If they are too cheap to upgrade from XP they won't be shelling out for a new Mac. Vista came out in 2007, so their computers must be at least 7-8 years old, and probably older.

What is the burden of proof in the US for this sort of thing? Balance of probabilities? Seems like with the USGS saying it is likely you could probably get over that 50% chance limit. Who decides, a judge or a jury?

Thanks, +1 informative.

It was probably the customers who demanded the weak default password too. Anyone who has ever developed a system like this knows that the users are basically morons and won't be able to look up the default password in the manual (which they lost years ago) and will call your tech support line instead.

I used to write software for fire alarms and the customers demanded the default password on everything (which was the first four digits of the manufacturer's phone number, back in the late 80s before the great re-numbering). Often they wanted a sticker on the damn alarm panel with the password printed on it, preferring instead to rely on locking the cabinet with a key. The fire alarm panel could control various vents and fans that were designed to extract smoke from a burning building, but people liked to use them for day-to-day climate control as well.

Most people don't care about security. If they get hacked it's someone else's fault, they are the victim. They just want an easy life and cool breeze in the summer.

I've only just turned 35 so am on the border of being a "millennial", but I thought that phrase referred to people around the 15-25 range who were teenagers around the 2000-2009 time frame. 34 seems a bit old... More like gen X or gen Y.

Except that genetic profiling is used extensively to prevent unmodified people from getting good jobs, regardless of their actual talents and abilities.

I can't remember from the film if everyone gets genetic modification for free, or if it is only available to the rich. If the latter, it will only further decrease social mobility. In any case, it would pretty much force parents to do it, or condemn their children to a life of low paid work.

What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and stop them being vaccinated? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?

TFA is beyond dumb. It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household. Many people have one EV and one ICE car.

EV sales are rising fast. Few people switch back after getting one and realizing how great they are, mostly because they did their homework and made sure it suited them before spending tens of thousands of dollars.

It's £80: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon...

Where can I get one for £35?

The IRC logs are verifiable. They are plain text and were captured and published by two independent sources on opposite sides of the argument. Quinn published the logs she captured, and then GamerGate published their own (slightly more complete) copy of the same time period. They match perfectly, neither side is disputing their authenticity.

With such a poor understanding of mental illness and stress I don't think I can explain this one to you in a way that you will understand, at least not within the confines of a /. comment. Perhaps someone else more proficient than I would like to try.

The smart functions are great when they work. For a long time I didn't bother using XMBC any more because the TV's built in network media player was more than adequate. The YouTube, iPlayer and Netflix apps are very useful to have too, and getting a third party device wouldn't guarantee that they keep working either. iPlayer and Netflix use DRM so open source players periodically break.

Basically you are screwed no matter what, but at least we can punish companies that screw us financially. Money is the only language that they understand.

That wasn't their argument. Their argument was that a commercial company, the one that makes ABP, was altering their content and providing it to their users for profit, thus violating their copyright. Their argument was that it was akin to them taking a (free) magazine, cutting out all the adverts and then giving it to users, while accepting fees from advertisers to avoid being cut.

The court didn't buy it, which is good, but don't mis-characterise their position just to make the look foolish. Their case has a strong basis in law, which is why it took so long to resolve.

Media companies don't give a shit about "reaching a broader audience" if they can't show that audience ads. They don't care if you leave, in fact they welcome it. Why would they want to provide you with content for free that they normally "charge" for by including ads?

Funny you should call ads "parasites", because that's basically what you are. You want the content, you don't want to pay. That's a fair position to take, but don't get all upset when they decline to agree to your terms.