Slashdot Mirror

this will not have been done out of charity purposes. my guess is that MS gave something on the order of 2 billion dollars.

It's probably part of this deal

Ars has the insight on the patents Microsoft owns and uses against manufacturers of Android phones ---

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Ironically, it was a government of a country which is known for its anti-freedom reputation that revealed the list of Microsoft's patents

If you don't want to deal with MS in any way shape or form, Samsung wasn't the way to do it before.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

Allowing customer-owned equipment is required by law! The issue is that the FCC can't be bothered to enforce the law. (And by "can't be bothered," I mean "bribed not to.")

I just got a new 'dumb' TV a week ago and I'm quite pleased with what I have. True it's a Samsung and that's a naughty brand given the recent article. It's not 4K, but there's a 4K calculator available where you can ask do I really need 4K? This Samsung is big: 64", has no "smart" features, two HDMI ports, no 3D support. I have an external sound system and at least 7 more HDMI ports on my receiver. The TV I replaced was a Samsung LED H5000 series that was also basically a dumb TV which is also all I want.

Samsung PN64H5000 64-Inch 1080p 600Hz Plasma HDTV
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I4OBXWI?tag=wcarstsynd-20

This thing has great reviews and it helps that I just got it for $400 less than Amazon's $1300 price from buydig on a slickdeals post.

Part of what influenced my decision was this article on what are the best TVs over at Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/12/from-the-wirecutter-the-best-tv-you-can-buy/

Then also linked in the Ars Article is this handy chart for approximating where 4K will make a difference:

4k calculator:
http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

So over all I'm pretty stoked about my purchase and I don't think I have to worry about spy apps and all the smart tv controversy for now. It also supposedly has lower input lag than LED TVs which is a bonus if I want to try and play games on the thing...

Zfs filesystems do the same, vmware is easier to use thats all. Sparc is a niche market for large corporations. (Banks, financial services, payrolls), thats why is expensive. There is no way a large corporation will use a cheap commodity hardware and vmware for mission critical operations.

That may be true for corporate dinosaurs, (big old companies that started back when having a corporate song sounded like a good idea) but most corporations that got started after the 90s have only ever lived on commodity Intel/AMD (in some cases even ARM) hardware.

@gstoddart: "The problem is there will be a whole bunch of people who will loudly proclaim that having penalties for corporations failing to protect this information is tantamount to socialism."

It isn't down to the corporations that our computing infrastructure is so insecure, but our own Governments. As in order to protect us they need to keep us under constant surveillance. Some of us might still be able to recall when the NSA helped Microsoft secure Skype. See also where your Bitlocker keys are stored safely in the Cloud. The socialist East German Stasi could only dream of such technology :)

And how did they know to stalk him until they found him with his laptop open and unlocked to begin with? I haven't followed the case closely, but from the article I didn't see what technological failure led them to him to begin with. Every point seemed to be: Once they had his laptop, they could prove he did XXX because of this technology. Maybe I missed the part where they explained how he became a suspect worth stalking to a library to begin with. Until that's explained, seems like secret NSA method is the most likely.

This article seems to agree there's something odd about the investigation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Judging by the looks of him, I'll bet anything Brandon Wilson is really concerned about ethics in game journalism.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

It's obviously a false flag operation orchestrated by the feminazis who want to ban any games not created by fem lit graduates

While this review of the Ubuntu offering may be "less than glowing", it's still much more positive than this review of Firefox OS. I've never seen any other device or software review filled with so many negatives.

At this point, Mozilla needs to ask itself, "What chance does Firefox OS really have?"

I mean, we already have iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, Sailfish, and now Ubuntu Touch, among others. Firefox OS is at the very end of that list in terms of quality, usability, usefulness, and every other practical measure.

Why is Mozilla wasting so many resources on an 8th place (that's an optimistic ranking, too) mobile OS that is generally disliked by anyone who has actually had to use it?

I know that Mozilla supporters will toss out some vague claims of "openness" or "freedom" in response, but those are just forms of denial. Or they'll claim it's targeting third-worlders, but even they can do better by buying older Android devices.

Ubuntu Touch should be the final nail in Firefox OS's coffin, were Mozilla to have any sense. It will clearly never be able to compete. So they're best off cutting their losses, and putting an end to the project. They should redirect the resources toward something that will actually benefit users, like undoing some of the awful changes that have been made to Firefox these past few years, or finally getting Electrolysis to work (after so many years of trying and failing). Regardless of what they do with such resources, they need to admit that these resources are better spent elsewhere, rather than wasted on Firefox OS.

Judging by the looks of him, I'll bet anything Brandon Wilson is really concerned about ethics in game journalism.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

My point was to draw satire of those brainwashed by lobbyists and those who listen to people like Rush Limbaugh.

Since the poor evil government decided on this it is therefore socialism and an attack on freedom!

It is not logical or thought. Just government = bad. Do nothing = good. Socialism = government so therefore bad.

Which is why Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president. It was him implementing evil communism according the Verizon, Comcast, and others and an ignorant base who believe whatever they say.

<sarcasm>I am so disappointed with the ACs. It's like they don't care about the very freedom of choice this community was built on. They don't care about users freedom what-so-ever. All they care about are their own principles. If they wanted to use a decent, free, fast, secure, customizable and even hackable operating system, web browser or you-name-it they could just buy one, download one, compile one or write one themselves. Most of these systems have even a pref to turn DRM support off. Whatever they're trying to accomplish, it's quite hard to get.<sarcasm>

Ok, this one apparently wants to rid the world of DRM, by itself a noble stance. But just expecting others to do the heavy-lifting won't work. Neither will complaining without spreading the word about or contributing to one af the already proposed alternatives.

Insightful parent? Pfffffft...!

Here you go. Albeit not my pics.

That's pure BS.

You mean it is pure coincidence that all the components that get pushed into the play services app are now closed source? (keyboard, location service etc. etc.)

How would it affect updatability to keep those components open source?

There is a reason to move these apps away from the "core" android: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

Yes it was:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Pay more attention next time.

Major difference there are no practical physical barriers to competition in the ISP space as exists with other utilities.

How?

If you are talking about wireline broadband, the physical barriers are exactly the same as exists with other utilities: utility poles, underground conduits, and all the rights-of-way necessary to get your wire through.

Sure, theoretically, another electric, gas, water, sewage, or cable company can step in to your town and lay all their own new pipes and wires. But the city is not going to let them clog the streets with all new utility poles or new underground conduits; you gotta use the ones already there. And someone, probably your competition, is already leasing them, or owns them outright.

Unless you're google, or the city itself, that's enough barrier to keep all new competition out.

But perhaps you are considering wireless as being free from physical barriers to competition. Not so. Spectrum is a scarce resource; you have to buy, at auction to the highest bidder, the right to use it, which excludes anyone else from using it. And wireless is no replacement for wireline in performance or reliablility.

So much for robust competition. I say again, competition is for small fry and suckers. Once a company has reached a critical mass (e.g., Comcast-size), it becomes more cost-effective to simply crush competition or buy them out. Why compete, risk revenue on innovation that might fail, when you don't have to?

I found this Ars article rather illuminating:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
Specifically, this quote at the end:

Ulbricht received a fair trial. The judge was hard on the defense, but that is largely due to how the defense acted and their strange tactical decisions.

In one of the judge's orders (I believe the one excluding his expert witnesses), the Judge blasted the defense as having made a calculated risk - they didn't want to show their hand so that the prosecution couldn't show evidence to counter the defense strategy, so they waited until the last minute to add their experts to the trial. However, the prosecution saw some of this coming and dropped a ton of evidence on the jury - and the judge saw through the defense's strategy and ruled against them:

If defense counsel truly planned his trial strategy around his ability to bend the rules and examine witnesses outside of the scope of their direct, then he should have had a “Plan B” that included complying with the rules. Defense counsel took a calculated risk.

I'm sure that this will get stuck in appeals for quite a long time. The best thing the defense can do in a situation like this where all the evidence points to guilt is to try and stir up confusion by throwing everything at the wall, and waiting to see what sticks. They only have to get lucky once to get a "not guilty" that will forever absolve Ulbricht, thanks to protection from double jeopardy.

It was a simple matter for me, with just public information and a couple hours of coding, to trace 20% of Ulbricht’s stash as coming directly from Silk Road. It turns out that the wallet.dat files were able to trace many more.

The biggest question not answered in the trial is how the servers were found. The defense didn't challenge on that point (no one knows why).

We already know it's going to court. Verizon and AT&T have been threatening it for months. AT&T just published its future lawsuit against the rules. But the courts ruled initially in favor of Verizon's lawsuit from 2010 that the FCC couldn't regulate carriers like Title II without using Title II. Now you expect the courts to say that the FCC can't use Title II? That's hardly going to be any semblance of legal interpretation of the existing telecom laws.

I will give MS the benefit of the doubt in this one. Good for them, and for the cause of Free Software.

However, about your rhetorical question:

Okay, I'll bite: how many entities has MS sued for .net patent violations on the subsequent versions, as you referenced? It's been the better part of a decade now, right? No doubt they have sprung their trap...?

I'll answer: I don't know, but MS doesn't need to sue when half of all Android devices worldwide paid extortion money to MS to the tune of USD 28 billion in confidential settlements, and it refuses to disclose which exact patents it is using for (extortion) licensing.

IMHO, the trap has sprung, and has bitten a lot of people. So yes, some distrust in MS is well warranted.

I figured that some key details would get quickly overlooked, but I didn't expect so many people to ignore the fact that it was a government employee who crashed his private drone at the Whitehouse.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

The same thing happened in Monticello MN in 2009 with TDS, the local ISP. The community requested that TDS upgrade their services to make it more attractive for telecommuters working remotely from Twin Cities business; TDS said that 'wasn't on their road map', so the community went ahead to install their own fiber network. TDS found out, sued the town to halt their install while at the same time rolling out their OWN fiber network, and doubled all their subscribers speeds at no additional cost, then claimed that the original municipal plan was 'flawed' because there was now a 'cheap alternative'.

I'm not fond of government, and doubt a municipal fiber system would be perfect, but it sure couldn't be worse than what we have now.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

But it makes the town a better place to live, so more people (and businesses) move there, increasing the number of subscribers and lowering the cost for everyone. Hey, it could happen.

Sure. And a pink elephant could materialize out of thin air. Fortunately, we don't need to guess — the City of Brotherly Love tried municipal WiFi (much cheaper than running actual cables) years ago. By 2008 the system was shut down. Earthlink actually wanted to hand it off to the city's government, but found no interest...

Seattle's municipal WiFi went dark in 2012. Other examples abound.

Yes, not only is government competing with private sector illegal — it is also a bad idea.

Except you are not simply talking about government. You are also talking about HOA's and similar communities.

For instance, one of my friend's bought a house in a community 15-20 years back. The CableTV companies didn't want anything to do with the community; so they ran their own lines to everyone's house. It was simply an HOA that did the work and the residents split the costs. Same thing has happened in many communities around the nation only to have the big players (especially the Cable companies) come in and shut it down.

So no, this doesn't necessarily mean goverment run; but it does mean citizen run and organized in some manner - with or without help from their municipal government.

But it makes the town a better place to live, so more people (and businesses) move there, increasing the number of subscribers and lowering the cost for everyone. Hey, it could happen.

Sure. And a pink elephant could materialize out of thin air. Fortunately, we don't need to guess — the City of Brotherly Love tried municipal WiFi (much cheaper than running actual cables) years ago. By 2008 the system was shut down. Earthlink actually wanted to hand it off to the city's government, but found no interest...

Seattle's municipal WiFi went dark in 2012. Other examples abound.

Yes, not only is government competing with private sector illegal — it is also a bad idea.

ars technica makes the point that neither radio shack nor sprint are willing to comment on this story, let alone confirm it.

http://arstechnica.com/busines...

One of the linked articles in TFA shows that the NFL is also just fine with illegally issuing repeated DMCA notices for the same URL even after they've received a notification that the content is being used in good faith under fair use. Unfortunately, there's really nothing in the DMCA to provide for fines or other deterrents to such behavior, so the NFL and other copyright holders sometimes use repeated DMCA notices to make it enough of a headache for the provider to permanently pull the non-infringing content or to suspend/remove the poster's account entirely.

One law for thee, another for me.

They just understand that there is no such thing as privacy on a party line like the internet. So if it wasn't the NSA it would be someone else. At least the NSA isn't inserting their adds in their data stream the way companies like Comcast does

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Even if true, which I highly doubt, it has absolutely zero relevance.

Again, the notion that scientists are all corrupt bastages that simply deliver predetermined products is stupidity, which is about normal for you.

http://arstechnica.com/science...

No.
BS.

http://arstechnica.com/science...

There's an Ars Technica article where a guy points out that the cable companies have a 97% profit margin on Internet. Not 100% it's true, but it sounds about right...

We subsidized something, it turns out it certainly wasn't broadband.

That's correct, it was never intended to be. The Universal Service Fund that you pay for each month with your phone bill in the US was created specifically to ensure that all Americans had some form of narrowband voice communications. It was designed as a tax on "the many" to ensure that "the few" who lived in remote or unpopulated areas would not be left out because it was simply economically infeasible to run a phone line 15 miles outside of town to serve a farmhouse with three people in it.

Most of that money goes to the major telcos to support broad rural areas, but a disproportionate amount of the spending goes to small ultra-rural telcos with tiny populations where telephone service would simply not exist were it not massively subsidized. It's a "cost plus" subsidy that nobody is going to get rich off of, but does provide prop up many of the smaller telcos in the US that otherwise wouldn't survive. Regardless of how you feel about this, just remember that USF was never supposed to do anything for broadband.

Both parties in this country are bought and paid for by corporate interests so there's no way to change the status quo

Why do people always say this? Although both parties receive contributions from whoever wants to contribute, they most definitely don't behave the same. This FCC decision is a prime example: the two Republicans voted lock-step with the cable lobby, but the three Democrats had the balls to stand against it to at least try to drag the United States into the future. So, thank you, Democrats, thank you, particularly for calling out the industry's lobbying bullshit, testifying that 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up is just plenty, while at the same time telling consumers that same speed sucks and that we all should pay premium (not available in all areas) because ’25/25 is best for one to three devices at the same time, great for surfing, e-mail, online shopping and social networking, streaming two HD videos simultaneously. 50/50 is best for three to five devices at the same time, more speed for families or individuals with multiple Internet devices, stream up to five HD videos simultaneously.’

Both parties in this country are bought and paid for by corporate interests so there's no way to change the status quo

Why do people always say this? Although both parties receive contributions from whoever wants to contribute, they most definitely don't behave the same. This FCC decision is a prime example: the two Republicans voted lock-step with the cable lobby, but the three Democrats had the balls to stand against it to at least try to drag the United States into the future. So, thank you, Democrats, thank you, particularly for calling out the industry's lobbying bullshit, testifying that 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up is just plenty, while at the same time telling consumers that same speed sucks and that we all should pay premium (not available in all areas) because ’25/25 is best for one to three devices at the same time, great for surfing, e-mail, online shopping and social networking, streaming two HD videos simultaneously. 50/50 is best for three to five devices at the same time, more speed for families or individuals with multiple Internet devices, stream up to five HD videos simultaneously.’

The basic problem is that Google fumbled the licensing for Android and are left with no way to fix vulnerabilities like this. Had they kept more control over security updates from the beginning, they could have avoided this situation. Microsoft manages to do security updates on all OSs it maintains; Google could have done the samae. Keep in mind that they set the terms for useage of Android.*

WRT the immediate problem, they should give the manufacturers an opportunity to deploy it. AFAIK manufacturers aren't philosophically opposed to sw updates; if Google found a way to make the update process smooth - either a general solution, or working with manufacturers on a case-by-case basis, developing a standard method of integrating their updates with the customized Android - then it stands to reason that manufacturers would work with them.

At the end of the day it is the phone owners who are hurt by this, and both Google and the manufacturers have an incentive to fix problems: both of their reputations are on the line, and both could lose business to manufacturers of smartphones with other OSs.

* Google's version of Android is indeed controlled by Google. It is true that some parts of Android are licensed under Free licenses, many other parts aren't. A manufacturer that wants the all the software we collectively refer to as 'android' on their phones must license proprietary Google software; thus, Google can set terms. See http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

Here's a tidbit:

While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Androidâ"Google's Androidâ"and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Nationwide US policy has to consider what's feasible in states like Montana and Wyoming, at 2.7 and 2.3 people per sq km.

Yes. That's why US policy has mandated standards and facilities for highways, telephone, and electric power.

Without the intervention of a non-commercial authority (e.g., the Federal government), less populated areas will remain behind while population centers move forward... for the very reason that profit-oriented companies are too risk-averse to invest in the necessary build-out. An example where free-markets aren't a cure-all. As a result, as products begin to rely on high bandwidth in high-pop cities, more and more living in the "sticks" won't even have the option to participate, both businesses and that kid playing games in the attic. That means businesses choosing to locate elsewhere because the internet isn't good enough.

Maybe you're comfortable that the existing copper is fine for Alaska and fly-over states? Think again. The only reason there's copper going up all those lonely mountains and empty highways is because the Feds cut a deal with AT&T that forced them to put it up there, in return for allowing the Ma Bell monopoly. With that gone, the jury's out how long those aging wires are going to last. Maybe Verizon will put up a cell tower and call it a day. Maybe it will blow down in a storm, get fixed next week, but the bean-counters only counted one subscriber last month, and he was dialing 911 for being chased by a bear. Fix it in a few months. Whenever. There's more money to be made elsewhere, to pay them lobbyists to keep government off our backs.

No, blame for this is on Google, because Android is designed as a firmware but marketed as an operating system. An operating system would get updates without requiring a complete wipe and reinstallation.

My current phone has got updates from Kit Kat to Lollipop without a wipe and reinstallation. As have all my previous android phones from one version to another. I'm unsure what you are getting at here...

Android has a huge attack surface and still completely lacks ways to fix bugs except by abandoning entire "OS" versions.

Not true. Google has a way to patch parts of the operating system on older versions using play services:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

Actually, the telcos in Europa are preparing to roll out G.fast, which makes telcos again competive with Cable.
(In this case the telcos are quite happy to upgrade, they have not been competive for a couple of years, actually, I'm on my second "free" bandwidth upgrade from by cable company that were not triggered by telco competition)

http://arstechnica.com/informa...

You're describing 'TurboCache' (a marketing name if ever there was one).

It wasn't a secret, it was only on very low end cards, and ATI was already doing the same with 'HyperMemory'. Intel, for their part, was exclusively using system RAM at the time (and largely still is).

So what graphics *have* you been buying for the last decade?

No, my argument was that there is parity between major OSes.

You're wrong.

Again, and for reasons I have explained multiple times, Linux does not aggregate periods of CPU use/non-use because it has nothing like Grand Central, App-Nap & other technologies Apple has developed to get more efficient use of the hardware.

Again, OS X's advantage is trivially provable: Dual-boot Linux & OS X & see how long each OS lasts on battery performing the exact same tasks. Thousands of people have done so & the result is that OS X lasts in general 50% longer.

That's 50% more energy efficiency in OS X compared to Linux.

It's not a question of "you think that bla bla bla", it's been proven.

That your CPU spends part of it's time in low power states using Linux doesn't change the fact that it would spend 50% more time in low power states were you using OS X.

Just in case you're not to lazy or prejudiced to learn, here's a review of OS X that goes into some detail: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2.... It has graphics that even you should be able to understand.

Re: I'm guessing it's parallel construction derived from classified capabilities
Did feds mount a sustained attack on Tor to decloak crime suspects? (Jan 22 2015)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
.. "protocol to carry out two classes of attack that together may have been enough to uncloak people "

Ars Technica was present at the announcement, and the Q&A afterward was both insightful and confusing. They clarify the free upgrade to Windows 10 as follows (emphasis mine):

Update: Microsoft fielded some questions about this upgrade in its Q&A session after the event. The company "hasn't decided" how it will handle upgrades from Windows 7 or 8.1 after the first year of Windows 10 availability ends, and it is "working on an update for Windows RT," but doesn't have further details to share.

Update 2: A blog post from Terry Myerson clears up what "Windows as a service" means, though the duration of "the supported lifetime of the device" is still foggy. "This is more than a one-time upgrade," writes Myerson. "Once a Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it current for the supported lifetime of the device—at no additional charge."

It seems to me Microsoft is still keeping the details close to the vest. So, for my money, the jury is still out for what happens in a year.

Still, as a strategy to get people to move off Windows 7 in a hurry, this is pretty good. You'd only wonder what would have happened to the XP user base if Vista or 7 had been free. On the other hand, this Windows 10 ecosystem is a really big gamble, and Microsoft desperately needs developers to make their platform compete against iOS and Android. Based on that, giving the first taste away free is a pretty ballsy move.

I only hope they don't try to recoup some of that lost revenue by filling Windows 10 with trackware and clickbait, forking out tons of your personal data to Bing servers because, well, that's where the action is.

Ars Technica was present at the announcement, and the Q&A afterward was both insightful and confusing. They clarify the free upgrade to Windows 10 as follows (emphasis mine):

Update: Microsoft fielded some questions about this upgrade in its Q&A session after the event. The company "hasn't decided" how it will handle upgrades from Windows 7 or 8.1 after the first year of Windows 10 availability ends, and it is "working on an update for Windows RT," but doesn't have further details to share.

Update 2: A blog post from Terry Myerson clears up what "Windows as a service" means, though the duration of "the supported lifetime of the device" is still foggy. "This is more than a one-time upgrade," writes Myerson. "Once a Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it current for the supported lifetime of the device—at no additional charge."

It seems to me Microsoft is still keeping the details close to the vest. So, for my money, the jury is still out for what happens in a year.

Still, as a strategy to get people to move off Windows 7 in a hurry, this is pretty good. You'd only wonder what would have happened to the XP user base if Vista or 7 had been free. On the other hand, this Windows 10 ecosystem is a really big gamble, and Microsoft desperately needs developers to make their platform compete against iOS and Android. Based on that, giving the first taste away free is a pretty ballsy move.

I only hope they don't try to recoup some of that lost revenue by filling Windows 10 with trackware and clickbait, forking out tons of your personal data to Bing servers because, well, that's where the action is.

Ars Technica was present at the announcement, and the Q&A afterward was both insightful and confusing. They clarify the free upgrade to Windows 10 as follows (emphasis mine):

Update: Microsoft fielded some questions about this upgrade in its Q&A session after the event. The company "hasn't decided" how it will handle upgrades from Windows 7 or 8.1 after the first year of Windows 10 availability ends, and it is "working on an update for Windows RT," but doesn't have further details to share.

Update 2: A blog post from Terry Myerson clears up what "Windows as a service" means, though the duration of "the supported lifetime of the device" is still foggy. "This is more than a one-time upgrade," writes Myerson. "Once a Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it current for the supported lifetime of the device—at no additional charge."

It seems to me Microsoft is still keeping the details close to the vest. So, for my money, the jury is still out for what happens in a year.

Still, as a strategy to get people to move off Windows 7 in a hurry, this is pretty good. You'd only wonder what would have happened to the XP user base if Vista or 7 had been free. On the other hand, this Windows 10 ecosystem is a really big gamble, and Microsoft desperately needs developers to make their platform compete against iOS and Android. Based on that, giving the first taste away free is a pretty ballsy move.

I only hope they don't try to recoup some of that lost revenue by filling Windows 10 with trackware and clickbait, forking out tons of your personal data to Bing servers because, well, that's where the action is.

The Ars Technica post was a little more useful and less FUD-ridden, although I won't hold my breath til I see it directly in Microsoft product marketing materials:

Update 2: A blog post from Terry Myerson clears up what "Windows as a service" means, though the duration of "the supported lifetime of the device" is still foggy. "This is more than a one-time upgrade," writes Myerson. "Once a Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it current for the supported lifetime of the device—at no additional charge

Found that quote, but also found this from the Q&A bit afterwards:
http://live.arstechnica.com/wi...

"We haven't decided yet."
by Peter Bright 19:23

"What will happen after the first year of free updates for W7/W8?"
by Peter Bright 19:22

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...
"Once a device is upgraded to Windows 10, we'll be keeping it current for the supported lifetime of the device," said Terry Myerson, executive vice president of the Operating Systems Group.
Sounds like it could be either.

It does not ever run the 64bit binary under the 32bit kernel.

According to John Siracusa this is not the case, and he's usually right when it comes to OS X. From his Snow Leopard review:

Finally, this is worth repeating: please keep in mind that you do not need to run the 64-bit kernel in order to run 64-bit applications or install more than 4GB of RAM in your Mac. Applications run just fine in 64-bit mode on top of the 32-bit kernel, and even in earlier versions of Mac OS X it's been possible to install and take advantage of much more than 4GB of RAM.

As illustrated by Stanfordâ(TM)s password policy shuns one-size-fits-all security http://arstechnica.com/securit... via https://itservices.stanford.ed...

Chattanooga lost their credit rating did to overwhelming debt from their government broadband attempt

No. This, at least, is unsubstantiated FUD.

From Forbes.com:

In fact, contrary to Stephenson’s claims that municipal broadband hurt municipal credit ratings, S&P just upgraded the Chattanooga public utility’s bond rating, stating, “The system is providing reliable information to the electric utility on outages, losses and usage, which helps reduce the electric system’s costs.”

A quick google search of Chattanooga and broadband turned up multiple articles agreeing that their local internet deployment has been a roaring success, particularly in bringing a new wave of business and revenue to the city.

Not every city is successful, but that's no reason for states to prohibit them from trying, if nothing else to give the monopolists an incentive to improve their crappy race-to-the-bottom service.