Perhaps making Google look bad isn't their #1 goal. Righteous indignation is cool and all but they're a business.
If you're gonna argue from zero evidence, just claim that the CPU itself is pre-rooted and be done with it.
That's not even remotely what a TPM does.
SocMint: Plusfresh post-eat. Holeful. Buy.
Despite moves by government to get Google, Amazon and Apple to admit they make sales in the UK and US, and therefore should pay tax on these earnings [...]
Tim Cook seems to claim the opposite:
I can tell you unequivocally Apple does not funnel its domestic profits overseas. We don't do that. We pay taxes on all the products we sell in the U.S., and we pay every dollar that we owe.
So is he a bare-faced liar, or is the article summary bollocks? Sources please.
The point is, apple's profit isn't actual quality - it's just a surcharge for people dumb enough to buy
At this point there are quite a few counterexamples out there - Apple users who are clearly not dumb, nor suckers, nor computer-illiterate.
Seriously dude, it's time to let it go.
1. The OS and online infrastructure costs $0?
2. Selling a product at a profit equates to "premium" now?
Second. The article makes it sound like the guy discovered the Mandelbrot set hiding in the tube map.
Nope, not new; I just never felt the need as pressingly as I do right now.
Make some concrete, testable predictions - say, market share, profit share, stock-price or something of that nature - and I'll see you on 8th Feb 2013.
"from the greed-begets-greed dept."?
Is there a way to block stories by editor?
Was the magnetic write head ever the main bottleneck?
Maybe not the 'main' bottleneck, but it depends on the application, no? Seems to me there are at least a few firehose situations where you can never have enough write bandwidth (say, uncompressed video-capture).
Maybe normal workloads on normal filesystems wouldn't see much improvement, but I bet you could find ways to capitalise on the extra bandwidth and space. Log-structured filesystems spring to mind for one.
Reading some of the papers, it is clear that the data is being selectively interpreted to yield a desired conclusion. This is yet another case of continued government funding depending on making progress in proving a particular result, in this case, the existence of the Higgs particle.
Reading your post, it is clear that the article is being selectively interpreted to yield a contentious opinion. This is yet another case of trolling.