This is a poor example as the alternatives copy Microsoft Office. No one is copying T-SQL so a MS chosen curriculum will encourage lock-in.

The fuse would blow regardless of the power supply....

You short a battery and it generally explodes as well. The advantage here is with the quick charge time you could get away with storing less energy in your phone.

Its the Sydney Morning Herald, they have a low journalistic standard.

Without a special API you can't guarantee that you overwrote the right section of storage (wear leveling and copy on write). But as reve_etrange said, just deleting the file would be a very good start.

How hard could it be to store it in RAM as it is received and then zero out the memory when finished. Sure it is not remotely hack proof but at least when it is broken you can only get new photos.

Or if you don't have the RAM to store the pic store an encryption key.

It is most accurate in the middle, rather than as an extreme outlier, it would think the middle 80 percent fit to a bell curve. It is biased towards cars that are designed for the max speed of the 60s rather than today. You encourage designing cars to be geared for a lower max speed.

Looking at the variation it must cause some cars efficiency to be rated wrongly showing them incorrectly worse or better than another car.

So you get the CAFE mileage for a trip with the same urban non-urban split without causing congestion?

Yes but you can arbitrary chose the average or median trip from samples.

If you have a middle trip then people can judge for themselves if they will be under or over and at the actual interstate limits which car is the most efficient. An urban, non-urban split in the rating would be useful as well.

That's just stupid. It makes sense only if there is a (commonly known) conversion factor (or more generally a function of CAFE) that gives a reasonably accurate of what you can actually expect (knowing that tests expect you to drive somewhat conservatively).
It looks even worse when the CAFE value is so inaccurate for real world driving that it can not be used to compare different cars fuel efficiency.

When you have such a poor estimate of fuel efficiency that consumers should not be using to make decisions with, consumers can no longer chose cars based on their fuel efficiency and it improves at a slower rate.

Atoms are still comparable in price, its an issue but not the major one. They probably have spare old fab tech to make these.
The main problem with this is that A15s are more powerful than atoms, both absolute and per watt. Also, the graphics in these is likely to be terrible to top it off.

Maybe it is the name. X got stuck on 11 as well.

The race to the bottom as complained about by tech reviewers (get the product for free), is the quality and value of the high end is reduced because the market is smaller due to people choosing a cheap option. With less competition and economy of scale in the high end there are less options with lower value.

Hypothetically if the cheep options were removed from market and you could only buy laptops that meet the ultabook spec, you would see a lot more diversity and value of Ultabooks.

These are strong brands like Apple that have universal brand recognition, OEMs don't really have this. Yes, some are more reliable than others but to the general public its still a windows laptop.

Just in case it did not come through, I think the race to the bottom is a good thing for the average consumer and me personally.

It's Win (x86) vs ChromeOS and Android vs RT. ChromeOS is cheaper because ARM hardware is much cheaper than x86 and Android is cheaper because it has lower hardware requirements and no office bundling.

MS has to do something about lowering the storage and other requirement for windows if it wants to compete at the 250 dollar point with a useable offering.

But can an OEM reliably sell them in MacBook like numbers and make significant margins. The hardware spec is the easy part.

Yes but it would be limited to the people who understand and tolerate or work around the DPI issues with windows who are willing to fork out the money to buy it when you can something that can the job for a quarter of the price.

Its not my hypothesis, its the biasing way of saying most consumers would prefer a significantly cheaper product that can still do the job, and that this hurts the options for people buying expensive computers.
I think the evidence of the "race to the bottom" is the amazon top sellers:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Laptop/zgbs/pc/565108
No windows PCs over 600 dollar on the first page right next to Macbooks for about double the price.

Yes the amazon results are not unbiased but just because companies are selling Ultrabooks it does mean they are being bought buy the general population and are reaching MacBook sales numbers. There are some Lenovos and ASUSs on the next page that reach 1000 but the average person appears to be happy with a 400 to 600 dollar laptop.

The race to the bottom happens because the consumer wants and will buy cheap products. The only reason they will pay more is if the cheap product is not good enough. The problem is that Android and ChromeOS can go far lower than windows can. Future generations of ARM chromebooks are far more of a threat to Microsoft than Apple will ever be.

The apple brand is too strong for OEMs to make significant sales at that price-point so they need to go lower. If you can go lower than everyone else while still providing an adequate product then you corner 30 to 50 percent of the market. If the race to the bottom is not happening then anti trust laws should be brought out.