Spoken like a true ignoramus. G+ has 500 million users, nearly half of what Facebook does. It's also only been around for two years, while Facebook has been around for eight. Given its age and the fact that it's had to find its place in a market already dominated by a similar product, I'd say Google+ is a smashing success.

Only if you consider that basically Google turned everyone's account into a G+ account without people really knowing about it.

I'd believe most people on /. have a G+ account because they have/had a Gmail/Picasa/YouTube account at one point in time.

Hell, if we go with that sort of count, we should say IE is the most dominant browser on the planet, being that 90% of all desktop PCs have it installed.

Just because Google has half a billion users (probably more than Facebook - who DOESN'T have any sort of Google account?) though doesn't mean that usage of G+ is comparable to Facebook. Heck, every Android phone sold today basically gives you a G+ account "for free" on setup, yet I'm sure the first app installed for most of them is Facebook. Most don't even realize that their Google account is also a G+ account and don't bother with G+ at all.

Just like how IE may be installed on 90% of desktop PCs, doesn't mean 90% of web users use IE.

The propaganda? That buying stocks is "investing in a company" - except for a minority of cases, that's utter hogwash. If I buy a share of GOOG today the money doesn't go to Google, it goes to the last guy who owned that share. If the money doesn't go to Google, then how am I investing in them? The answer - I'm not. I'm making a bet with myself that the share will go up in value.

That's like arguing that used game sales "take away money from developers". Or ... are you trying to justify buying the Xbox One?

Because whether it's a used game or a share, it's the same thing. Once the developer sells you (through a convoluted maze of resellers) a copy of the game, that's it. They sold one copy. Just like how the company sells you (through a convoluted maze of resellers, aka traders) a share, that's it.

You're right in that the money doesn't go to Google, or the developer. Of course, you could argue that perhaps the developer should get a cut of every used game sale, just like Google should get a cut of every trade. Would that make things better?

The reality is, yes, you do own a part of Google. Google doesn't (and probably shouldn't) get a cut of that trade, just like your used copy of a game is a legitimate copy of the game. Whether you paid what the original buyer paid, less, or more, it doesn't matter. The seller doesn't own a copy of the game (license) anymore, just like the seller doesn't own that much of Google anymore.

A share is a representation of a portion of the company, given that it's rather unwieldy to actually handle a portion of the company (do you want the little bit of window you now own? Or maybe chip a little from the building foundation? Or a stick of RAM from a Googler's PC?).

And people make bets with themselves all the time - ask the collectibles market all about it. It all boils down to the same - whether it's trading cards, CDs, DVDs, video games, lamps, computers, signs, shares, bonds, funds, whatever.

"The most common requests came from police investigating crimes or searching for people". Searching for people would mean that each request would affect one account. 4,000-5,000 requests affecting 10,000 accounts implies that each request touched on average two accounts (a caller and a recipient?). In addition, it doesn't say how much data was slurped out of each request either - is it a particular imessage or a whole dump of all imessage records, or is it tapping all imessages to come?

I would expect for searching for people that you'd want both sides. The lost person's side obviously, but you'd want information on the person who spoke with them to gather details - their location, who they are, their relationship, etc. Because if you're looking for someone, anyone who had contact may have further information. And the lost person's details may have information to their whereabouts - location, etc.

As for what data - all of the above.

Wow, I thought the negatives for Xbox One couldn't be any more before it got launched. Did Sony get a leak of Microsoft's plans and then decide to do the opposite? 1) Make PS4 cheaper, 2) Not require constant internet connection, 3) Allow used games, 4) Push for indie games.

This is probably the least bit of news ever.

The Xbox360 also requires a publisher if you want to be on a disc or Xbox Live Arcade. The PS3 doesn't, I believe. Though if you go through Playstation Mobile (which is now free), Sony reserves the right to determine pricing - yes, you create the game, and Sony approves it. Sony also determines what to charge and what to pay you (sort of like Amazon App Store).

How do I know? A game company I know of is having difficulties because their publisher went bankrupt, and thus they're unable to update their Xbox360 game because the publisher agreement is tied up in the courts (it's an asset, after all). Even now that they found a new publisher, they're tied up in the court system trying to unwrangle the publisher agreement. (They went bankrupt around September-November 2012 and it's all about asset deposition)

The only real way around it was the Xbox Live Indie Arcade, which has a bunch of limitations. Not sure if XBLIA (not to be confused with XBLA - they're completely different) will be on Xbox One, since XNA is dead...

A little while ago, there was some Android malware on Google Play that had this as a side effect.

It not only infected your phone, but then installed an autorun script on SD cards so the next time you plugged your phone into your PC, it would infect Windows as well.

You can bet such things will continue... or if it was the cause of some of the spikes, as well.

And the kids that started them had very well-off parents - probably with connections to enter the industry.

Connections, yes, but that was silicon valley back then - if you didn't do electronics, your neighbour did (and everyone knew the neighbours).

But Steve and Steve didn't have rich parents. Woz had a respectable job at HP, Jobs, well...

Basically, the Apple I was funded entirely out of sales of one HP calculator (by Woz) and a lot of smooth talking by Jobs. When Jobs sold 1000 Apple I's, they didn't have the money to build it - what happened was Jobs convinced everyone to give them net 30 terms, but even then, they basically had a locked cabinet of parts - they weren't charged until parts were removed from that cabinet at the factory. So what Jobs did was pay for a run of say, 10 Apple I's, then take them to the store and get paid for those. Then he'd take that and do a bigger run.

But basically the suppliers were skeptical they'd get paid, and that's how Apple sold the Apple I - with money by selling Woz's calculator being the initial seed money and using daily sales to fund the next run of Apple I's to fulfill the order.

Heck, Jobs had to change colleges because he couldn't afford it.

There's so much good that comes about through telecommuting that I'm surprised it isn't the norm yet.

It depends on a large number of factors. Telecommuting works for a narrow subset of jobs where interactions can be done exclusively by computer with highly independent tasks and the employees are highly motivated.

But some jobs just don't work that way - some creative ones require a high degree of interaction that just cannot be achieved virtually - people bouncing ideas off each other, reviews of materials that are unfeasible to be done electronically (stuff like prototype cases, blueprints that demand large paper, etc). And of course, stuff that requires exotic or expensive hardware - hardware design for example - where prototypes must be debugged and requiring access to expensive test and lab equipment. Then of coures, comes the customers - if your business has customers dropping over for meetings and collaboration, then you better have a way for them to meet the team.

For stuff like pure software development, customer support (phone/email/chat), yes, telecommuting is a transparent option that should be explored. For a lot of other jobs, it's doable, but not ideal. And for other jobs, it's just impossible.

Finally, the employee has to have strong motivation and will - some just aren't suited for it. And there's others who thrive with social interactions that are more in-depth than just IM and phone calls - put them in a room by themselves 8 hours a day and they'll go stir-crazy.

We've already got an 802.11A standard, so how are they going to specify a router that uses all the standards? 802.11BAGNAC (ordered by speed)? 802.11AACBGN (alphabetical)? There were plenty of 1-character suffixes left, so why use a 2-character suffix that can be confused with an existing suffix?

Well, not all AC devices will do 5GHz, like not all N devices do 5GHz. It's the difference between 802.11abgn and 802.11bgn devices (the 'a', representing 802.11a, only works on 5GHz, and there isn't a 5GHz N device that doesn't support A as well)

The reason for the letters is because they're the substandards - 802.11 is WLAN (1/2Mbps on 2.4GHz or IR). a is 54Mbps over 5GHz, b is 11Mbps over 2.4GHz, ... g is 54Mbps on 2.4GHz, etc. etc. etc.

Each committee gets a new latter, and they already used a-z, and aa, ab was also used for something. This new spec is thus 802.11ac.

Since the naming scheme generally follows standards order, it would be
802.11abgnac, and 802.11bgnac (2.4GHz only).

Or, add slashes - 802.11a/b/g/n/ac and 802.11b/g/n/ac

I'm surprised devices don't have hardwired unique network IDs at the hardware network level, like a MAC address or something. Then it couldn't be spoofed. Replacing that module, to say nothing of acquiring replacments in a laundered way, is a lot more work.

It exists, it's called the IMEI and it's internationally unique (international mobile equipment identity). In that one number exposes a serial number and the model and submodel of the phone (it's how the carriers know what kind of phone you're using).

The problem is that with tools, you can change the IMEI because that thing is programmed during production at the factory. And factory reprogramming tools have a tendency to get out in the wild (because it does more than just IMEI, like potentially controlling SIM lock and other things).

Then again, it's like the MAC addresses - they're also programmed at the factory and trivially changed (it exists inside an EEPROM). Some NICs even give you the ability to reprogram the EEPROM in software.

People are going to compose documents, spreadsheets, etc. on a tablet??

Maybe I need more coffee, can someone explain why anyone would want this?

Not compose, but edit and update. Perhaps you're on your way to give a presentation, and you're reviewing it on your tablet (it's only consumption, no need to dig out the laptop). But you spot an error - a typo maybe. So you can quickly go and fix the error when you spot it, rather than dig out the laptop, fire it up, fix the error (while juggling the laptop).

Basically, you're reviewing documents and the best way is in "consumption" mode - carrying a tablet or looking at it on your phone while you're out at lunch or waiting seems better than lugging your laptop everywhere. And you can use it to fix simple errors, or possibly highlight areas that need fixing but can't be done immediately for whatever reason.

The whole idea of Intellectual Property comes in to play because companies wanted to assume monopoly over tech/entertainment markets. The current legislation behind patents and copyrights is a result of this effort via lobby, and on the public relation front of it is this crusade for IP.

Except patent wars are old - they date back to the 19th century. Likewise copyright wars. It's really a case of everything old is new again - we've been repeating history for ages now.

Anyhow, the main problem is software shouldn't be protected at all - at least not by traditional copyright NOR patents. The thing is, software is kind of strange. Before software, people wrote stuff for consumption - books, musics, movies, plays, etc, which clearly fell under copyright law. And people made "stuff" to do things - machines, tools, etc., which clearly fell under patent laws.

But now software (which is really just tech's turn at the patent wars - everyone else has gone through it years ago - automobiles has had patent wars rage on since the late 19th century) is really quite different. Very rarely is it written for purely human consumption (the source code, that is), and the compiled/transformed form isn't usable to anything but a computer. Even worse, you write software to do useful things, which also make it fall under patents.

And that's the problem - patents and copyrights are meant to cover things that don't overlap - pretty much mutually exclusive. Software isn't - you write it, compile it (which can make it come under copyright law) but which can do things of utility (e.g., do stuff), which falls under patent protection. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. (And to confuse things further, software can be hardware, when it's written and compiled to RTL and silicon). After all, given something can be both patented AND copyrighted (which never happened before...), that should be a red flag that the laws are inadequate.

What needs to happen is recognition of this - the special state of software that you write, but not necessarily for purely human consumption (you can consume the *output* - e.g., games, but rarely is source or binary code appreciated as-is).

It would offer protection, but of a different form adapted to the qualities it possesses - do you protect the algorithm (patent), or the implementation (copyright)? Why not a modified form of that protects both, respects that sometimes things can only be done one way and thus have mandatory licensing, appreciate that multiple implementations can exist and be protected as one unit, etc.?

You still get the protections and restrictions that make open and free software possible, but you eliminate trying to bend patent and copyright laws to handle software.

Dont forget that console games are usually more expensive (and theres the MS/Sony rent you pay on a console).. you'll soon save money with a PC.

Less so these days - most PC games I see are the same price now - $60. Once in a while you'll find a game that's $10 cheaper (Metro Last Light was the only one that I've seen that did that), everything else was the same price. Maybe back when the Xbox360 and PS3 were new this was expected behavior, but the gap has narrowed to practically nil.

And it makes sense - the PC versions don't generally sell as well (piracy?) so to make up money in the port, they up the price. So instead of paying the Sony or Microsoft tax, you're paying the piracy "tax" because the PC version never ships in the same quantities as the console versions (even if there are more PC players...).

Is it even legal to make such a distribution if you happen to live in the United States, Dice's home country? A lot of the multimedia functionality that people expect includes royalty-bearing technology such as MPEG audio and video decoders.

I'm fairly certain at this point that decoders are cheap or already paid for. I remember someone actually doing it, and I know when I installed Ubuntu 12.04, it asked if I wanted to install closed source binaries for that purpose. So someone paid for the royalties or arranged it to be royalty free.

Not that there aren't ways to do it on Linux - Apple gives away the decoder for free with QuickTime. You don't need an iThing to download iTunes or QuickTime, after all, and if you get the Windows version, not a cent went to Apple to pay for it.

Heck, I think Adobe gives away the decoder as well with their Flash plugin. Granted, the only way now is to use Chrome, but still.

Of course, the thing is that doing so violates Debian's charter - but that's what the non-free repos are for.

The details of the deal were not disclosed. Is the MicroSoft stand going to draw customers to BestBuy, or the other way around? Is it a synergistic cross pollination that will better service consumer desire?

It appears MicroSoft now have to sublet the non-Apple section of the Best Buy computer department. That and a bunch of PR drivel.

Quite possibly it'll help bring higher end PCs to Best Buy. If you go there, you'll find a stunningly large number of people still go to best buy and purchases PCs there. Then look at what they sell - cheap ass $500 and below PCs make up the vast majority of what's on display, and what isn't, is basically because they're Apple Macs.

The Ultrabooks have helped somewhat, at least to bring higher end machines in.

Microsoft does however bring in something good - and that's the "Microsoft Premium PC" - basically it's to PCs what Nexus is to Android - a clean, fast Windows experience that has no trial crap and other stuff (even using tools like PC Decrapifier doesn't quite get rid of everything), and clean restore discs and everything (nothing's worse than having to reinstall and just getting the crap back).

But what's happening is Best Buy is actually evolving - they know most of their traffic is showrooming traffic, so they're evolving into being THE showroom. They know they can't compete with Amazon and other online retailers, so they don't. They'll take payments of rent from manufacturers who get to show off their stuff and people come in to look (with perhaps a small amount for those who really need it now), and let Amazon etc., fight for the actual sale. Because really, Best Buy has an existing network of stores that no manufacturer, not even Apple, can hope to match, but to whom bring in enough customers who want to look at stuff before they buy. Plus they can bring out the latest and greatest ASAP for show - it's up to the manufacturers to ship the demos ahead of time.

That I think is what is happening. The first three tenants are Apple, Samsung and Microsoft. But soon others will want in. Bonus points if the manufacturers can even handle returns and exchanges on the spot instead of obnoxiously complex return and exchange procedures (which can be nasty - like warranty exchanges require shipping to some warehouse in China - even if your product is DOA).

the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.

Actually there are plenty of signs that it is going to slow down. So many signs that population is expected to peak around the year 2011 and start decreasing.

It depends. Much of the population growth has been fueled by one thing - oil. The availability and low cost of oil pretty much created the population boom. After all, at the start of the 20th century, the world was only 2B or so (just over 1B at the start of the 19th). By the end, it was a hair under 7B (we hit 7B under a decade ago).

Of course, we're already starting to pay the price for it, and with energy getting more expensive, it should limit population growth significantly.