There goes the bankroll for our precious Ron Paul.

Stop pissing in my Cheerios. I was raised on Star Trek, and won't take reality for an answer to faith in Scientism.

Don't they know that they are standing in the way of the last escape from this polluted trap?

What do I DO wiz PART0 FILEZ? PLZ HXLP!

Fair enough.

At work, I get the choice of the Dell "Power User" Business Lattitude. - Or?

A MacBookPro.

I need to run ESXi virtualised on top of Workstation or Fusion. Dell killed me, trying to get this to work - 4 cores and all...

So Apple's limited choice in models, and non-responsiveness to IT requests for support features plays to the interest of the user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx

Wikipedia entry contains 42 references cited.

And now, they've "Sub-standardized".

Thatcherite!

That's a vendor doing their own integration on PoketPC.

Microsoft didn't offer RIL for radio stack integration until 2002:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile

All of this is pedantic. MS phones came with A STYLUS, until 2006! They made shit phone software for 4 years, with no market success and had to be SCHOOLED by Apple.

The Zune 2nd Gen would have been a beautiful "catch-up" point for MS. They could have used their finally elegant iPod knock-off to build the iPhone knock-off. But they screwed that pooch in the kennel. The Zune IP was ditched and users abandoned, in the mindless pursuit to keep "Windows" relevant, and build anew for the tablet "strategy" they'd also gotten TOTALLY WRONG since 2004.

After spending over 12 Billion on R&D labs between 1999-2010, you think they'd come up with something other than wannabe OS's, devices and me-too cloud services.

Agree.

As you increase the general-purpose utility of any piece of technology, you open corresponding opportunity for abuse or exploitation.

Security comes through ongoing practice. This includes implementation specifics, ongoing management operations and individual initiative/decision capacity of users.

To believe there is a technology solution that - correctly implemented at the correct point of design and lifecycle - would automatically solve the security "problem"? This is a naive point of view, which ignores the wealth of research and understanding acquired in the field of systems security, over the past 20 years.

This is not to argue that nothing can be done. But assuming that security can be "solved" with just the right design and development is cruelly untrue.

And I have yet to see this security-conscientious, aware development community to which the article makes reference.