It's water under the bridge, but in hindsight, it would have been better to not create the alternate TLDs .cm, .co. While I'm at it, tell me there's a good reason we have augmented reality iPhones and 60 MPG cars but not web browsers that autocorrect non-existent TLDs.

Seriously, why doesn't every browser have a "I don't live in Cameroon or Colombia; auto-correct .cm and .co to .com, don't warn me when doing it, and don't bother me about this again" option? (I know, I know, .hosts and/or Firefox extensions. Still.)

"I've been getting the straight dope from the inside on this. Let me assure you, your data IS gone. Currently MS is trying to get the devices to sync the data they have back to the service as a form of recovery.

It's not a server failure. They were upgrading their SAN, and they outsourced it to a Hitachi consulting firm. There was room for a backup of the data on the SAN, but they didn't do it (some say they started it but didn't wait for it to complete). They upgraded the SAN, screwed it up and lost all the data.

All the apps in the developer store are gone too.

This is surely the end of Danger. I only hope it's the end of those involved who screwed this up and the MS folks who laid off and drove out anyone at Danger who knew what they were doing.

"Epic fail" doesn't begin to describe this one.

I don't see the point you're making. You might as well have contrasted nine-year disparate statements about RAM size. Over nine years, Apple's stance towards Java has changed; what's wrong with that? In 2000, Java seemed to have a wider path on the desktops than it does in 2009. Other languages and runtime environments have grown up around Java in the subsequent nine years, and to Apple's thinking, the other languages (such as Objective-C 2.0) allow for building better software than Java allows.

Apple's stance appears to be, right or wrong, that Java on the desktop and mobile devices is no longer the best way to develop and deploy software, and thus, they've allowed the Java implementation in OS X to grow long in the tooth, and have outright declined to port it to the iPhone/iPod Touch OS.

The nuke has very effectively prevented WWIII from happening as the deterrent of MAD has proven to be histories most effective peace policy.

MAD is a doctrine; that is, a dogma of belief; it is, more accurately, a statement of condition about the geopolitical theatre. In any case, it is neither a policy nor a hypothesis. By definition, it is untestable, because the first time it is tested is the last time it is testable. MAD is often held up as a policy that is "effective," but it is not, because its efficacy will never, and can never, be established. MAD simply means, "the condition within which major nuclear powers have not yet engaged in a large-scale offensive nuclear exchange" (emphasis mine). The "not yet" is a vitally important point. The MAD doctrine categorically does not and will not prevent a nuclear exchange. In other words, it is not a policy of safeguard. MAD means that the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- of nuclear conflict is still very real.

This is the whole point of non-proliferation, and is the fundamental and scientifically demonstrable reason why non-proliferation is the only safeguard against nuclear exchange.

More to the point, the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction" is a euphamism which has the look-alike appearance of a military policy; however, the more accurate rendition of the doctrine is "Global Nuclear Annihilation."