Not if you flash the bios, or just put it in developer mode (at least that was true of the older chromeboxes)
SSL to their servers prevents tampering in-route. Now they could have used their own wire protocol to ensure the data wasn't altered on the way, but why reinvent the wheel?
You pretty much got it - the core of Microsoft's argument was 100% vindicated by history. It's one of the little quirks of nature:
1. Bundling DOES help the consumer. Apple is the proving point. The users crave a unified bundled approach. Even to the level MS never envisioned, hardware, service and software.
2. An upstart competition could arrive at anytime and take MS's market share, because unlike natural monopolies on resources, the human capital needed to fight MS was readily available to competitors. Google, Apple, Blackberry, all came from nowhere to drink MS's milkshake.
3. The browser is a natural part of the operating system and it's unfair to force MS to accommodate competitors who someday would be more profitable or powerful than MS.
4. MS doesn't have the ability to set prices which is a critical part of the monopoly power. This is so obviously true. MS exerts almost no price pressure on the market these days.
Your politics are backwards. Nationally, the car dealers are associated strongly with the conservatives in the GOP. Many, many, many car dealers are owned by Republicans.
Nate Silver correlated the data nicely back when the major makers were on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's better than 8-to-1 correlation (i.e., a fairly strong correlation).
The problem is that, adjusting for inflation, it should be dramatically less. That's the trend. The major outlier is for raw materials which are more costly to extract and process for use.
In the 1950's a decent Westinghouse consolve TV cost about $1000. Inflation adjusted to today, that's about $9000. You'd be hard pressed to spend $9000 on a TV today unless it was a big theater setup or was quite exotic. That's because technology has replaced the need for many expensive raw materials, improved production (including moving it overseas), and driven out the excess.
Auto manufacturers have a problem, and they are the ones driving cost inflation, trying to convince Americans to spend more and more of their income each year on automobiles. For the last two generations this has been through fictionalization of automobiles - you are buying a payment, not a product. That has started to lessen, but record low interest rates have prevented a major crash in sales, and actually led to some good years against a trend of decline.
There is a large untapped market for a car marker who builds the same model of car, with no changes other than manufacturing refinements, for 7-15 years, direct to consumers. From a manufacturing theory perspective, there are something like 7,000-10,000 drivers in an auto production line. 10 years is about what you could expect to optimize the supply chain for each driver, maybe half that if you are very good at managing supply chain. This type of company is stymied by three things:
a. cheap credit money which makes it cheaper to buy a new car than to maintain and run older cars,
b. regulatory creep which increases requirements continually and
c. consumers willing to spend a large slice of their income on flashy cars and status symbols.
And in the end, car dealerships do deserve to undergo a radical change in their structure. They are inherently bad for customers.
For one - they make money in ways that customers are not aware of. The most insidious being "point spread". You walk in, buy a car, and they make money selling the car (fair), future service either under warranty or direct to the consumer (fair), and more importantly, on the financing. You might qualify for a certain rate, but they get a big chunk of the difference between your best qualifying rate and what they convince you to pay. So you qualify for a 3.5% rate, but they get you sign on the line for 9.9%, and they get roughly 50% of the point spread between 3.5% and 9.9%, which on many financing arrangements, is far more than the profit involved in selling the car to begin with.
Second, they do an only okay job with service. They do not typically do as a good job as independent shops, and for warranty work, face little competitive price pressure.
Finally, they are effective local monopolies and do not always respond to market pressure. Because of brand monopolies, there is not as much competition as they would have you believe. The car market is deeply segmented, and so there are not as many brand choices in a price/demographic band as you might think. On paper there are 15 manufacturers selling through dealerships in a market. But for a single random consumer, there are likely 3 or 4 options that meet the basic criteria of type and price range.
In many small towns or areas, the local car dealer is the wealthiest person in town. There is a lot of profit standing between the car maker and the consumer. And in the end, this excess is needs to be wrung out of the system. Manufacturer's should not be able to prevent car dealers from selling and servicing cars, but long-term, the concept of a franchised car dealership needs to be scaled back. Channel conflict is inevitable.
Oh hell no, don't run BIND. Run something that isn't full of suck and security holes.
OpenDNS hijackes NXDOMAIN failures, which is one of the big reasons to drop many ISP's DNS in the first place. I don't want to get into evaluation of motivation and such, but the effect is the same.
The older you have become, the more exceptions you have encountered which shatter common stereotypes. By the time you hit 70-80 years of age, the whole of humanity probably seems like am unweighted random behaviour generator.
This is beautiful.
Participation in fraud and selling stolen goods is hardly capitalism.
Maybe you should look at how things work in the real world instead of believing what a bunch of philosophers tell you they think ought to happen. Hint: Karl Marx and Ayn Rand both developed economic theories that were entirely logical and self-consistent.
Nice misdirection, firstly the typical windows shell sucks, secondly it ignores the Windows XP style start menu which is also vastly superior to the typical Windows shell (did I mention that windows shells typically suck?).
I could have been clearer, but I was including typical Unix shells in that as well.
Actually if you define a command-line shell as a text-based program that you use to launch and interact with other programs, the Vista/7/8 search mechanism for launching programs works better than every command-line shell that I've ever used if you just want to launch the program with no command-line arguments (which is the usual thing when starting a GUI program).
Take Word, remove the space bar and replace it with a button in the GUI. Can you imagine the pain caused by this?
If you're launching programs with anything approaching the frequency of typing a space, you're doing something really weird.
But fine, take a different example: a web browser. Browsers are primarily a mouse-driven program -- scrolling is arguably nicer with a mouse, and clicking links and such is definitely nicer with a mouse. But if you want to go to a new URL, what do you do? Type it out, even though that's only a momentary use of the keyboard.
selling US government secrets to the remnants of the old Soviet Union is now called 'free market capitalism'
Yes. Yes, it is.
What, you were expecting something more idealistic? Sorry, sucker, welcome to the real world.
Why should there be a sharp line between GUI and text interface? In other words, the question shouldn't be "should this typing thing be in a GUI" and should instead be "is this (or when is this not) a good way of launching programs?"
For instance, I'm actually one of the relatively few people who actually really liked Vista, and a lot of that was on account of the search feature of the start menu. I'd have taken it over XP on the basis of that feature alone, that's how much it improved my usability. (Possibly XP + Launchy would have satisfied me, but I discovered it a bit too late to use it much with XP and view it as pretty much obsoleted by Vista+.) For several reasons, I think it's even significantly easier and faster overall to use the start menu search than it is to use tab completion in a typical shell to launch a GUI program.
(And incidentally, this is one reason that I'm almost completely indifferent about Win8, which I suspect you don't see. I pretty much ignore the fact that metro exists except when launching programs, and I launch programs pretty much identically to how I launched them in Vista & 7.)
No one says "hey I actually have to type when creating a document in Word; what gives?!" even though Word is pretty much undeniably a GUI.
I think that in a lot of cases, the same can be said for the start menu. If you're on a desktop/laptop, most of the time pressing win then typing a few characters is just fundamentally going to be the fastest way to start a program. The Win8 problem comes from the fact that in other situations, or if the user doesn't know you can do that, or if they just don't want to type, the start screen is pretty hard to use well.
Windows NT has had a journaling FS since its introduction in 1993.
But (on any OS) a journaling FS usually just means that the file system metadata itself is consistent; most journaling FSs don't journal data changes as well, so you could have a half-committed change to the contents of a file from a program. Even if it did, that still doesn't guarantee that a program will issue file operations in a way that has any chance of being considered atomic.
You could make an argument that journaling fixes some of the least important file system consistency issues.
Yes. This is an important distinction. "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Hoyle wasn't purely a crank, of course. He was a very good scientist, who had made major contributions to his field, but who just couldn't accept new ideas past a certain point, and thereby became a crank. This phenomenon isn't universal by any means, but it's sadly common.