To apply "Junk Mail Filtering" requires scanning the contents. Even doing the basic things like checking DKIM and SPF to just do basic validation requires reading and extracting data from the message and storing it for metrics/heuristics is an important thing all modern email systems do now. And this ignores even the fundamentals of delivering the message.

This is not black and white situation. Email systems need to read email messages to make the system work but they also need to read the email to do ads.

If the technology languishes and is just the same stuff over and over again with hardware updates, then Ubuntu get into situation which Microsoft is in where people struggle to find a reason to use the new versions of the product.

If the technology is radically changed and experimented on, then Ubuntu gets into the same situation Microsoft is in where they did try a dramatic break and redesign and is reviled and people struggle to find a reason to use the new version of the product.

Can we have it both ways? Ideally Ubuntu should strive to give both a consistent and experimental experience but let the user choose the experience they like. Or an extension to that is to offer "Windows like" or "Mac like" or "Ubuntu like" experiences.

I have been using Ubuntu from before 10 and I don't mind the interface changes where I felt it is taking bits multiple platform interfaces and working well. I am more bothered by disappearing apps more than the changes in the graphical shell versions.

It can be done with Linux where it involves initial settings in install image, "company repo", and the software packages alter whatever is needed. When something changes you update the "company-settings" packages and it gets updated.

The issue in my mind is that in my experience the value of this isn't that high in Linux environments. What are the enterprise settings that need to be set on 100 workstations post install? Outside of a few server changes, most changes can be handled and managed by service settings rather than workstation changes. If some software package goes from 1.x to 2.0 that requires a complete wipe/reset of settings that can be done at the package level and put on the "company repo".

I'm sure Windows Admin love using AD to roll out changes but I have so far failed to figure out what that would be that falls outside of "roll up package" scenario.

Although it is fluffy marketing speak, the statement that "There is never a perfect time for this type of transition..." is funny because leaving before 2006 and Windows Vista would have been the best time for him to make an exit. A lot of scrambling after Vista seemed like wasted energy from misguided efforts that seem to come from the top down. At that point onwards Microsoft seemed to be off balance and felt like they were scrambling and groping from that on wards.

The board should look out side the company for the top spot not because I believe they don't have any one internal who could do better than Ballmer but they really need to break with the past decisions and reboot.

Quick Physics: The reason why AC is great at power distribution is because energy can be delivered at long distances without loss through heat. There would be no "burning up" for a USB cable connected to a faulty power transformer...until someone picks up a device and shorts to ground.

The wiring in your house is just ordinary metal and it carries 120V AC without heating up where there is nothing magical about a USB cable connected to a shorting power transformer either.

Relying on vague memory of EE classes of 15 years ago: A badly built power transformer wouldn't shock someone with the transform voltage but the direct line. Poorly constructed circuits short from melting stuff contacting metal they shouldn't. If the circuit shorts and there are no GFI or fuses or other safety features, the power lines instead of being 12V DC or 5V DC or whatever are now 120V AC.

Safety features like fuses and GFI cost money where if one is seeking to make a fast buck on knock offs throwing out a few of them will make it even more profitable.

In most cases software doesn't become more valuable. Technology in hardware and software changes. Features become superceeded by new or improved ones. I have a copy of VisiCalc for the Apple IIe and I'm pretty sure that no one is looking for VisiCalc as much as a working floppy drive let alone an Apple IIe.

There maybe occations where a game generates some nostaliga but that isn't "appreciation" in the economic sense. Maybe if such a game only had a few copies left in the world that could increase in value but with the advent of emulation of entire platforms in current hardware which means an copying is limitless this doesn't seem feasible either. The only thing that would appreciate would be the physical parts: the plastic, paper and metal that went into the crafting of that item but the game itself can go on and on and on.

In the end it would seem like "a video game collection" is only meaningful if it is complete or near complete because any specific piece of software isn't particularlly valuable no matter how many cat helmets or figurines they throw in.

Disqus is only an example but the point is that there are "third party web components" that will be effected by a platform wide block. For cases like this it is good to give legitimate component software a "transitional grace period" to move away from the deprecated behavior before locking it out from modern versions onward.

I view control over "third party sources" in web content as a serious security issue but I also admit that I don't know the full ramifications of an outright ban either where taking the grace period to do some metrics is probably a good idea. What I would like Mozilla to do is allow it in Firefox 22 but expose it an option under Options/Advanced so it can be toggled with removing the option and enabling it later.

One of the biggest sources of revenue comes in from sales and licensing of new vehicles where over time dealership industry is powerful on the state level due to this relationship. When dealers make money, the state gets serious revenues. So when a new type of car comes along with a company who can't afford the high barrier of entry to setup a dealer network the whole thing turnes into market protection in the guise of customer service. If you are interested in buying a Tesla and living in a city with a center, you can go there but it is like bizzaro land because they are forced to operate as a "service center" instead of a "dealership" subject to fees and zoning that are often waived or offset for "real dealerships".

It is stuff like this that makes me wish the market would be dragged into the 21st Century. Shopping for a car is one of those tasks that is slightly higher than "doctor visit". There is little to no value added for going to the dealership so I would rather just order directly from maker themselves than to sit through the junk you need to do for a purchasing a car.

Is EA going to sell us things like Big Ben, Eiffel Tower and The Empire State Building when "SimCity" can't simulate a city the size of London, Paris, or New York? I don't know if "SimCity" can even do 20 square blocks which isn't even a quarter of Manhattan.

Both in terms of the idea and design. There is no level of Trust in the design of "Do Not Track". The server on the other end has no real obligation to honor the flag. The client has no real way to check if it is honoring the flag.

Also something people miss: You can't legislate trust. How do you prove violations? Random audits on paper sound like the way to tackle conformance but again who is building that tool? Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc? Again we have a lack of trust....

It is only defamation if it is untrue. If Hingston had a business that went bankrupt and went bankrupt then where is the defamation?

As others have noted their "gaming strategy" has been schizophrenic and scattered because of contrary goals working against each other instead of concert (promoting consoles erodes PC, promoting mobile erodes consoles, etc). So to answer your question: It does make sense if they decide they want to bank everything on Win Phone 8 and Surface where a future XBox is a distraction or partially erode that goal.

Although Microsoft can claim "we win!" the console generation, it cost heavily and might have been a Pyrrhic victory. If the high execs believe the future is all mobile phones and tablets then Microsoft has a much bigger in to "the living room" than it ever did with consoles. Consoles in this view become an expensive anchor that are fraught with more risk than selling another phone.

Of course this thinking only makes sense if you are an exec who really really really really really believes that Win Phone 8 and Surface are really really really really all of that. If the higher ups at Microsoft believe that then it would be a small step to see how selling off that expensive business "makes sense" for as a boost to the company instead of a disaster.

As I mentioned in another post, I very much appreciate my parents for getting an Apple IIe (with the 80 column text card) but it took me long after to consider how expensive that piece of hardware was for them just in 80s US$ let alone what it could cost today!! My fond memories of coding my own stuff (like a school presentation with ASCII graphics) and playing "Agent USA" and "Ultima 4" and "Ultima 5" and other games but it never really sunk in until these anniversaries came around just how expensive the hardware and software really was.

So while I salute my parents and Apple for providing me with a neat little computer to play and do some BASIC code on, I am really shocked it went anywhere due to the price tag.