Do you mean new games that require newer hardware, or do you mean they removed support for games entirely--including those already installed on the device? Hardware obsolescence is not something new and yes perhaps its faster in iOS devices than large desktops but it existing and being faster on devices where you squeeze more power/heat into a smaller package is not surprising or now.

That is pretty surprising. I suppose they don't support newer iOS versions on the hardware and they did not see the point in back-porting a new feature? That does suck, I'll give you that one but it kind of goes along with the first point above.

My three-year-old device still works just fine with my three-year-old connector. I have no idea what you mean here, unless you mean my new device does not work with my three-year-old connector?

While I get that in three years there might be new hardware with new software and new features, but I don't really believe that today's hardware and software will stop working. You seem to be confusing wanting new shiny bling with being forced to upgrade or have useless hardware. By that standard, my five-year-old thermostat should work with my iPhone without having to be replaced, and then should work with my iImplant also without having to be replaced.

If you begin by stating you will never understand something, then there's really not much point in trying to learn about it is there? You've already set yourself a very high bias.

I agree that home automation doesn't really have much return for its risk today but do you really feel home automation is a pointless area to explore? Do you still wash all your clothes by hand and line dry them? Do you not use a microwave? Do you not use an automatic dish washer? Do you not use a thermostat? Those all came out of this sort of push.

There's no reason we couldn't have both. If the application developer does want to provide their own protocol and a thick client and all that, that's great. That doesn't mean the display layer should not have a network layer to allow remote displays. They solve different problems and are useful in different situations.

When did it stop meaning that. I just pressed ctrl-S and my output was suspended. I pressed ctrl-q and it resumed.

So a user that uses :ws is not eligible for this hypothetical award? It might be that you sir are Windows-centric in your thinking.

No, not everyone. I would love to pay for a service that's worth the cost rather than use a heavily-tracking service. That's why I chose a private RSS aggregator which charges $20 a year rather than Feedly.

I'll vote with my wallet and give money to companies that have a product worth buying. I will not buy in to a business model that's revolting to me. Don't fucking tell me I want my shit for free. Man up and sell it to me.

They do. Hopefully Weyland/Weston will as well and hopefully it will work as good or better than the solution we have today.

Saying and writing are two different things. People do write the year first; in fact it's a very popular format.

I too just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and a message arrives in one of my inboxes, I can, at my leisure process my inboxes and respond to those messages as appropriate in long- or short- form. I configured my notifications on my phone such that important and urgent notifications vibrate my phone and everything else makes no notification at all. I prefer to focus on what I am doing and who I am doing it with rather than extraneous information without fearing I'll miss something important and urgent (of which few things are).

The other two use cases are enabled by glass but the first use-case is already possible today in a superior way.

I personally do on occasion. I sometimes run R on an EC2 instance to be able to use a beefy box and use it remotely from a device of my choice. I don't think that's a particularly odd use case for the types of people that use X today. If Weyland/Weston are not targeting those people, then so be it. If they are, then the remote display use-cases are going to suffer.

It is awful to steal from millions of users. Users have two options: transact business with a business and entrust their data into the business's protection or shun a business. Let us say that your argument is correct, and it is in the best interest of the working man to transact business with a business and entrust his data into the business's protection because that benefits to business and hence the working man's 401k account. Would it not be reasonable for that working man to then be angry at Ebay for not following pretty basic practices to protect this data, such as telling him about it immediately, encrypting his personally-identifiable data and protecting their network.

I present an alternative view: it is unwise for the working man to tie his worth to the worth of those who do not have his interests in mind. It is wiser for the working man to not spend his money on bolstering the economy by buying unnecessary items from companies that do not have his personal wellbeing in mind. It is better for him to live well within his means and not rely on a 401k.

There's a lot of stealing going on in the world, and most Slashdotters do not stand up for stealing. They do stand up for basic practices that everyone entrusted with someone else's data should follow if they cared at all for that other person's wellbeing. Ebay does not care for our wellbeing (this should not be news). Every reminder of such will anger some people here.

There are commuting options other than driving and VPN: walking, bicycling, public transport, private jet, personal submarine and many more I am forgetting. Walking, public transport and bicycling are very popular, probably more popular than driving.

Telling children that they're smart negatively effects their desire to learn. http://www.psychologytoday.com...

That would work if someone has a iPhone and switch to an Android phone without any other devices as a possible iMessage receiver.

User S, the sender has an iPhone.
User R, the receiver had an iPhone but now has an Android phone. He also has an iMac.

S goes into his iMessage on his iPhone and wants to send R a message. The iMessage app goes out to Apple's servers with R's phone number and gets a reply back saying the iMessage path is preferred. The message goes out over iMessage and receipt is acknowledged (by the iMac). User S is annoyed because there is no UI to force SMS for iMessage-enabled phone numbers and posts a story.

What user R should do is log into the web portal and remove his iPhone from his support profile if he no longer plans to use it. Then, when S wants to send a message to R's number, the iMessage service will respond "nope, use SMS, we don't recognize that number."

Of course, one solution to this problem is better education of users by whoever upgrades them from iOS to Android.

I believe you can do it by editing your apple ID support profile on the web.