There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers

Actually there is. The two major GSM carriers, T-Mobile and AT&T, share a database. Sprint and Verizon will be joining that database by the end of the year; though not that stealing a CDMA phone does you much good on a GSM network and vice versa at the moment. In any case the problem is that the IMEI database is not enough;

1. IMEIs are not unique. We've hit the equivalent of IPv4 space exhaustion. So they're simply reusing IMEIs now.
2. IMEIs can be changed on a number of phones, so it's not a reliable way to keep a phone blocked.
3. These IMEI databases are not shared on a global level, and there's really no way to force everyone to work together. China Telecom for example has little incentive to block iPhones stolen in other countries

The solution then is that rather than merely unreliably blocking a phone, the phone needs to be disabled entirely so that a stolen phone cannot be of any value. It essentially needs to be (reversibly) destroyed if stolen, to eliminate all financial incentive for stealing a phone. This is why the Attorneys General and other law enforcement officials want kill switches, so that shipping a purloined phone overseas is no longer a viable business, ultimately leading to criminals to stop stealing the damn things.

The problem is that both of those are also true for the XB1. You can play used games on it (you just have to resell it through a partnering retailer) and it's not an always-on console because it can be disconnected for up to 24 hours.

Consequently Sony could deliver the same thing as Microsoft, and technically they'd still live up to their promises.

The NSA and the CIA are rogue states within the state, they are beyond control and are not acting for you, or in your best interests

Respectfully, I disagree.

I enjoy living in the most prosperous, most powerful nation in the world. And despite the fact that we have numerous foreign enemies and more than a few domestics, our security services have managed to keep attacks against the civilian population to an incredibly low number. Not being maimed, killed, or otherwise having my life ruined is absolutely in my best interest.

And despite the fact that the less trustful members of this site consider this Orwellian, the fact remains that I'm free to go anywhere I want, profess my beliefs, and vote for those candidates I believe in. And all the while I'm not being harassed by any kind of government organization, unlike the STASI and other organizations you mention.

So why am I not angry or outraged? Because quite frankly life is good right now. Other than telling TSA to take a hike - and I consider the TSA's mission to be well meaning but misguided - the security services that protect me have been able to improve their ability to protect me without impacting the quality of my life. My interest is to continue living a good life, and our security services are part of what it takes to uphold that. So I'd say they're very much acting in my interests.

Shuttered and closed have different implications in this case. Closed implies an orderly wind down, while shuttered implies a rapid and disorderly cessation. It's akin the difference between closing time at night a local restaurant, and the owners throwing everyone out in the middle of the day.

The most significant quote of the article: "we expect overseas cash balances will continue to grow unless tax laws encourage U.S. companies to repatriate money".

The corporate tax rate for what Apple is doing is around 35%; that is, Apple would have to pay 35% of their cash pile in taxes if they repatriated it. Which would be generally reasonable if not for the fact that it was already taxed once in the originating country on the original sale. As a result the 35% tax rate is essentially a kind of 35% tariff on exports and foreign sales. You only need to pay it once if you sell within the US, but you pay it along with a second set of local taxes on anything you sell outside of the US, regardless of whether it was even made here. The ultimate effect is that if every dollar were immediately repatriated, foreign sales would either be immensely less profitable than domestic sales, or American companies would be at a significant competitive disadvantage against foreign companies that aren't getting taxed twice (e.g. Samsung).

Congress needs to give up on this pipe dream that they can have 35% of the profits made off of all foreign sales. When no one else is double-taxing like this, it makes the American tax system look foolish and antiquated.

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price,

Competing on price is an understatement. Amazon was losing money on purpose; it's more fair to say Amazon was competing via predatory pricing . Lose money on books now until everyone else has been run out of business, then significantly raise the prices once they're the only game in town. The outcome of that would have been something that would have benefited no one but Amazon.

On a side note, the wholesale model doesn't make any sense for ebooks anyhow. It's based around the realities of inventory, which wouldn't apply to ebooks.

You're not wrong, but using the generic reckless driving laws requires proving that the driver was actually being reckless, which inevitably leads to a long trial where the suspect argues that they were still taking due care despite their self-imposed handicap. When you enumerate badness you get to skip proving whether something is bad, and simply have to prove the suspect was doing the action. This is why we have laws against specific things like drunk driving and text messaging.

Yes, but that requires proving that the driver was actually driving without due care, which inevitably leads to a long trial where the suspect argues that they were still taking due care while wearing the glasses. When you enumerate badness you get to skip proving whether something is bad, and simply have to prove the suspect was doing the action. This is the same basic rationale for why laws were passed specifically to deal with text messaging.

I could not find a version of retail Windows 8 anywhere

You're looking for something that doesn't exist because it's no longer needed.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Windows-WN7-00403-English-Version/dp/B009HI2W66/ref=sr_1_2?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1367939128&sr=1-2&keywords=windows+8

OEM is the new retail. MS unified the TOS; Win8 OEM's terms are essentially identical to Win7 retail's terms, including the ability to resell it.

This had better be News For Nerds, because it sure isn't Stuff That Matters. If you don't have a good technical article to post, then don't post anything at all. These flamebait stories are getting old.

Secure Erase is even more brilliant than that. Modern SSDs (and phones) run 128bit/256bit AES encryption full-time. So when the drive needs to be Secure Erased, they simply throw away the key and generate a new one.

As a result the data has been rendered inert in a fraction of the time it would take to actually overwrite it, and without needing to put all of the cells through a P/E cycle.

Intelligence is additive. Stupidity is multiplicative.

Strictly speaking they don't need to be off the network; the threat isn't other XP machines in general, it's things coming straight from the Internet or through other computers connected to the Internet. Put the XP machines on an airgapped network (and epoxy the USB ports if you can) where they can't transmit or receive malware, and those machines could very well run forever.

Tech companies regularly use both GAAP and non-GAAP in their statements, and for good reason, so non-GAAP should not immediately be dismissed.

GAAP is very much the bottom line - it's damn near every penny spent and earned accounted for in the final income statements. Importantly, this includes both the core business and one-off gains/losses such as settlements, restructuring costs, and write-downs. This is very important for investors as it means a company can't simply hide certain types of charges, so if a company lost a ton of money on such charges investors will see it on the bottom line.

However because GAAP includes those one-off charges, it's not very good for comparing the core business on a quarterly and annual basis. As a result tech companies will almost always compute both GAAP and non-GAAP financial results, with non-GAAP results throwing out one-off charges (and a couple of other changes) so that investors can see the results of just the core business, with all of the noise thrown out. This allows investors to evaluate the core business on its own, so that they can see whether the company would have been healthy outside of those charges, or if the core business is suffering too.

Both are important, and that's why both are included. Despite what you may think there's nothing devious about it; including both instead of just GAAP means that investors can quickly see and track the financial status of both the company and the core business. News articles in turn may quote one or another (or both), but this is purely optional on their part. On the actual reports you will always see GAAP regardless of whether non-GAAP is included too.

This isn't about kids spending money. It's about deceitful advertisements that trick people in buying stuff.

Bingo. Since the late 80s firms have routinely been slapped down for predatory practices when it comes to kids. TV is the most obvious example - toy commercials have been forcibly unbundled from their parent programs and standards have been imposed to prevent the Chocobot Hour problem - but regulations have been put in place elsewhere for similar reasons. The US already has COPPA for dealing with the Internet, which prevents firms from collecting information on children under 13, for largely the same reasons.

Anyhow, not to go on an anti-corporate rant here, but this isn't anything new. Kids are stupid/naive and easily influenced, and less scrupulous businesses have long attempted to do an end-run around parents by targeting kids directly, which is why these regulations are in place. Parents should absolutely keep a close eye on what their kids are doing and nothing the government can do will replace that, but parents are ultimately competing against firms employing graduate level psychological methods. Kids are all but helpless here, so it's not a fair fight to say the least.

Parents should not have to fight against firms blatantly predating on their kids, which is what some of these kid-focused games are trying to do.