If what he did was so simple, why didn't anyone else do it before he did?

Despite his faults, he was still a legend. And his fanboys will still be his fanboys no matter what you say.

"Essentially the same price or slightly more expensive than Satellite but otherwise with zero new features" is their NFL Sunday Ticket marketing slogan, but it hasn't resonated as well.

I feel like this is very ironic.

This ad even annoyed my teenage daughter. We are a very pro-Apple family, so itâ(TM)s not because we dislike Apple. But she feels that of course the kid knows what a computer is, and that the ad makes kids look stupid or oblivious to the world around them and she doesnâ(TM)t like that stereotype. Even if you donâ(TM)t use a âoecomputerâ - you certainly can know what one is. A better response would have been something witty about progress, maybe like âoeThis is more than a computerâ or âoewho uses computers anymore?â or something. This is all even before we get into the fact that from a technological standpoint, an iPad *is* a computer...

The apple symbol didn't appear to work on the Slashdot mobile input form... So where you see ï£Music - read that as "AppleMusic".

While ï£Music is a steaming pile of poo - and ï£Music certainly has raised havoc with my personal music library - I would say that " They flat-out break the device in order to push Apple's streaming music service." is not even close to true. I have 6 devices functioning perfectly fine on 8.4.1 (for everything except playing music via Apple's apps).

Hi,

So thankfully you're wrong. Society won't collapse. The prices of solar and wind are falling very rapidly and we have about a century of oil (or two) in the ground left before we'll need to start charging car batteries from the grid or producing fuel cells. Solar and wind can provide for ALL of our energy needs even if you don't take energy storage into account (you'd just have to build more plants to cover the gaps in generation caused by night time/ windless days) but WITH storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, sodium thermal) then they just generate electricity 24/7 a day anyway. Here's the worlds first big Solar Sodium Thermal Power Plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... a 150MW plant. Costs for these types of plants are expensive now but will come down over time due to economies of scale and mass production. China already generates more power via wind than they do via Nuclear.

Here is some information on storage methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Just wanted to update your information. My money's on the sodium thermal storage. Just giant containers of salt heated up and stored for when sunlight/wind is not available. Then when needed the heat from the sodium is used to boil water to turn a turbine.

Thanks

"Solar is important. Biggest advantage is that it requires very little infrastructure. In the southern US, solar may not be as usable since it won't run an A/C, but in cooler climates, it would provide enough power for a house, assuming a decent fuel source for heating. Wind is also similar." This is one of the weirdest things I have seen written about this subject. Places with heaviest AC use benefit the most. The time when AC usage is the highest is also the time when solar energy is generating at its peak. In addition, solar panels on the roof reduce the heat load dumped into the attic for another very slight benefit. Sure, it's best in arid climates that don't need as much AC at night - humid areas need AC mostly all day. But the highest drain on AC in the hottest time of the day is when the utilities struggle to generate enough juice to keep up. This is why they will pay you $$$ to install a smart thermostat which is connected to the smart grid - so they can turn off your AC for short periods to help with the load spike. Solar is a huge benefit at that time because it can be a huge reduction in the AC spike for a couple hours a day - regardless of if the owner comes out ahead or not. Anywhere that is hot generally also has a lot of sunshine. That's good for solar. However - in many parts of the Midwest and Deep South USA - you will want to make sure you get hail resistant solar panels...

The problem with the gridlock is that it is caused by the corporate interests who have lobbied their way into virtual ownership of the elected officials. Until the problem of lobbying is addressed, the US political system will continue along its merry, gridlocked way. If you want to know who's really in power, follow the money.

Nah. I'm just cognizant that cutting the pipe can put businesses out of existence is all. I don't think it helps anybody to put a business out of business. Cutting the pipe should be, IMO, the last resort to the business not getting its ducks in a row.

Obviously, the owner of compromised systems is responsible for those systems. Period, full stop. In my line of work, I'm often the hapless slouch who has to find the root kits and whatnot, cleanse the system, determine (if possible) the vector of entry, etc. Usually, the system was owned by some undetermined means and all I can do is just cleanse and lock down as much as possible. Clients, however, being the meat sacks they are, always manage to encounter PEBKAC events.

I don't think we're actually all that far apart in our line of thinking, Marc. I just am reluctant to pull the pin on their network connection until such time as the company has proven itself either unable or unwilling to address its issues. This approach is fair, I think, when dealing with individual residential and corporate connections. When you threaten upstream disconnection at the ISP level to downstream ISPs, then the collateral damage is too great for such shenanigans. Putting hundreds of companies out of business simply because they chose an ISP who allows botnet traffic to pass its borders would penalize those who are not a part of the problem. That, IMO, is unethical.

Nope. LOL

P.S. - I noticed that I spelled your name 'Mark' before. Apologies for that!

Oh, I have just as much of an issue with pulling the plug on a residential connection because of the possibility of negatively impacting business. For example, I do the vast majority of my work from home on a non-commercial connection. Were my ISP to simply pull the plug on my connection because one of the systems began, say, sending out thousands of spam per hour, it would create a huge problem for me. (Finding/cleaning the system not itself being The Problem.)

For any long-term success, we need to find ways to take down the botnets and patch the compromised systems. ISPs disconnecting problem systems/networks does nothing to deal with the malware that creates the zombies for the botnets, nor does it take out the command and control centre that inevitably tells the zombies to attack a particular target. To me, that's the more pressing issue. As long as the botnet lives, more zombies will be recruited.

Yep. Canada has some weird rules. For example, if you have servers in a rack and the feds want to do a search and seizure a la US style, not gonna happen. If the servers are essential for the running of your business, the most the feds can do is to copy all the relevant data. They can't actually seize the servers lest it causes your business damage.

It's actually a pretty good law in that it respects the ideal of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other countries, they can just take your crap and if you go out of business because of it - even if you're totally innocent - well, that's just tough luck, innit?

This is getting to become a circular argument, and I'm in no mood to argue. I cannot be more clear: One cannot simply 'pull the plug' on a network that provides service without opening up a complex can of legal worms. There's absolutely _zero_ doubt that DDoS activity is malicious by nature and intent by the botnet operator. There's absolutely _zero_ doubt that pulling the plug would help mitigate the damage to systems on the receiving end of attacks from such compromised systems/network. The fundamental problem, however, is that one does not merrily obstruct a business's capacity to DO business without incurring legal ramifications (dependent upon the jurisdiction in which the service is being hosted/operated).

It is what it is, Mark. It's a simple problem with a veritable rat's nest of legal implications to solve.

Happy New Year to you, sire. :)