really be "phone = PC". Yes, on consoles it's typically programmed for the base hardware because the console is hard to add any hardware to, and current phones are quite similar. These new modular types of phones would be much closer to PCs - hardware is easy to add and doesn't require the manufacturer's OK to do so.

Actually, they made Pentium chips that would fit onto 486 motherboards.

You're missing the point; the idea here is to make the components mass marketed, rather than have it be the entire phone. Right now if you buy a phone from Apple, you get an Apple camera built into the Apple circuit board. The idea here is that Nikon mass-markets the cameras, and you plug it into your Motorola processor with a Lenovo battery and a Linksys broadband module. Don't like those brands? Pick whoever you want, in what combination you want. There will be pre-configured package deals, yes. But the fact that you can swap them out afterwards is the idea.

The point is that while the base phone may cost more, the modules will be cheaper (due to competition), and you can choose what quality level you want on each. And, instead if having to throw away your whole phone to replace/upgrade the camera/processor/antenna/whatever, you just buy the new module and the rest of your phone stays the same. So, more up-front cost, but less long-term cost.

Only if she actually wins in the end, and even then they'll likely be less terrorizing and more pathetic.

Really, I think it's likely that she expected to lose this fight, and it's the publicity surrounding it she was after - even a temporary injunction done in her name is likely to give her some relief from the death threats. And who knows? Maybe her actions could lead to the fatwa being lifted against the actors, and only targeting the producers/director/etc. who actually did this on purpose.

There's a difference in this case; the Striesand Effect refers to the fact that trying to take something off the internet not only doesn't work, but gives you lots and lots of negative publicity for trying to do so (and highlighting the original issue which would otherwise be obscure and largely unknown), causing more damage than the original problem.

This doesn't apply in this case because:
1) The Innocence of Muslims is already known to pretty much everyone on the internet due to the events surrounding it in 2012.
2) The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.

Actually, Windows 8.1 comes with IE11, so anyone who is completely up to date is immune to this one as well. So, being behind the curve is bad, being either at the forefront or way behind the curve is good.

Well, for one thing, the anti-MS slant has been tapering off here for years; they're no longer seen as "Big Evil", but more of a "McComputer" sort of thing.

For another thing, most /. readers may like the OSS movement, but they primarily work in Windows, have friends who use Windows, have family who use Windows, and are often the ones who provide tech support to those friends/family/co-workers. Knowledge of these vulnerabilities do more good for more people than knowledge of the latest bugs in Epiphany.

...so you're saying that other sites shouldn't be using the "best" security for their login process? They should intentionally use weaker security than banks?

These aren't the same thing at all; if someone has something on an internal network, it'll be faster just by virtue of how the internet works. It's the option of artificially slowing down some traffic that is the issue.

They' be in the top 1% only by raw numbers; the problem is that a raw income number is meaningless unless you factor in cost of living considerations. In most of the US midwest you can get by on $34k/yr., but move to a large city on one of the coasts, and you'll likely find that 34k is worth a lot less there.