"The details of Clover Trail's power management won't be disclosed to Linux developers." ...Perhaps this is because Microsoft is helping to fund development of the Intel solution behind the scenes? Perhaps they have worked out an agreement of some sort to prevent Linux from finding its way onto the chip.

I would like to know why any information would be withheld from Linux developers--the only reason I could imagine for doing so would be to help Microsoft stage a lead on use of the chip. I can think of no good reason Intel would not reveal how the chip works to Linux developers. Providing the information openly would serve only to increase interest and possible additional revenue for Intel that an Android or other Linux based solution could provide to them. Looks like the same old gaming of the the system here--good old buddies.

CFLs are sealed in the container so you do not contaminate the store when you drop the package.

If you break a CFL you have a serious environmental problem with toxic mercury vapor. If it is in a hermetically sealed container when it breaks, then you do not have a environmental problem. You really should be careful about where you use these hazardous lighting appliances in your home. Only use them where you are very confident they will not break and introduce toxic mercury vapor into your home--such as in outdoor or garage lighting only.

I was told by an employee at the big home improvement center that if they break a CFL outside of the packaging they have to call in an EPA approved cleanup service. It is very expensive, costing from several hundred to thousands of dollars to get the mess cleaned up properly--depending on the degree of contamination. No joke.

The reality is that Windows does not work well enough for the average user. The average user does not even realize they have a choice so they stick with Windows and get shafted continuously on performance, productivity, and cost. Perhaps just because they are too lazy to learn or try anything new.

No law or device will fix stupid when someone is in a hurry and does not care to look carefully behind them while backing up slooowly. Many people are just too lazy to turn around and look what's happening behind their vehicle--they try to use only their mirrors to back up. This is very stupid behavior. People will buzz inches by bicycle riders on the street in excess of the speed limit. People will sit in the car while waiting for the garage door to open and just back out--I have seen this happen many times. Totally stupid behavior.
I have seen people texting, arguing, putting makeup on, or just plain zombeing out with loud thumping music while backing up--mind you not all at once. I have seen idiots back up very fast because they think it is impressive. Do you think a camera will solve this type of unsafe behavior? ...a stupid law will not fix stupid people.

Why oh why should I have to pay for something I do not want? Another auto industry lobbyist obviously scored a hit in Washington. This should do nothing but boost profits for the auto industry and vehicle camera manufacturers.

Anonymous,
You mentioned, "WP7 is designed *superbly*. It's immensely usable, it's very, VERY fast even on a single core processor." ...This sounds just incredible--not even close to what I would expect. The exact opposite of what we have been hearing from many others. And who is your employer presently? Do you sell these WP7 phones? I think I have seen you before; Are you wearing green plaid jacket with brown striped pants and a red paisley tie?

Yes I have seen those evil drones. They honk loudly and leave stinkin messes all over the place. They fly closely in formation which makes for easy targets. ...Now where did I put that 10 gauge double barrel over-under shotgun?

Some very interesting blog entries below the referenced article suggest that the entire study is a sham. A FUD attempt to discredit the GPL. The following quote is one of the more interesting ones. Makes perfect sense to me--check Savannah and sourceforge for yourself. Just exactly WHO is behind the 451 Group anyway??

"Jasper Nuyens says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm

I agree with orbit that this is propaganda = possibly sponosered by Microsoft as they are the only company publicly opposing the GPL license and funding BlackDuckSoftware.

Yet one can clearly do the math themselves. Savannah.org and sourceforge.net both allow the searching for license type. It clearly shows that the GNU GPL license is the only important remaining licence, with a big growth in the GPLv3 area the last years (wheiter you like it or not).

Sourceforge lists 1014 MIT licensed projects while over 13.000 GPL projects. Impossible that MIT license would be at 11%
AGPL licensed by sourceforge over 370, so there are only 47 projects licensed unther the AGPL and not on sourceforge? Seems unlikely!

Fear, uncertainty, doubt nice try, but no win today!"

Very good point. You can count on it. And the replacement is most likely not so easy to detect or understand. Perhaps they can switch it on or off and collect the data as a pool at opportune times when it may not be so easily noticed. As long as they have the source code and you don't, there is no way for you to understand how the device works, for or against your wishes. If you are not permitted to rebuild it, then you will never understand how it truly works. ...I guess the poor unwary consumer will just have to *trust* them as money flows aggressively from their shallow wallet to the deep corporate coffers. heh heh.

Stuckmud,
Excerpt from your link above,
"A program called a compiler is used to create the second from the first, and the compiler is usually trusted to do an honest job."

You don't have to just trust the compiler because it also is GPL and open to inspection and rebuilding and calling out anything unusual. The *entire* solution is GPL, including the means to build it. So yes, I stand by my original post. If there are NO secrets, then honesty will "generally" prevail. The more secrets you have, as in proprietary solutions that you are not permitted to see or handle, then the more risk of this type of back-door, hidden features behavior. Big business wants to make money and big brother wants to keep tabs on people when he sees fit to do so. The unwary consumer just wants cool new technology with fancy bells and whistles.

Let everyone, know and build it, and it will stay clean. Under the watchful eyes of many; nefarious back-door privacy or security issues will be called out quickly and corrected. Transparency and sharing knowledge and solutions is the key--the GPL provides one very effective way to address that.

I would not be surprised if any cell phone, even the dumb ones, could be remotely enabled to log keys and other private information at the drop of a hat with order from proper authority. I could see the big corporations and government interesting lying somewhere along the lines of "The technology is capable of it, why not include the feature for the sake of public "security"? Same goes for any of the cloud connected network devices, such as the Kindle. Remember, when you are in the cloud you are in another parties home, running on their network under their control. Do you trust them with your private information? You better read *all* of the fine print before agreeing to it and using their services. Even then, can you really *trust* them?? What can't they tell or reveal to you because their mouths are zipped with all of the blessings of the US government?
"Show me the source code, and let me rebuild it" is the only way to be sure. To be sure you, or someone else who you trust, need to be able to inspect it and reconstruct it to confirm that is does what you want it to do and does not do what you don't want it to do.

Such as in the case of using the GPL. This is why the GPL rules when it comes to privacy and controlling the technology you use. Proprietary solutions, such as found in today's smart phones, are very risky because you have no way of knowing the full extent of what harmful things they can actually do.

You probably gave them your blessings in the user and/or license agreement in one way or another. Not that you would actually understand what you gave up--they would not want that. It's all in the fine print, buried in the legal-eeze. You need a lawyer anymore when you purchase a simple gadget if you really want to understand what it means for you to have it in your possession.

Perhaps Watson could just deduce from it's vast array of data and "knowledge" that software patents are *all* invalid. ...That software has no place in the patent pool, period.

Watson might also find that the heavy cost of all patents, in general, far outweigh the benefits. Patents are a sum dredge on society, stifling innovation, providing government sponsored fleecing, and promoting severe anti-competitive behavior in the markets. Get rid of them all, but keep copyright and trademark protection in force.

No man or business entity should be able to "own" the constructive use of knowledge....I'm sure Watson would agree with me :)

The fees and complexities to file a patent are beyond reach for nearly all of society, except the businesses and people who can afford the cost. Access to the patent system should be free. After all, patents are supposed to benefit society--so why should patents have any fee at all to obtain. The entire patent system would obviously fold if this were the case. So tell me how government sponsored monopolies granted to patent trolls and monopoly organizations somehow advances society and the arts? The patent system is totally abused and convoluted and should be eliminated completely.

The whole patent system, as it is currently, looks like a government propped racketeering system designed to enrich the wealthy at cost to the common folk. The costs in dealing with it bring us down as a society. It does nothing more than stifle competition, breed corruption, and higher prices of goods and services. It is a game of the wealthy, waged with great success, against the common man. Monopolization of ideas--pathetic and sad. Why should anyone be the servant to another's idea?

"Personally, I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that hadn't been certified by the FAA."
How about flying in a plane that has been certified by an private organization that can provide proof that their certification program is at least an order of magnitude better than the FAA certification--but they don't bother with the FAA certification? Would you fly in the aircraft then?

There ARE bazillions of good ideas out there now that may never be patented because the folks can't afford to proceed with the current system. I personally have many very good ideas that I choose not to patent because of the high cost of entry. That does not make my ideas any less worthy of patent protection. Worse yet, some of those can be found, stolen, or rediscovered by others or businesses, with the money to patent them and they do.

So then why should only the few who can afford the big money risk it takes to get one be afforded the monopoly on their idea. It should be accessible to all on an even basis--it is not currently fair in this regard because of the cost of entry. If in the end, the result after making it available to all at no cost, is that it is deemed worthless or not worth the cost to maintain, then so be it--all for the better. We do not need patents at all, they serve to artificially inflate the costs of goods and services through government condoned and enforced monopolies. U.S. Government is supposed to be "For the people, by the people", not "For the business, by the business".