I suppose different people judge what's reasonable in a different way. I'm in the USA and I wish our laws were more about protecting consumers then corporations, but the warranty issue does feel like there's some trade-off. I'm a little unclear on the specifics of what the law requires them to provide, but in any case the same principle applies. If they're expecting to spend more fixing devices than they would be without it, it's reasonable to expect them to charge more for the devices in the first place. iPhones and $6000 TVs aren't necessities, after all, they're luxury items.

As much as I'd love for the result of things like this to be higher quality products for consumers that won't fail so quickly, I think it's more likely they'll just factor in the cost of replacing their current products when setting a price. While I don't think that's the reasoning behind jacking up the prices for everything in Australia to the degree that they do, I could see it being reason for a smaller price hike. I'd still take the trade, as it'd probably be less of a difference than the optional extended warranties from stores, but being good to the customer is still an expense even if it's one they should be obligated to undertake.

Tldr? Danny can expect to pay $6250 now that the TV will definitely last longer.

Isn't it within a hundred years? Between that and how absurdly thick-skulled the population of the USA is, I think that's a fair timeline. According to the Department of Labor, only 58% of adults in the USA are working, so we're already well over a hundred million not working. I think expecting people to notice before there are a billion unemployed folks in the USA is giving the vast majority of them too much credit. Just keep focusing on nitpicking minor potential errors in strangers' online posts, your replacement is already being tested at McDonalds locations throughout the country.

When robots have taken over the majority of labor and the number of unemployed people in the US rises over a billion, we'll notice. Does anyone else wonder how society will need to adapt to such a problem?

Three cheers for letting cable companies abuse their government-assisted monopolies! At this point, most of us get our internet from the same people who offer on-demand video services on top of regular television for a much higher price than Netflix. Options in most areas are limited to one sometimes two sources for broadband (Sources that also provide TV) or dialup, if you can still find that. Now, they're going to take advantage of their near complete control of the internet to shut out any possible competition to the outdated and undesirable cable TV overpriced bundle business model, full of stuff nobody will watch. If only there were some system of rules that was already in place meant to prevent businesses from leveraging a monopoly in one market to take control of another... If only...

I would be shocked, given that what they're supposedly trying to get is available in the form of said Windows tablets, they are cheap and easy to acquire, but nobody is buying them, which would suggest not many are trying to. Having worked in IT before, I wouldn't be shocked to hear the same people asking for this that had been asking for tablets all along, the same people with no real need to leave their desk with their work. There are a select few who could benefit from it, but most of the benefits are available from stripped down mobile versions of apps. Part of the problem is, for most jobs, if you're trying to do it without a mouse and keyboard, or without sitting down and focusing, you're not working effectively anyway. And for most jobs where you do need something portable, you don't actually need the full capabilities of a PC. That does still leave some desire for it, but to say the Windows tablets will make up 10% of all PC and tablet sales in three years? Not even the most optimistic of Microsoft's employees could believe that at this point.

I believe that PC sales have been declining and will decline and stagnate, that sounds legitimate, but this...

Really makes Mr. Loverde sound like he's being paid to say good things about Windows. Who in their right mind could possibly believe that Microsoft's failure of a project is going to end up accounting for 10% of the market? It's a failure amongst tablets alone. I don't even know if there would be any benefit from him saying this, it just sounds crazy.

On a related note, I currently play Battlefield 4 on a computer I put together for around $400 a year ago, so I can definitely see why the PC market is struggling. But it will never disappear, which is enough for me.

I'm impressed, you've concluded beyond any doubt what experts apparently couldn't put together themselves no matter how much time they were allowed in that very same room. You should call the FBI and let them know they're not needed anymore, we can send you to crime scenes with your uncanny abilities and let you solve murder mysteries.

Is this guy serious?

It seems as though this company is violating Wikimedia's ToS. Doesn't that mean the same law they used against Aaron Schwartz applies to them? Maybe Wikimedia can press charges and have these people who actually have malicious intent and are knowingly breaking the law can serve some jail time. If only there were some system in place that could apply laws evenly to all people...

Based on a survey of 139 people, all bureau chiefs in Washington under a Democrat president. Oh, and the actual survey was performed and published by a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who later wrote a biography of John McCain. I'm sure there was no selection bias involved. As opposed to:

http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/

The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center isn't based on a select subset, specifically the 139 people who were comfortable admitting their political affiliation while working in Washington under a Democrat president. Don't get me wrong, the results still show the press leans left, like I said, but it's not some ridiculous nine to one ratio of democrats to republicans in the press, as you seem to think. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a survey of a different hundred people in the press all claiming to be Republicans, or you can make one yourself just go to their national convention and ask everyone wearing a noticeable amount of red. If you look at the numbers and the source, then apply some common sense, it doesn't seem so realistic anymore does it?

There is always obvious bias in the media to anyone who isn't happy about something. It's not surprising, everyone has an opinion, nobody wants to get up and report that they were or are probably wrong, so they lean to their own side. If you recall, under the Bush administration the press was repeatedly telling us it's unpatriotic to not have faith in our president, that he was democratically elected and we need to respect that. It wasn't from everyone, but at the time, it was one of the dominant messages of the time, along with the idea that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. Now, under Obama, it looks like they're all democrats, largely defending his actions until they just can't figure out how to anymore. It's a more complicated mess, spying on our own people, but I wouldn't say lying to all of us about why we were sending our soldiers to war is any better, in both cases I wish they'd be straight with us.

Yes, the media is biased, everyone is to some extent. Is it really evident in the reporting as much as it appears in these surveys though? I've read numerous articles stating CNN needs to go all the way and become the Fox News for Democrats, that they already show obvious bias and it'd help the party. While it's disturbing to think that CNN is so bad, it suggests they're further left than any other network and still can't keep up with the obvious and undeniable bias of Fox. My advice? Take in as much as you can and try to figure it out for yourself. Pick your battles, there's too much going on to try to follow everything while having to sift through the bullshit, sad but true, most of us don't have the time. Don't get duped by some twisted little survey like this.

By put into office, I mean who he appointed as chairmen of the FCC. It's late, time to sleep.

That's cute, but lies. I don't know how you found the Yahoo answers page, maybe you searched for "Why are all journalists democrats" like the clearly biased person you are, but anyone who's taken a basic course on statistics knows what they're used to do. Not to mention, according to The American Journalist, the numbers have never been near what you claim. The win still goes to the democrats, more journalists side with them out of everyone who claims to be a journalist, not that we should take that to represent how things are reported. Add to that the fact that a little more Googling, as you're so fond of doing, shows Fox News reporters claiming to be independent... More lies from the right! It might also be worth considering that from the perspective of any outsider, our left-wing radicals are further right than most other countries can stomach. Evidence: Look at who Obama just put into office. Get past fighting with everyone over parties, and particularly lying through your teeth and belittling everyone, if you think either party isn't screwing you as hard as they can you're a fool. Although with a response like, "because it's so idiotic to argue against the point I made," after being called out on citing a yahoo answer that looks like it was written by a Bush PR agent, you've aptly demonstrated you are more than foolish enough to buy the BS.

I'm not sure if I misunderstood you then or now, but if you understand the article is about something entirely different than the feature you describe then I'm not sure why you bothered to mention it, as it has nothing to do with the article. I'm not shocked you weren't able to reproduce the issue on your iPad, as it seems to be a problem specifically with the iPhone 5S, as described in the article, and there are reports around the web of being unable to reproduce it on other devices.

Also, it's amusing that you mention my ad hominem as unnecessary, when it was in response to your own, and you responded to it with another. Maybe you should run your own blog with comments disabled if you want to be able to post your opinion on the internet and have nobody respond to it. If you find a tame comment like that offensive, public forums are no the place for you.

Couple quick things. Firstly, that feature was already there, odds are you had disabled it before and that setting was reset with the update. Also, you can't access any existing photos from there, it'll only let you browse the photos you've taken since opening the camera, and resets each time you lock the screen again. There are similar features on other phones, it's handy and not by itself a security risk. As for not imagining anyone wanting to have the device open for the camera when it's locked, I think you lack imagination, and possibly even basic sense. I take advantage of it most frequently when I'm traveling and wish to quickly snap a photo without having to type in my password, it often makes the difference between a photo of an animal grazing and one of their behind as they run into the woods.

It's worth noting that this feature doesn't seem related in the least to the security flaw discussed here, as the camera is meant to be quickly accessible in this way. This means the suggestion of turning off control panel access won't fix the security flaw, if that's what you had in mind.

Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.

Check out who was fooled by this article, maybe use Google to dig up a few more...
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html

I know, scarey right?