Agreed. MS will need to convert existing WinMo customers to WP7 while also converting dumbphone users as well as wooing people from other platforms. It will be an uphill battle. I am sure they intend to lose money on this for quite a while. Xbox wasn't exactly a doorbuster when it launched, but at least it had a platformer like Halo. WP7 needs a platform defining feature rather than simply playing catch-up.
Incorrect, all of Windows smartphones is around 9-10%, it is projected that the WP7 portion is around 2%.
From July 28th, 2011, showing all Windows Mobile + WP7 = 9% of smartphone market share
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/28/nielsen-android-leads-us-smartphone-market-with-39-percent-shar/
From March 2011 showing all Windows Mobile + WP7 = 10% of smartphone market share
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/03/visualized-us-smartphone-market-share-by-manufacturer-and-plat/
I was going to post about this this as well. I have bought and used several of these over the years:
The only thing I can think of is that DVI is signal equivalent for overlapping resolutions in the HDMI spec and thus perhaps allowed while the other cables do some conversion of the signal which is the illegal part?
You don't get convicted/punished until proven guilty, that doesn't mean they don't shut down the operation when it's obvious they are actively selling fake goods right now. It is the courts job to decide what criminal charges may exist. Perhaps the shop owner didn't know they were fake? Just because the owner may not be the person criminally liable, that doesn't mean you allow the operation to continue.
It was obvious these sites were selling fake goods and distributing copyrighted works. They shut them down and the owner's get to plead their case about how they didn't know or whatever their case is. The site still gets shut down now if they are breaking laws now.
It is interesting that most countries that dont have copyright laws also dont have basic human rights protected by law.
I think perhaps the majority of the modern world considers artistic control of your work is worth protecting. You could always move somewhere like China to avoid the stigma of copyright laws.
The websites in these cases amount to a storefront to distribute fake goods or copyrighted materials. When this happens with physical storefronts, they get shut down. I don't really see how this is any different.
This isn't about free speech, no liberties were lost, this is about people breaking the law and reasonable steps are being taken to stop them. You shouldn't fear the government as a result of this. Take off your tinfoil hat.
Comcast main service description if you search by your zipcode and look at the "Performance" plan:
"Get download speeds up to 12 Mbps and uploads up to 2 Mbps with PowerBoost® for only $19.99 a month for 6 months!"
Click to immediate link in the summary "Terms and Conditions", in the first paragraph:
"Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively."
You will find similar clauses in any service description for residential cable/dsl.
I am all for pushing the companies to get the best service for the cheapest price, but you do that by voting with your dollar. It is not reasonable or effective to agree to a service contract, then demonize the business for living up to their end of the bargain as they said they would.
The bottom line is you didn't pay for those speeds for any guaranteed amount of time. Techincally those speeds aren't guaranteed at all if your line quality isn't good enough to support the transmission. The only way to get guaranteed service is to pay for a dedicated line, ie: T1.
Go look at the cost of a T1 and realize it is only 1.5 Mbps, now look at the cost of that 12 Mbps residential cable. Why do you think the T1 is so much more expensive for almost 1/10th the speed? Technology may change, bandwidth may get so cheap it doesn't matter, but right now, guaranteeing 100% throughput at residential service prices simply wont work.
Even since cable/dsl was introduced it was made clear you didn't buy 24/7 full throughput, you bought burst speeds that were subject to the traffic of others on your aggregation point. So yes, you are getting to use exactly what you paid for.
The alternative if you wanted guaranteed 100% throughput 24/7 was and still is a dedicated line like a T1. There is a technological limitation to providing those burst speeds in a guaranteed way 24/7 to every subscriber on the network. They let power users get by when they aren't single-handedly affecting the performance of all of their neighbors, but you get throttled if it turns out you are.
If cable/dsl are forced to require 100% guaranteed speeds like a dedicated line, you will see the cost go way up, or the speeds go way down.
Because a T1 line is expensive and guarantees service 24/7. A residential cable/dsl service is far far cheaper and is contractually not obligated to provide consistent speeds, only burst speeds that can be affected by the traffic of other users of the system.
Consumers went from only have only T1/ISDN as a high-speed option and few could afford it, to cable/dsl that almost anyone could afford and has the performance 99% can appreciate. The 1% that expect 24/7 full throughput should understand they never bought that guarantee of service. Just because their aggregation point wasn't previously saturated and they weren't previously throttled doesn't mean that was an entitlement to that level of service forever.
This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure. You couldn't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did. They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine. UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks, which is what its job is. They did not try to do remote infection.
I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders. This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC. This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security. This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.
The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection. Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
