All corporations who have the opportunity will be salivating at the chance to do this.

They're all ran by the same kind of greedy bastard, and all the signals Microsoft is sending absolutely scream "you're either going to get ads, or you're going to pay to not get ads, or you're going to pay for what you used to have for free, or we're going to force you to use our online services ... where you're going to get ads, or pay not to get ads, and we'll sift through all your stuff".

Every damned corporation wants to monetize your experience and your data, have access to all of your stuff, and claim ownership to do anything they want to with it.

Microsoft has thus far failed to come up with a compelling way to do this because they keep putting out flops which don't catch on.

With Windows 10, between now expecting money for Solitaire without ads, or sharing your wifi password with people (including whatever government demands it), and pretty much everything else they're doing, Microsoft is trying to set the stage where they have access to all of your data, have everything in their cloud, and an EULA which says they can do anything they choose.

Everything about Windows 10 is screaming this will be terrible for the consumer. And it also tells me I want no part of it.

Microsoft is basically saying they will do anything with your computer, any time they want to, and you don't get a vote. Which means I expect Microsoft to be fucking up a lot of computers and leaving that to be someone else's problem.

Or, more likely, so they can fucking monetize your usage like the greedy self entitled assholes they are.

And I don't just mean Microsoft.

Honestly ... do you really thing do not track means a damned thing? Are you that naive?

Do not track says "gee Mr Website, will you be nice and not attempt to monetize my traffic". It doesn't mean a damned thing.

You should pretty much assume that everyone on the internet will track everything about you they can at every chance they can get. You should assume some greedy asshole with an MBA and a tendency to be a sociopath doesn't give a fuck about your desire not to be tracked is making the decision to obey no not track.

Do not track was an industry attempt to distract people from regulations which would have tried to stop them.

Do not track is a complete fucking lie.

Don't be all surprised now to find out it doesn't actually do anything or hold any weight. Which is why you should be actively blocking as many of these things as you can, instead of relying on the kindness of some greedy sociopath asshole who doesn't give a crap that your browser has pathetically announced it doesn't wish to be tracked.

Hell, do not track, when ignored like we know it is, just gives them another point of data. I don't even set it, because I know damned well it's not going to do anything.

When a company publicly says they won't respect do not track, you can pretty much assume every other company is already ignoring it anyway. There is not do not track.

Everything about you they can get, all day long, as long as the app is running.

They'll figure out what they can make money off later. Like, do people buy more gas in the winter or summer.

This is just greedy assholes maximizing both greedy and asshole. And this why I look at apps as basically ads and analytics in disguise, and why I don't feel compelled to have a smart phone with a data plan.

You can always not play the damned game.

Me, I want Android to return the ability to selectively turn off stuff that apps can do. If your app keels over because I won't let it access my contacts, I don't want your fucking app.

I view most apps as about the same as if a retail store demanded the ability to rifle through my wallet before I came in the store, only in the case of apps it's pretty much all the time.

No thanks.

And, as another poster pointed out, aide workers/doctors/nurses could be vaccinated when they go into an infection zone to treat patients without risking infection themselves. Even if the immunity only lasted a few months, I think any doctor would take the occasional jab over risking Ebola because they were so hot and tired when taking the suit off that they made a small mistake and got exposed to the disease.

You're going for funny, but too many people would say that 100% seriously. As the parent of a child with autism, I resent the implication those people make that a child is better off dead from measles than "damaged" with autism. Sadly, too many people have skewed risk-benefit calculations because they hear horror stories about vaccines and haven't seen first-hand the horrors of the diseases vaccines prevent. I guarantee that an Ebola vaccine would be greeted by long lines to get the vaccine and not questions about whether 1 case in 10,000 will have some minor side effect just like nobody said "Let's hold off on that polio vaccine until it is 100% safe" back when polio was raging.

They're all in search of the next big thing. Smartphones, right now, have hit a plateau. You can tweak some feature sets here and there such as adding some additional CPU power/memory/battery life, but overall pretty much any smartphone is the same as any other smartphone. If a phone manufacturer comes out with a "more power" smartphone, all it will take is their rivals packing more power into THEIR next product to dethrone the "more power" phone. So phone manufacturers are resorting to gimmicks to get an edge on the competition. Unfortunately for the manufacturers, none of these gimmicks has caught on. And, if it did, it wouldn't be long before other manufacturers copied the gimmick, all-but-completely negating the advantage for the original manufacturer had.

The original Apple ][ showed this after power up with a screen of random characters, requiring the user to hit the reset key to get things rolling. Fortunately, the reset key was placed conveniently next to the enter key... BEEP!

Wasn't the ability for other browsers to set themselves as the default browser part of the DoJ settlement? So now Microsoft is deciding that doesn't apply?

Sorry, but Microsoft has gone well into the "we can do anything we want to your computer, any time we want, and unless you have an enterprise license you can't stop us".

That is complete bullshit. If they're going to assert ownership of my computer, they can help me pay for it. Until they do, it's my computer.

IF it was cheaper (or even close) to manufacture than NAND, then they ought to forgo profits and gain Marketshare and put the NAND business out. They would make more money in the long run. This is unique process, nobody else has, Marketshare means long term (this is electronics, which means 7 years max) profitability.

I can see charging a premium for early (beta) testers, and as they iron out the bugs (there will be a bunch) but as they ramp up production, the cost WILL come down, quickly.

If I were in the market for faster more durable short range data storage, I would be a heavy better and get in on early adoption, just so I can see what it can do and how useful it could be.

The UK averages less cop shootings in a decade than the US does in a year

As much as I think that there's a gun problem that leads to shootings, I've got to ask the obvious question: How many officers are there in the UK versus the US? If there are 10 times as many officers in the US than in the UK, simple math would indicate that it would take 10 years for the UK to amass as many cop shootings as the US. If there are 100 times less police in the UK than in the US, then the UK's per-cop shooting rate would actually be higher than in the US.

And that's the big hole in "Right To Be Forgotten." You can't apply one country's (or a group of countries') laws against the entire Internet. Russia can't demand that US hosted pro-gay rights materials be taken down because they violate Russia's anti-gay laws and France can't demand that Google's United States website delist pages because French courts decided that those pages should be forgotten. For better or worse, you can't just demand that the entire Internet forget about you.

I've been saying this for a long time. There is a definitive hierarchy between all the different memory locations. Unfortunately we don't have an OS that looks at all these levels as one. We have abstarcted all the CPU Cache, RAM, NAND, Spinning disk, clout etc as separate levels, rather than a single level with varying degrees of capability.

When we have an OS that can view all the levels as one, intelligently, we'll have a much more efficient OS. It might take a whole new design from the hardware up to accomplish.

So basically they're doing the same thing with Windows 10 as they did originally with IE? Making it part of the OS and claiming it can't be removed?

Sorry, Microsoft ... but everything I hear about Windows 10 is making me say "fuck you, I'll stick with my Windows 8.1".

When will Microsoft realize we own the computers, we are ultimately the ones who make decisions about the computers, and they simply can't dictate to us what software is on our computers and how we use it.

And, like every other Microsoft product, I'm sure this new hotness is riddled with security holes an defects for their users to have to deal with.

But don't worry, because they'll update the OS as they see fit, and if they break it, that's your problem ... says it right there in the EULA.

Keep alienating your customers, see how that works out for you. You might even find the DoJ knocking at your door if they ever grow a pair and stop doing whatever industry demands of them.