You run a graphical web browser on a file server? wtf?

A lot, if not most users only use it because they're stuck with it at work.. It's amusing how the user-agent stats swing significantly at weekends and evenings on some sites.

What about if you purchased copies of the games, and played them on an emulator instead of buying the official hardware?
Not only would this not be piracy, but the console manufacturer would benefit because the hardware itself is usually sold at a loss, and the user would benefit as they could use hardware they already own instead of purchasing extra hardware solely for playing games.

The PS4/XB1 will remain the same spec, while PC hardware advances... Before too long it won't be very difficult at all.

The monopoly commission should investigate exFAT...
It's not the best filesystem on offer, there are many much better filesystems which are more suitable for use on flash media, and which are available royalty free... The only reason anyone even considers exfat is because microsoft will intentionally never support anything else.

Even with access to the source, we're talking about running services rather than code you run on your own hardware. There is no reason to believe that the source they provide is the same as they're running, and there's no way to tell who else has access to their systems.

Most other big providers such as google and yahoo run most of their stuff on open source software, so while we have the code we have no way to tell what they're doing with it.

Or they can simply provision the availability of service at the boundary of your property, and make it your responsibility to deal with getting it across your own private land (or not, if you dont want the service).

Note that at some point every service anyone uses will have had to cross private land in that way, any house built before the days or electricity, sewerage, telephone and running water had to have these services retrofitted at some point. Installing fibre is simply the next logical step on from installing copper telephone wires.

Sure, it is often more expensive to replace something when it catastrophically breaks, and your more likely to screw the process up because at that point you no longer have the luxury of being able to plan the transition.
That said, IT departments are often sailing on luck alone, lots of places have no redundancy, no DR plan, no backups, massive easily exploitable security holes etc and yet they get away with it out of pure luck. So this crufty old system that needs replacing may well continue running for a long time.

The problem is that upper management rarely understands IT, they see it as a necessary but unwanted cost and will try to minimise it. They also rarely see any downside to minimising costs.

And then those who do understand IT are generally not very good at explaining things to those who don't, or they create the wrong image (geeky etc) which causes upper management to disrespect their opinion.

Plus the inherent complexities of the problem...
Someone who is extremely competent will be able to keep a system running on a low budget, but not everyone is so competent and the typical people doing the hiring aren't qualified to judge IT competence, plus while a lot can be done with a small budget and lots of knowledge there is still a limit...
Also its possible to make a lot of extremely poor decisions in IT and simply get lucky... You can do with no redundancy, no DR plan, poor security etc and if your lucky nothing will go wrong and you won't get hacked. A lot of companies are in this boat, basically riding along on luck with a highly risky setup.

Upper management focuses on the bottom line because thats what they understand, it is their core business and they founded the business or were hired into a high position in it specifically because they understand it... They often don't understand other areas of business, and will often trust the wrong people (ie salesmen instead of their own staff) when it comes to matters they themselves don't understand.

Another serious problem is short term thinking... Your existing IT system may be slow, unreliable, clunky, but it limps along and the staff are familiar with it... If you replace it, users will have to get used to the new system, a new way of working and probably a new set of bugs to work around. A new system may cost a lot to implement, may result in a long period of reduced efficiency as staff get used to it etc.

And then you have history, many IT projects promise to deliver all manner of amazing improvements, but the reality when implemented can often be a system which is worse than what it replaced. This happens in a number of ways, external salesmen talk up a product which is nowhere near as good as they claim, the purchasing decision is made by upper management or by IT without any involvement of the people who will actually be expected to use the system.
And on the flip side, those people expected to use the system will often resent and resist change simply because they've had experience with poorly implemented systems in the past.

So you have a lot of hurdles to overcome implementing a new system, and although the end result *can* be a significant improvement, often it's not and in the short term there will often be a negative impact to the bottom line.

A lot of people just overwork themselves trying to get everything done... If they succeed, then management think everything is just fine and ignore the fact you've been working twice your contracted hours to get everything done. As far as they're concerned, the existing staff are achieving everything required in the contracted hours and they have no need for extra staff. If you keep working like this it creates precedence and upper management will expect things to continue the same.

They will only take notice if there is an obvious problem, ie projects getting delayed and other areas of the business complaining about the delays.

The problem is if you suddenly stop overworking yourself and doing so causes these delays, management won't accept that you were overworking before, they will assume that you were doing your contracted hours before and are therefore slacking now.

A skilled driver would realise that in situations where he doesn't have sufficient visibility, or there are other unpredictable obstacles, that he needs to slow down in order to remain safe.

And the end result has been an epidemic of malware... People used them because they didn't have anything better available.

The real development is not so much the tablet and smart phone, but the walled garden that came along with them... Look at ChromeOS for an example, a system which removes the unnecessary complexity from the user and allows them to get on with what they're doing safely and without requiring in depth knowledge of the system.
Games consoles are another such example, and have been around a lot longer.

Not just that such machines are overkill, full blown computers running traditional systems are for geeks, and are unsuitable for typical users.

Users do not want to constantly be installing updates, they do not want to worry about security and they do not want to be braving random potentially malicious websites to install software.

They want (and indeed need) a walled garden, where they have a central place from which to get software which they know won't be malicious.

Only a small niche of people can safely deal with the complexities of traditional computers, so the market will contract as people who were previously using devices which are unsuitable for their needs move on to more suitable devices.

Many older vehicles don't have ESP or ABS at all... Should these vehicles be made illegal?
Lower end vehicles often don't have such features either, should these also be illegal?

Such features are never even used except under exceptional circumstances, and those circumstances usually mean the road conditions are dangerous (eg ice, snow) or you are doing something illegal like speeding or tailgating.

Chances are that even without ABS, the Porsche can stop quicker than most vehicles due to larger brakes and better grip from the wheels etc.

Which is why we have speed limits, and other road rules eg "drive as close to the speed limit as it is safe to do so"...

A skilled driver in an appropriate vehicle and good conditions could drive through town at 100+mph and not hit anything, and yet the speed limit is typically 30mph to give a larger margin for error. If you are driving in sub optimal conditions, or when tired, or in a car not suited to the conditions then you should slow down to give yourself more room. You only need 100% accurate decision making if your pushing the car close to its limits, and you should never be doing that on public roads. Driving around at 30mph you don't have much need for stability control.