This is nothing new for Microsoft. They were in both the Tablet PC and Smartphone markets very early, but kept bringing the "Windows Experience" to platforms on which it seemed dubious at best. So with WP7 (a stupid name, IMHO) they were playing catchup - and at the same time alienating a good portion of their existing (small) development base. Most consumers (myself included) were burned by successive failures (Windows Mobile 2003 SE, Windows Mobile 5.0, Windows Mobile 6.5) and have simply got sick and tired of the crappy/sluggish experience, the dropped calls and the relatively poor battery life (often caused by software bugs). Now, it looks like they actually have develped something half decent (I've beta tested WP7 pre-Mango), but as stated, no one is (rightly) willing to go near the thing when better alternatives are at hand.

It's somewhat easy enough to grab a sim at a China Mobile store (there are heaps in the major and minor cities). The 'Yuan' (Chinese currency on the mainland) is also referred to as 'RMB', 'Renminbi' and 'quai' (depending on where you go). The lesser (sub?) denomination is called a 'jiao' or 'mao' (the latter is slang). 1 yuan = 10 jiao. There's also a third tier 'fen' where 1 jiao = 10 fen, but you usually won't get given fen (due to rounding) only banks typically give out the lowest denomination for some reason. Yuan notes come in 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 and 1 (the 1 yuan also as a coin). Jiao comes in 5 and 1 (both notes and coin form). Fen comes in coin and note form (5 fen, 1 fen).

Well, despite Lucas' stand on not honoring the originals, they were bundled as part of a DVD release not that long ago. Apparently they were referred to as "bonus content" (they appeared on the "Disc 2"/extras, bundled with releases of the Special Editions) but there they are - in unrestored glory. They looked very similar to the Laser Disc copies that went floating around about ten years ago. It's a real pity that the original theatrical releases couldn't be cleaned up and released though (unmolested). As to his right to mess with his art.. it's a strong case for reducing copyright term instead of increasing it in perpetuity!

Looks like a pair of "you're on a need to know basis, and you don't need to know" cases. How sad that (for the most part, this is par for the course) even the judicial circles are plagued with decision makers who are undoing the very transparency and due process which was designed to keep "the powers that be" honest.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the reported exodus of users (especially in North America)? Or competition from Google+?

..and that's the attitude for failure after success. I understand what you're trying to say, but a general adherence to "be fast and sloppy" means a tonne of rewrite (most likely) if the product, service or web site ever became popular. Depending on the nature of the software, there needs to be some level of consideration for efficiency - what I take away from the OP's post is that modern technologies, hardware and architecture abstract the responsibility away from those who are practitioner of it.

Still, that's really not much more than paying lip service to Australian customers, who (presumably) by now are quite familiar with being screwed as 'second class consumers' (in a so-called third tier market). It's really, really hard to defend pricing differences in digital products in particular - especially with a strong Australian dollar - which have more or less identical costs for distribution (especially at the Enterprise hosting/bandwidth end of the scale). That said, it would be nice if this started a trend, and Aussie consumers were given a bit more respect. Of course, Australian consumers need to demand better prices to get more respect instead of paying a premium. Go without that crappy ringtone for a month!

China experimented with MagLev technology in Shanghai and found that ultimately it used too much power and required too much maintenance and ultimately abandoned it in favour of the CRH trains. These alternative trains (designed by a combination of French, German and - ironically - Japanese companies) currently operate between Beijing and Nanjing (and other major cities in the region) at will eventually be running to Beijing. These have a lower top speed (theoretically can reach 380kms/hr) than the MagLev, but they run on reinforced rail and cost far less to run. It's interesting that the Japanese are pursuing MagLev technology in light of its shortcomings.

No, I meant that introduction of GST in Australia was heavily influenced by tax reform made in other countries such as Canada and New Zealand (a basis for a precedent perhaps). As for copyright, you are correct - treaties such as the ACTA are the main mechanism for changes, and through others, such as the free trade agreement signed between the US and Australia a few years ago. However, those provisions relating to copyright are a heavy subset of those contained within the DMCA - which is US domestic policy - and thus my point.

Unforturnately this is nothing new for Australia, and will continue to be the case because Australians are generally quite apathetic when it comes to governance. Generally, it takes an astonishing act to garner much public outrage, which means Australia is a prime location for testing certain legislative prerogatives. The problem (amongst other things) is that it sometimes sets a very bad precedent, internationally. Once such powers are granted in one country, it is often used to justify the granting of similar powers in other countries. This can also apply to copyright, tax (e.g. GST in Australia influenced by the success of the Canadian sales tax model) and much more.

I had to chuckle (in disgust) when I read this article. "The industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone"? One price for everyone? What? Are you kidding me? I'm in Australia where we pay far, far more for games than in the US or Europe including online purchases and content. Perhaps they meant "one price for everyone..living in the USA". Regional pricing has been a reality from the beginning and continues today despite changes in currency values, distribution, consumer habits and the digital frontier (purchasing online). Any rational discussion about changes in the games industry's pricing models needs to start with a serious analysis of the (mostly flawed) pricing model which exists today, and demystification of this so-called "one price for everyone" falacy!

Australia is also one of the few countries to enforce download (and sometimes upload) caps on most of the available Internet plans, and will shape traffic to about 64k, 128k or (rarely) 256k once the caps are reached. The pricing model is outrageously overpriced (e.g. my folks pay AUD $29.95 for a 15 GB cap, with 10 GB counted as "off peak", which is from 2:30 am to 9am!!) compared to other comparable nations (US, Korea, UK, France, Japan) including the future National Broadband Network (NBN). Freedom? Try loading a media rich website at 128k! ..and then there's that filtering plan..

It seems foolish to continue using a measurement system which is so at odds with what 99% of the world uses. What's even more odd is the variance in Imperial measurements, including the use of "troy ounces" (vs ounces), and the differences between the US implementation and the English - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems Australia moved from Imperial to metric in the late 1960s and it was quite a smooth transition.

Agree. Also the jump in quality and reliability from VHS to DVD you might argue was more substancial than from DVD to BluRay. Keep in mind that the time between VHS and DVD was far, far longer than DVD to BluRay. The latter is a matter of a few years, whereas the jump from VHS to DVD is measured in decades. People have also likely made their investment in the DVD disc (or have established large libraries) and don't feel the need to (yet again) format shift their favourite films.

Here's what we got from APNIC this morning: Dear APNIC community We are writing to inform you that as of Friday, 15 April 2011, the APNIC pool reached the Final /8 IPv4 address block, bringing us to Stage Three of IPv4 exhaustion in the Asia Pacific. For more information about Stage Three, please refer to: http://www.apnic.net/ipv4-exhaustion/stages Last /8 address policy: APNIC's objective during Stage Three is to provide IPv4 address space for new entrants to the market and for those deploying IPv6. ..but given how fast APNIC reached the final /8, you'd think it won't be long before they run out entirely.