Umm... how about removing the remote delete capability from users' devices? Or, do you just blindly trust them they won't do it in the future just because they "promised?"

The whole thing that's "wrong" here is the fact that Amazon is selling the devices with those capabilities built in and their customers buying those devices knowing those capabilities are in there. If the above wasn't the case, then your proposed answer would have been the only logical and practical answer. And that would have been the right answer then.

I don't understand what is so surprising and wrong - if people believed Amazon never intended to activate the "remote delete" feature then why did they spend the time and money developing the feature and shipping the product with it? And, why should anyone trust them now that they have already exercised that power that they'll never do it again?

If Amazon really intends to keep the promise of never doing this again, they will need to remove the feature that modifies program/data on the device without user's consent. Otherwise, they will keep the feature, and they will do this again when it suits them. So, hopefully this incident brings people closer to understanding and voting with their wallets, and not buying into any DRM scheme, and remotely activated software "features." Demand Free software without DRM - that's the first important step to guaranteeing you own what you buy.

I don't think that would be fair. If you are an employee of the company and you are doing your job, you should be immune from these things. Bear in mind that large companies have legal departments that they route their decisions through. There is no way to make each blue collar employee individually be the judge and the jury and the legal decision-maker for every single corporate action that takes place. There is a gray line somewhere in there - if your company asks you to commit a murder, that's one thing; but if the management makes the decision to remotely activate a feature of a product that was designed to be activated that way, that's an area where you hold your case against the company, not John the business analyst, or Judy the programmer.

That's what happens when you don't/can't read, even if the information is put right in front of your nose.

Not really. Just replied with the same choice words just for fun.

Hmm... I remember saying XP licensing period was extended for netbooks. Nowhere did I say it was impossible to get. If that's how you took it, that is your problem. Feel free to go back and read again.

Announced as 64-bit only restriction originally? That would not have been very smart considering they had even less say in the netbook market then, compared to now. Besides, as I already said in my other post, if they had done that, OEMs would be installing XP and Linux on cheap netbooks, not Windows 7, which is definitely not what MS wants, as they reportedly only make $15 per XP license on a netbook and not shoving their new product into the market.

WTF bullshit - because that's when the shit was announced - just over a year ago. WTF - you couldn't find shit in the shittank? Here is your "bullshit" served on the shitplate just for the shitseekers who don't know WTF they are talking about. Shit!

The XP downgrade program? Yes, you need to buy Vista "BONUS" system, meaning you are paying for a Vista license, then for the license to downgrade to XP on top of that - Dell does all that for you right here. I believe you can also get XP if you have volume licensing program from MS, mostly for large organizations who refused to use Vista. Besides these and netbooks, MS is finished w/selling XP licenses to OEMs.

MS is not in a good position right now to start forcing the issue with the OEMs w/regard to netbooks. They have to tread lightly. Remember, just last year OEMs were perfectly happy with selling Linux netbooks until MS came to their senses and conceded to the XP licensing extension for netbooks only.

Especially considering that all the netbooks that were/are on order or in production right now are slated to be 32-bit only both by the chip manufacturer and OEM (for both hardware and software), it would be hard. I imagine there would be a significant backlash from netbook OEMs if they were forced to upgrade their hardware orders and drivers to 64-bit only. They would opt to either (1) continue with Windows XP, or (2) experiment more w/Linux. Obviously, MS doesn't want either of the above - they want everyone to start using Windows 7. They can't afford to alienate right now - it's not straight shot it once used to be.

Why? Intel Atom - N and Z series cannot execute the x86-64 instruction set. Aren't netbooks (in which those Atom processors are used) major part of Windows 7 implementation? Isn't it what this article is about? Where is the securty? Is this the right hotel?

That's perfectly feasible. In fact, Google currently does that with their Android Market (equivalent of app store). They can and do filter certain apps based on the carrier, country, and phone hardware and software.

So, why didn't they pull Skype for those same reasons?

I'd say Apple kicks it up a couple of notches. Microsoft doesn't usually exhibit this kind of control over the devices running their software. As far as I've been aware, you could freely install pretty much any application on Windows desktop/server, Windows mobile, and their other operating systems that accommodate 3rd party applications.

Not everybody wants to exhibit full control over the devices they purchase. Sure auto enthusiasts would like to have full access to their cars' engines; geeks would like to know what their computers are doing and tweak them to their content. But most people just want to get from point A to point B safely and reliably; and most people run Windows and as long as they can browse the web, check e-mail and play their favorite game they don't care the details of the underlying OS.

I'd say most iPhone owners are perfectly content with Apple making most decisions for them - people are used to their carrier and manufacturer decide for them what features/programs go their cell phones anyway. In fact most of them probably haven't even heard of Google Voice, and if Apple and AT&T have their way, they won't ever hear about it.

This is not something new. Since you read the comment to TFA, I assume you also read TFA itself - the condition is called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and it appears some people do indeed suffer from it. While wifi is not the exclusive contributor to this, it amplifies the radiation, and it is meant to cover more areas and be turned on most of the time as opposed to other bluetooth devices, or baby monitors.

On the other hand, it's hard to tell whether this guy is telling the truth as being a DJ, he is probably exposed to different equipment emitting radiation at work throughout the day. And, why would he carry the wifi detector to avoid wifi specifically is not clear.

Maybe Slashdot isn't representative of the Linux community, but if it's not-- what is?

Nothing. /. represents nothing more than the /. community. Not the "Linux community" (if there is such a thing), not the OSS community, not even the virgin community, etc.

Quite frankly, Linux is so big and so spread out already, there is no single "community" that covers everyone and everything. There are a lot of communities. But, hey, generalizations are fun and poking fun at "loons" is cute, so why not - pick your labels and hit the gas.

More to the point of the original article - that's the typical Linus position on these things. But like many other times, he sidesteps the issue (like a politician, ironically) and argues against a modified point. It's kind of like when politicians come on TV and start asking themselves and answering their own questions, completely ignoring the issue at hand.

But on the other hand, we already know what his positions on the issues are, so it doesn't really matter. Linus wants to support Linux, not the principle of Free software. Linus doesn't care if a thief steals his expensive TV and then sells the remote control back to him at a really good price. He'll buy the remote control and tell you not to hate the thief.

A better analogy would be if you bought a used car, then the dealership came back to you and said, "it turns out the car we sold you was stolen, and we had no right to sell it to you in the first place. Here's your money back." Yeah, that would suck, but I don't see any alternative (under the current legal regime).

Under UCC, which almost all (or all?) states have adopted, you can keep the car as long as you conducted the transaction in "good faith" - for example, you had no knowledge or couldn't have possibly known the merchandise was stolen.

Relevant quote from Article 2, 2-403

A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value.

Read that link for more legalese if you wish.

Come on, do I get some love for quoting the law?

My point is that this man has tremendous influence in the US. He's not an intellectual lightweight. Unfortunately, I can't read what he wrote since the blog entry seems to be down now.

Now do you see the irony?