Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:terrible summary + not news (Score 1) 77

by bondsbw (#48392111) Attached to: Microsoft Aims To Offer Windows 10 Upgrades For All Windows Phone 8 Lumias

And further, this is actually an exciting development, it shows more of a commitment to keeping its older devices modern.

Apple supports mobile OS upgrades for its devices for at least 3 or 4 major versions. Android manufacturers tend to do the opposite, you'll be lucky if you get even minor version upgrades through your 2-year contract period. (My Android got point release updates for a few months, then surprisingly one large update about 1 1/2 years later. I seriously doubt my phone sees anything newer and I still have months left on my contract.)

WP looked like it was firmly trending toward the Android upgrade model, what with even new WP7 barely being supported the second WP8 was announced. Perhaps, at least for first-party devices, we are starting to see support timelines that look more like Apple... and that should make any user of WP8 devices happier.

Comment: Re:terrible summary + not news (Score 3, Insightful) 77

by bondsbw (#48392061) Attached to: Microsoft Aims To Offer Windows 10 Upgrades For All Windows Phone 8 Lumias

Unless the summary changed, the words

News suggesting that Microsoft plans to offer Windows 10 upgrades for all its Windows Phone 8 devices broke today.

does not parse the way you say it does. There is no situation, other than not reading, that parses the way you suggest.

And just as much as you are harping on it potentially not being free, I'll harp on the wonderful possibility that it could be free! And you know what? Neither of us know anything about their plans because they just now kinda-sorta gave us a hint as to the future roadmap of these devices.

Lay off the FUD.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 1) 118

by bondsbw (#48380985) Attached to: No, You Can't Seize Country TLDs, US Court Rules

How about this scenario:
1) Dollars Bank has a contract with Edward in the form of a savings account to hold his $1 million in cash.
2) Faye sues Edward because he destroyed her $1 million house.
3) Edward only has $5 in his wallet.

What can the courts do here? Using the logic above, I'd be tempted to say that Faye can only get the $5 he has that isn't under contractual agreement.

And sure, perhaps banks are special in this regard, but it wouldn't take much thought to find a loophole that didn't involve a "bank".

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.