I don't usually take this angle when it comes to corporate responsibility to the public, but in this case I think people are getting too close to Facebook, when Facebook really just wants to be friends. Or perhaps researcher & test subject.
"I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'."
This has always bothered me: If his name is Linus, then why is it a short I-sound in the name 'Linux'
When does 8.1 Update 1 update to 2?
It doesn't, it goes to 8.1 Update 1 SP1. At least until 8.1 Update 1 SP1 Rollup 1 comes out. Then 8.1 Update 1 SP1 will no longer be supported, though you may have to continue using it until they release an appropriate fix for Windows Update in the form of 8.1 Update 1 SP1 Rollup 1 Subrevision 1
No sane environmentalist judges extinction to be unnatural in the platonic sense. Extinction IS a direct effect of natural selection. That doesn't mean we should just "get over it" or any other dismissive crap that usually appears in the same sentence with "you damn hippies" or "humans are nature too" or "the climate has been hotter than this in the past." We care about the Sumatran Rhino becoming extinct because we like the world better when it has the Sumatran Rhino in it, not because we have some hang-up about extinction itself.
I have no problem at all being selfish about this: the world is a nicer place for me to live with a healthy ozone layer, fresh air, old growth forests, thriving oceans, and Sumatran Rhinos. Don't try to tell me I'm a hypocrite because the environmental problems we're experiencing today are "natural." I'm not even going to tackle whether or not humans caused all these problems (hint: we did), I'm just going to say that it's perfectly ok to want species to live, even spend time and effort helping them to survive because they are valuable to us. No extra points for true altruism here.
Microsoft continues to bank on the idea that because they make something newer and shinier, people will flock to it just for the sake of newness and they keep falling on their faces because the new thing doesn't do the job that people need it to do substantially better than the product it's replacing. This is doubly true with their Office suite; Office '97 is a perfectly usable product with at least 90% of the functionality of its successors, obsoleted only by OS compatibility problems (OS's by the very company that released it no less) and it's less-than-modern UI. WinXP CONTINUES to live on and be useful to people even after three subsequent OS releases, and I suspect it will continue even after MS "pulls the plug". It does a job and it does it well, and Microsoft needs to get it through their thick marketing and sales departments that THAT is why people buy a product.
I really think instead of churning out new shit that nobody asked for, Microsoft should take a good hard look at who their user base is and consider more of an LTS, or maybe a rolling release model. I don't think I have a single business client who wouldn't pay twice or thrice as much for an OS/Office Suite/etc. if it would last 10-20 years. As it is, they all seem resigned to the idea that their stuff needs to be replaced every 5 years at the most, and that is an complete myth.
ZDNet's inflammatory, attention-whoring headline has some truth to it...
I really hope the industry doesn't take all the data it gathers on its best-selling phones and decide "Yup, X inches is definitely the best, commence mass-production." We're all different.
Wait...isn't this just a variation on the olive oil story?