Unless they changed something that I haven't read about yet, they haven't moved to a subscription-only model for Office quite yet. They do offer it as an option, but it's still an option to go out and buy a physical copy of Office 2013 (the last "official" release for Windows) as well.

I didn't read the actual article, but from some other comments on here, it sounds like this is doing a bit more than a traditional safe: Counting the funds inserted and Transmitting this deposit to the bank to name just a couple things. This means: - Network/Internet access to some degree, including all the necessary security features (SSL, etc) - Peripheral access (bill reader) - Some sort of confirmation on the safe that the deposit was completed Considering this has been described by some as an "ATM in reverse", it probably makes sense to use the same code base as an ATM, which in many cases means XP embedded (or its newer versions).

While I'm guessing it wants just a Google account, and not specifically a gmail account, that's still not the same as a G+ account.

If I had to guess, this isn't a case of "government tapping into my bank account", but rather a case of having previously given them payment information tied to this account, and as a "courtesy", they auto-renewed the registration when it was due. Heck, an "auto-renew" setting may have even been turned on and forgotten about...

Weeks? Who do you know? I've had portals waiting for approval since September without an answer one way or the other...

Fair enough....I haven't tested the "other side" of this (using a shared key to access a network) because I don't use FB, Skype, or Outlook, but I would hope that the option I mentioned earlier (that "share this network with my contacts" switch) isn't an option for networks that you got the key for through Wifi Share. Maybe someone who's actually used the new feature can weigh in on that part of it

I've been running pretty much every build of Win10 since the preview first came out, and this isn't accurate at all....Yes, the Wi-Fi sense option is there, but when you connect to a new network, there's a "share with my contacts" checkbox that you have to turn ON for this network to be shared. The Wi-Fi Sense "master switch" may be on by default, but you have to specifically allow each individual network to be shared.

HTC actually has come up with a good way to handle this. They've moved many of their "factory" apps into the Play Store, so they can push updates that way independent of the carriers. I've even received lock screen and Sense (their "home screen" for those unfamiliar with it) updates though this method. The only thing they can't push is updates to Android itself this way.

I believe that all phones are required to have at least a basic GPS receiver (even the so-called "dumb phones") for E911 purposes, basically so that if you do call 911 from your phone, and you're not sure of your location, they can still find you.

From: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wire...

If the login delay is implemented based on the user ID and not the IP address, it wouldn't matter how many threads/machines you had attacking.

On a completely random note, I think the amount of time to do this attack, even with the current setup, would make it nonrealistic. Someone above listed the steps to break into a Tesla using this vulnerability (how accurate they were, I don't really know - or care for that matter). There's one big factor that is being overlooked, however. With relatively few Tesla cars on the road right now (I don't know the exact numbers at the moment, but compared to all other cars on the road, I think we can agree that "relatively few" is a safe estimate), this particular attack isn't one that could be done with the "normal" way that I imagine stealing a car goes:

"Hey that's a nice car...lets steal it!"

For this attack to work, it would have to be done one of two ways:

1. Break into "random" Tesla accounts until you found one in your area
2. Exploit this attack to steal the car

OR

1. Find a Tesla parked somewhere.
2. Somehow figure out that car's account
3. Break into that account
4. Use exploit to steal car

Basically, the time it takes to break into one Tesla account is irrelevant. The goal is to break into the RIGHT Tesla account, which I imagine, unless you already knew a lot about the owner of a particular car, would take a lot longer than this 69 year number being thrown around for breaking into a single Tesla account by brute force.

I have as much of a mixed environment as anyone (2 Android Tablets, 1 android phone, 1 win8 desktop, 1 win8 laptop, 1 win7 tablet, 1 linux desktop), so I really have no preference one way or the other. However, the "funny" moderation of your post aside, as a developer, I think it's a bit unfair to categorize MS developers this way. After all, they were only writing what management told them to.

Not sure about others, but I know the Galaxy S3 does...

I haven't done all my reading on the new BB10 setup, but I know previous devices not only used RIM's servers to fetch email before passing it on to the device, but actually tunneled all internet traffic through their system. Now, from the article (or at least Google's translation of it), it sounds like BB10 says that setup is no longer used for the push email. However, are they still tunneling through RIM? The article also seems to make a jump in assuming that RIM is storing this data (who else may be listening in along the way is another discussion entirely). The only reference that I saw in the article was to the connection occurring immediately after setting up the account. This could just as easily point to a "test, then throw away" procedure as part of e-mail setup on BB10. Unless there is additional information showing a series of connections over a period of time after setting up the account, there doesn't appear to be any indication that RIM is actually keeping this data.

OK, the early termination fee is meant to recoup the cost of the subsidy on the phone if you back out of the contract early. I don't necessarily like the practice, but I understand the reasoning behind it. However, the current wording of most(all?) cell phone contracts is that if you pay the ETF, you are released from the contract. By extension, would that then fall under the no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation stipulation you quoted?