Oh god, what the heck? Do you even understand English?

How in the hell is "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" the same as "the internet" ? Do you have sudden amnesia that hits you just after you read my post and before you write a reply? I specifically said that speculation by organizations like that are "NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECULATION ON THE INTERNET".

Do you even read what you yourself quoted from my post???

How can you even claim that that equates to "believing everything you read on the internet" ? Are you dumb or just acting so?

How many news sites and blogs are on the internet? Hundreds of thousands?

How many news sites and blogs are in the list "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" I count 4.

I feel that I am debating with someone who can't read.

Again you color all speculation the same.

"The sun will rise tomorrow". Is that speculation or fact? Is it at the same level of speculation as Apple will release iPhone 6 tomorrow? Don't you agree that there's different levels of speculation based on probability, track record etc.?

There's informed speculation and there's uninformed speculation.

Oh yes, ignore everything that the WSJ got right and pick on one thing(March could've been the internal plan at Apple in Jan). Also ignore that I said "it's pretty much 100% right". The link was an example about how WSJ had access to real information as opposed to the rest of the internet.

I see you still fail to read the news which broke around 30 mins before your post. Here's your new head of Xbox, Ballmer is not taking over till the holiday season like you were insinuating.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Jul13/07-11OneMicrosoft.aspx

Will you admit you were wrong in your posts below?

If you don't agree that your posts and basically this whole Slashdot article and most of the comments on here are bunk after the news that broke today, you're morally and ethically bankrupt.

Windows 8 is not the same as Windows RT.

Windows 8 runs on only x86.

I love how the iPad gets a free pass but the barely selling WindowsRT is a big deal.

Sure, but they will lose Windows 8 certification which gives them marketing, discounts etc.

That's why no OEM currently prevents that option. If you have a reference stating that one does, please provide it. Until then it's just speculation, an OEM can do anything in the future, including blocking Windows from running.

Reducing contrast to confuse older folks and people with bad monitors into clicking ads to make more money is pretty evil in my book.
http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3904125&cid=44103749

You can.

http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi-platform/

Typical Slashdot ignorance and blind hatred.

What is this UEFI Foundation that you speak of?

That seems like a lot of work and complexity for something that's already feasible.

Vendors can currently ship OS-less machines with secure boot turned off.

Linux vendors can remove MS' key and put in theirs or the distros' if there is one, or just turn it off and then install Linux before shipping it to the user. The user can install/remove keys and enable/disable secure boot as they please.

+3 interesting? What's wrong with Slashdot that posts with the most misinformation are modded up? And then other people take these modded up posts as gospel and keep repeating the FUD.

Can you tell us how it's easy to get around Secure Boot?

Here's a couple of viruses that Secure Boot prevents.

http://www.chmag.in/article/sep2011/rootkits-are-back-boot-infection

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/tdl_rootkit_does_64_bit_windows/

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217953/Rootkit_infection_requires_Windows_reinstall_says_Microsoft

I recommend reading atleast the first link.

Here's one juicy bit:

The OEMs offered to add Red Hat and Ubuntu etc.'s keys but they refused since they didn't want to have an exclusive solution and neither did they want to be in the position of signing keys. If the Linux foundation stepped up, the OEMs will gladly add their master key to UEFI, but it doesn't want to.

Is there something about UEFI and secureboot that causes many folks' brains to be absolutely switched off? Or is the FUD successful in muddling the facts? Or maybe the whole issue is too complex for folks to understand. But it's Linux users we're talking about, not "M$ Windoze sheeple". About 80% of the posts on here and on Reddit about UEFI Secure Boot are simply false and extremely misleading which perpetuates the cycle of ignorance and spreading FUD. Very disappointing, I expected that people would be smart on here, but they seem to be ignoring facts "la la la" in the hurry to feel victimized and jump on the anti-MS bandwagon. Post any anti-MS crap and it's automatically modded up, no wonder the site appears to be dying with very few comments on most articles these days.

  Posters like bmo, symbolset, tuple666, Zero__Kelvin, LordLimeCat, Jeremiah Cornelius, UnknowingFool, rtfa-troll, binarylarry, MightyMartian, drinkypoo, pieroxy and a whole bunch of others have ruined Slashdot beyond repair(with the help of moderators) and seem to suffer from this affliction: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/1757253/linus-calls-microsoft-hatred-a-disease

It already successfully prevents many kinds of undetectable rootkits on Windows in the real world.

I would certainly prefer that the vendors with razor thin margins of a few bucks a PC/motherboard in Taiwan not be burdened with 'taking ownership' of the platform.

Even 1% of PC users would be in the high millions.

..and when the universe dies a heat death? Anything is possible tomorrow, Secure Boot doesn't mean that suddenly 100% of the numerous PC makers will one day suddenly ban user root keys and make their devices harder to fix in case of issues.

Gah, what's it about secure boot that seems to confuse so many people?

Currently there are zero vendors that lock out users from the signing keys since being Windows Certified needs user control of keys.

The parent posts point is that if such a vendor shows up, vote with your wallet and feet and get a computer from another vendor.

How is secure boot about lock-in when you can turn it off with a mouse click?

How is it Microsoft's fault that the FOSS community is unable to come up a signing organization that OEMs are willing to add?

Given that you're in full control of the keys, Secure Boot is more like a ADT alarm system controlled lock you put in your home than a handcuff. By default, MS is trusted, but you can make it untrusted and prevent Windows from ever booting even by accident if you so wish.

You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.

For example, see how WSJ got news of the iPad before it was launched. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638630584151614.html

Equating these professional organizations' sources to the same level as "rumors" by users on Apple fan forums or Slashdot does not make any sense. How many times do I have to prove that all rumors and speculation are not the same and the source and their track record matters a lot? This basically shows your willingness to argue for the sake of disagreeing rather than argue any facts and shows that debating with you is a complete waste of time.

Again, all speculation is not the same. See some of Mary Jo Foley's track record in this link which I provide again.

http://tracour.net/author/Mary%20Jo%20Foley

No, I don't work for MS, if I did, I would declare it, why hide it? There's nothing wrong with working for MS, as you seem to think. My speculation is from informed sources with a stellar track record and a lot of big revelations under their belt while you seem to have no clue about MS watchers who work in the press. Again, you're trying to color all speculation the same, it's not.

Ok I will switch to the format of my other reply on the other thread which seems to finally have gotten into your head since you haven't even replied to it yet.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929159&cid=44180905

I said this

An "employment contract" that forces people to show up at work and actually do work against their wishes(under threat of arrest, criminal charges or physical punishment) is what slavery is. Q1 Agreed?

The thread came out like this.

I effectively said "Employment is at the will of the employee. MS cannot force him to work if he does not want to."

You came out with: "First, at-will employment only applies when there is no contract:"

Did MS even have an option to not let him go? You bring up non-compete, but they're not enforceable in many states. Look at Steven Sinofsky's agreement where they had to pay him a ton to keep him out of competitors' hands. http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/3/4491560/steven-sinofsky-microsoft-retirement-agreement-deal-shares-nda

Why would they waste so much money if noncompete agreements were workable? Microsoft's lawyers known way more than you about this stuff. Q2 Agree?

I effectively said "No contract can force people to work against their will since slavery is no longer legal. The only way out is monetary punishment which Zynga likely bought out."

And guess what? I was right.

http://microsoft-news.com/don-mattrick-to-make-over-50-million-at-zynga/

No, you bought this up by saying this upthread:

I brought up contracts etc. to counter that point
And now you argue against yourself and agree with me and don't even remember that you started this line of argument. Nice 360.
Q3 agree?
Also, another quote from you:

From a news report the next day http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/microsoft-ceo-said-to-give-bates-mergers-role-in-revamp.html

See how it makes sense? Q4 Agree?

Look, I understand you're not a MS watcher and you probably follow a lot of iNews, and that's good for you and I don't think that's a bad thing in itself at all. People have different interests and they should. But you come off trying to argue from a position of ignorance trying to show MS in bad light with flimsy and broken logic while lacking real information that is out there if you really wanted to grab it instead of trying to score brownie points by nitpicking on people who have done their homework.

If you read through this thread, I am quoting information and giving references. You are like the first AC, trying to inject baseless arguments that essentially boil doing "Ballmer is an unknowing fool that bumbled up the Mattrick exit, i know better, also MS sux and this is baaaaad news for MS". I am tired of being the only one doing the research here while you take irrelevant potshots at me.

  If you want to argue from a position of strength, first watch the last 10 episodes of "Windows Weekly". Then read the last 50 articles on allaboutmicrosoft.com and Winsupersite. Those are not even opinion or speculation, Paul and Mary have known good sources *inside* MS and have repeatedly delivered, and also they're very critical of MS on many points. Arguing from ignorance and calling my posts speculation on the level of random Slashdot comments like yours is not called for. Q5 Agree?