With the cost of mainstream software increasingly heading downwards, they can't compete by selling an OS or licensing at high dollar amounts. Who wants to spend tens of thousands getting a start-up business rolling when all you need is a few tablets, Google drive, and some free collaboration apps? We're nearing the end of the PC era and taking a quick leap into the mobile era. If Apple and Google/Android OEM marketing teams have anything to say about it, iOS and Android do have a place in business, and those businesses are seemingly ready to adopt these new technologies and move away from the conventional PC market. Surface, for this reason, is the way Microsoft will be able to compete in this new environment, while maintaining an existing user base that wants backwards compatibility with new-age, mobile, touch-based technology. So yes, going forward Microsoft is making the smart decision to become a device and services company. Don't forget that it IS their software on the devices, so that doesn't negate the fact that they do, in fact, still create software (they're not an OEM after-all). Microsoft simply would not be able to compete 5-10 years from now relying on the marketing teams of PC/laptop OEMs to sell things that have long been adopted, but also highly criticized. It makes much more sense to bring the Microsoft experience the Microsoft way, very much like iOS has been for Apple. tldr; Surface is a smart introduction to the new Microsoft experience in this new market of mobile, touch screen devices. They're still making the software for their new devices. They're offering innovative services and solutions for the market which work in mobile environments. It's the only way they can maintain their existing user base and adopt the users of the future. Microsoft can't let Apple or Unix based OS's dominate this new market first, otherwise it WILL be the end of them. Think 5-10 years from now, not 5-10 years ago.

Wait, are you suggesting that all those java applications that businesses are using that require java to be installed on client PCs do not affect the bottom line? Do you also believe in the Easter bunny?

Some people can drive perfectly fine while using a cellphone. Some people can not drive perfectly fine under any circumstance. On a side-note, anyone seen a Romney bumper sticker on anything other than a 4W pickup intent on stealing your right away?

I wouldn't see an issue with it. People in other countries have rights too, and they shouldn't be dictated by foreign nations without representation within those nations. We should be seeking ways to innovate all nation's technology in an open manner - you know, creating friends instead of political enemies. The only downside I see here is as we lessen dependence on fossil fuels in other nations, big oil companies would be forced to raise their costs when dealing with everyone else in order to keep their profit margins on an uptrend.

Maybe we can start sending all our junk into space and right towards the sun. Clean the planet.

I would assume animals would eat the remains before they turned leathery, especially if they were above ground, and exposed. Plus, sand storms - they cover things. We can't know what inspired someone 7000 years ago to do something - maybe it started as a tradeskill, with a guy assuming wrapped up corpses would not smell as bad, got his neighbors to pay him to wrap up relatives they wanted to keep around, but not smell. Ornaments and other decor would be natural if they're keeping a dead relative around, perhaps in a shrine.

Off topic quite a bit, but how many Hollywood cops have you seen steal a civilian car to chase down a criminal, crashing into cars as they drive insanely through rush-hour traffic, and not think twice after doing it? The crowd cheers when they catch the bad guy and fist fight him to the ground. I wonder how the Hollywood image of uniformed officers affects both our perception of them, and their perception of themselves.

From the OP: "Most employees on the project did not even know what they were working on."

Says...gman?

Who said major U.S. broadcasters are providing free services? And where can I sign up? Without Company X having it's own unique subscriber base paying for Service Y, how will Company X maintain a profitable business in order to keep providing Service Y to an ever-expanding amount of subscribers? Company X surely has no visibility of Company Z's interactions, so they would lose profit in multiple ways: 1- Subscriber's who discontinue services with Company X to move to the free internet option that Company Z offers, and 2- Not being able to claim advertisement revenue that occurs over Company Z's replicated services. Ads are being seen, but you can't bill for what you can't see occurring. Company Z is in the wrong because they do not have proper licensing to distribute this information (assumption) and this will be taken care of in court. The ruling suggests that a common sense Judge can appreciate that, however likely Company Z is to lose the battle, that judgement has not passed yet. Innocent until proven guilty. As much as I'd hate to say it, without proper licensing Company Z will not win this battle. Another victory for the major U.S. broadcasters. But hopefully this, and further disruptive services, will force the major U.S. broadcasters into reducing rates or improving their services to maintain their subscriber bases.

I'm betting one country they won't be releasing any embarrassing information on will be Ecuador.

Private property rights? Who owns the ground they stick their poles into? One is /in/ my yard.

If they control the DNS servers why not redirect everyone to a website with instructions on fixing their DNS settings?

Next they will try to get all actors/actresses to use sign language on-screen. It will be interesting to see how the directors pull off those tough action shots while having the characters signing to the camera.

So, where do they send my lost password to now?