I think you misunderstood me: imagine if every ad Google serves (on third-party websites, not just Google's) changed to an anti-SOPA ad. It would equally effective as Adsense and Doubleclick ads are usually, and get the word out about SOPA in a huge way that no other entity is capable of.
I didn't misunderstand you. Not only would this run afoul of ad purchase and timing contracts (say some company is running a special to close out inventory, and can't "delay" or "un-buy" the ad placements), but the purpose of such advertisment is not aligned with urgent need of SOPA opponents (including Google) to combat the legislation from being adopted.
In short, I can't imagine this happening - Google's real customers are their advertisers (search users are the product), and they're not going to alienate them.
Imagine if every Adsense ad changed to an anti-SOPA message for a day...
This is useless. Denial of Service works. Discomfort of Service does not, or nag-ware would be far more successful. People put up with it and ignore your message... it kind of inoculates the population against the message, in fact.
I call on the world to demand that the UN veto be taken away from the United States. We cannot allow a government that doesn't respect it's own social mandates to have the final say on how other governments act. Letting someone who wants to arbitrarily jail and hold the accused for an indefinite time without charges or a quick and speedy fair trial have the final say on how the UN members are to respect human rights is so incredibly wrong-headed and stupid that I can't believe any nation in the world is willing to put up with it.
If the Americans want to screw themselves into a police state, let them. But don't let them force that Orwellian nightmare on the rest of the world.
Nice pipe dream there, considering the USA has historically always contributed the most towards the UN's current operating budget [1]. Even if that weren't the case, what would happen when the UN mandates an action and the US doesn't agree with it? This is not a purely intellectual exercise, it's happened many times in the past. The US also has ~700 military bases through out the world with which to enforce it's empire. When force meets ideals, very often it's force that wins.
It's great being a famous billionaire with a private jet and plenty of fanboys - get to knock out all those poor kids who also need livers out of the way so you can continue with your life of creating consumer electronic toys.
The doctors who gave Jobs and David Crosby their livers should be ashamed of themselves.
You do realize that SJ himself recognized the ridiculous fact that his wealth enabled the prolongation of his life because he could "be anywhere in hours" which is what is needed to maximize odds for a liver transplant? He noted that and used his influence to make it more likely that those without his means might have increased chances for a healthy life [1].
No it doesn't make what he did more ethical (cancer patients have the lowest survival rate for liver transplants), but in comparison to some rich and powerful folks who are secretive, private and never give back, this was a noble gesture to counterbalance what he did. In a lot of ways, that might be more important than his dying early and offering a single person in Tennessee a liver sooner.
It's not the computer they're trying to control, it's the communications. And they are most definitely winning right now. It amazes me that a tiny minority can run the world so completely.
The tiny minority (the 0.1%) gets the next 20% to follow them by the fiction called the "stock market". This (easily game-able and impossible to adequately regulate) market allows those with the most to decide the winners (with insider knowledge) while constantly funneling money towards them [1]. While they fleece and rape the rest of the world and get the lion's share of the plunder, the next 20% have an opportunity to ride the wagon for a bit and get a bit more wealthy. Only when that next-to-top 20% wake up and coordinate with lower 79.9% will anything fundamental change. And thus you will see that kind of activity being made "illegal" under false-pretenses to "curb piracy" [2] or "hunt terrorists" [3].
The main problem with any voting/representation mechanism is authentication. In addition to the random trolls and ballot-stuffers, you do realize that companies are busy trying to automate astroturfing and "persona management" [1]. This makes the internet magnitudes easier to game.
No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s.
I did get fixed... but for the 1%. The problem is that any significant populist organization (and figurehead) is either a) co-opted and corrupted, b) politically assassinated or, barring that, c) has a fatal accident or is assassinated IRL.
Feel free to call this conspiracy, but any populist organizing has been treated like terrorism against the status quo.
I don't see why this developer guy, this "Igor Pusenjak, president of Lima Sky" thinks that there's something about the Kindle Fire that makes it an attractive game platform. It's an android tablet, not a very good one, and there's an Amazon skin on top of it. Why would that be a better game platform than another android tablet? Is there something about the Amazon skin that makes it better? Is there something about the lack of an SD slot that makes it better?
It's all about the numbers. If it's reasonably easy to port the code (say you've developed on Unity3D) and Amazon sells enough units, it could pose a large enough target to make the effort.
There are lots of qualifiers in that previous sentence, however (and another one: Amazon's pricing is not as cut-and-dried as Google or Apple's).
That doesn't matter, fanboi. Just ask Apple's board what they think about going from 98% dominance to 40-50% in just 18 months.
Apple doesn't concern itself so much with "market share" as much as "profit share". Take a look at the PC/Mac sector. They have single-digit marketshare yet wield a lions share of the profits by having really great margins.
The same could play out on the mobile and tablet fronts, yet Apple as a company could still do very well. Fact is, if they were concerned about marketshare in priority, they would be fighting yesterday's battles instead of creating new markets like they did with the original Apple][ and iPad.
You know, the OS could mitigate this quite easily by moving around the picture, reorienting or rotating it. This would eliminate the benefit of muscle-memory, but allow it to be more secure.
Then again, so does a manual transmission, and intelligent downshifting technique - lol!
Sure, you trade a brakepad life for a reduced transmission/clutch lifespan.
I've owned about 3 manual transmission cars (great fun on a switchback, but annoying on stop/go commutes). Until I owned my Prius, I wouldn't dream of giving up that manual control. However, the software drive-by-wire on the Prius really is awesome, and far more responsive, efficient and powerful than an automatic transmission and completely less leg-work than a manual.
Because real life has to compromise. In that though you should be a big supporter of those Tea Party Republicans who will vote down any tax raises. They are standing by their guns and sticking to their promises even though they are obviously bad for the United States.
You mean those same tea-partiers who defied GOP leadership [1] and decided the middle class didn't deserve a continued tax break? Yea, that's a class act right there... tax cuts are good...only for the 1%. Shows you the teaparty's true colors (ie, green as the funding from Koch brothers).
Yeah, that thing looks sweet. However, the site says it's estimated price ($10k-25k), not final price. It requires assembly, since it's a DIY kit. Furthermore it's not even ready yet. What a silly comparison (will it pass even standard safety tests?)
What, because it's electric it won't need ANY maintenance? What planet do you hail from where electric devices don't break down? You realize that a lot of the basic components of a car will probably still exist and require maintenance. Yeah, you won't need oil changes, but stuff is still going to break.
My 6-year old Prius has had the following maintenance (note: this is still a hybrid not fully electric, so it has both electric and gas componentry - but no transmission): routine service, oil changes, wipers, filter changes, tires/alignment, brake lights, 12v battery replaced.
Here's what I haven't done (and have had to do one of these with every other car I owned more than 5 years): Engine resurfacing, transmission replacement, brakes/pads (yes, original brake pads on my Prius are less than 50% worn), rotors/boots, headlamp bulbs.
This car will likely last 12-15 years and still get 45+MPG with that old of a HV battery. If battery is the only long-term replacement cost, that's quite low.
My 2002 Prius is 10 years old now (remember, 2012's come out in 2011).
Battery is still working. And it's not even as fancy as the new ones.
And the replacement cost (if you ever need one) has dropped from the initial $8000 or so down to about $1500. My 6 year old Prius still gets 53+ MPG on a commute.
Yeah, and? Our Honda Civic costs less than half as much, goes at least 50% further, and takes a fraction of the time to 'recharge'.
You're comparing a Model S with a Civic? Hell, the old Prius vs. Carolla comparison was silly, but this is ludicruous. These cars serve different markets, not unlike the netbook vs. iPad vs. Corei7 Alienware, the only thing you acheive by making the apple-oranges comparison is showing your ignorance.
Here is a short incomplete list of differentiating factors that might show you why the Model S is worth it's price: {prestige, driver interface, handling, comfort, road noise, looks...} if you don't think those are worth paying for, then go about happy with your Civic (which is a decent car). If you really consider those to be important you might feel like the limited range and cost are worth the gains.
Mac OSX (only available on Apple hardware, Apple openly sues you for building hackintoshes).
Though I agree completely with the majority of your post, this particular fact is in error. IIRC, Apple will only sue you if you build hackintoshes and then sell them (ie, Psystar). There are some great hackintosh build-it-yourself sites like my favorite [1]. None of these sites nor any individual has been sued or had C&Ds against them.
The iPad was the final nail in the coffin. The netbook (inspired by the original OLPC), of which the original EEE PC was an exemplar, ran Linux, cost $300, had a small cheap (but fast enough) SSD and made a great email, web and IM terminal... this scared the shit out of both Intel and Microsoft... who consequently conspired to kill or cripple it [1] [2]. So Intel flooded the low-end market with the gfx-gimped Atom and Microsoft twisted the arms of companies like Asus, Acer and the like to drop Linux. Then they pushed 160GB HDs (sounds a lot better value than a 16GB SSD, right?), and saddled it down with Vista/Win7 Starter.
This was around 2008/2009, long before the iPad arrived. When iPad did hit the market, it fully capitalized on this strategy of "lets keep netbooks crappy" by offering their take: lighter, app-store, and dead sexy.
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
Then start a business and see if you're right. I suspect Dell knows a bit more about this than you're guessing they do.
-jcr
I'm 99% with you on most of your opinions, but keep in mind, at some large companies, a project/product not only has to be profitable, but needs to get insane ROI to even get approval for funding. Bean counters at large companies aren't even looking for growth anymore, they're looking for insane margins or a hockey stick... I'm guessing Dell here just thought there was disruption or domination potential that just didn't pan out.
At a smaller company, things are completely different.
4. Size and Price. Most people frankly aren't gonna give a second thought to anything but size and price, you can trumpet your warranty to the high heavens but if the other guys offers a 2Tb for $50 even if it has a 30% failure rate after 1 years the average users are gonna run right over you to get to the cheap fatty.
These aren't cheeseburgers or car parts or even power supplies (where quality of one component can affect the whole), these are hard drives, where a combination of RAID and/or aggressive backup can mean that the 30% fictitious failure rate can be tolerated given enough discount (ie, I'm building a RAID-5/6 for my home server - I'll take a 20% discount for massively cheap drives, even if that means the system could be redundant-less more often). At a significant enough discount, I can double the setup and mirror/backup.
It's important to note that there is also a customer feedback loop these days - look to product discussion boards and enthusiast forums.. you'll find obvious duds that are then deeply discounted. People (in aggregate) are not stupid, and don't suffer bad deals for too long.
5. Security by Poverty: Don't own anything worth stealing and drive a junky car that probably won't have anything of worth inside anyway 6. Security by Deception: Put leave a case with a Compaq logo on it in a very visible spot, leave your car unlocked. Keep you laptop under the seat.
If you park your car in a bad enough neighborhood, leaving any (even janky) stuff visible even while leaving the car unlocked doesn't necessarily help. A friend from years ago used to leave his car unlocked just so thieves wouldn't break his window... one stupid criminal didn't bother even trying the lock, and just smashed his window, and took an empty (but promising looking) bag.
The basic idea is to simply have your car blend in and don't leave anything that is valuable (or even hints of valuables like visible iPod connectors, etc... this resulted in a smash and grab for me last year).
What happens when someone else puts that sticker on your stuff?
Simple... you remove the sticker and vow to not let that person have physical access to your stuff unattended again. They'd have to have access to some details proving they own it when they activate the sticker... even so it's only something that adds to real ownership evidence like receipts, etc.
If you read closely, you'll see that Carrier IQ's argument relies heavily on that data never hitting their servers. The fact that their keylogger-capable malware allows the carrier to extract that info, and consequently hand it to the FBI, is "not their fault" [1].
Better reliability is a somewhat dubious claim.[...]
Until stories of people chugging along on 5 or 7 year old SSDs are commonplace, the technology simply won't have the track record to justify such claims.
I have no idea why people insist on their drives being so damn reliable. Shit breaks. You need to have a backup plan. You can get free, reliable disk-imaging software that mirrors your drive(s) for all three major desktop OSs.
I run all my personal laptops on SSDs with a weekly imaging (my OSX laptop has time machine that runs nightly). If my drive fails, I just boot from external for immediate issues, and I can replace the drive in a day or two if while I RMA or buy a replacement.
The key here is to have a process that emphasizes backups. I've gotten all my relatives on the religion too... nowadays there's no excuse other than you wanted to save $100 or so to not buy a 2nd external HDD.
In 2000 Cisco acquired a company that had used it, and quickly dropped the line. Then Cisco fraudulently tried to resurrect the trademark after Apple came asking about iPhone.
Cisco owns both the iPhone and iOS trademarks, and has licensed both of them [1,2] to Apple. No one is fraudulent or infringing in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstood me: imagine if every ad Google serves (on third-party websites, not just Google's) changed to an anti-SOPA ad. It would equally effective as Adsense and Doubleclick ads are usually, and get the word out about SOPA in a huge way that no other entity is capable of.
I didn't misunderstand you. Not only would this run afoul of ad purchase and timing contracts (say some company is running a special to close out inventory, and can't "delay" or "un-buy" the ad placements), but the purpose of such advertisment is not aligned with urgent need of SOPA opponents (including Google) to combat the legislation from being adopted.
In short, I can't imagine this happening - Google's real customers are their advertisers (search users are the product), and they're not going to alienate them.
Imagine if every Adsense ad changed to an anti-SOPA message for a day...
This is useless. Denial of Service works. Discomfort of Service does not, or nag-ware would be far more successful. People put up with it and ignore your message... it kind of inoculates the population against the message, in fact.
I call on the world to demand that the UN veto be taken away from the United States. We cannot allow a government that doesn't respect it's own social mandates to have the final say on how other governments act. Letting someone who wants to arbitrarily jail and hold the accused for an indefinite time without charges or a quick and speedy fair trial have the final say on how the UN members are to respect human rights is so incredibly wrong-headed and stupid that I can't believe any nation in the world is willing to put up with it.
If the Americans want to screw themselves into a police state, let them. But don't let them force that Orwellian nightmare on the rest of the world.
Nice pipe dream there, considering the USA has historically always contributed the most towards the UN's current operating budget [1]. Even if that weren't the case, what would happen when the UN mandates an action and the US doesn't agree with it? This is not a purely intellectual exercise, it's happened many times in the past. The US also has ~700 military bases through out the world with which to enforce it's empire. When force meets ideals, very often it's force that wins.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding
It's great being a famous billionaire with a private jet and plenty of fanboys - get to knock out all those poor kids who also need livers out of the way so you can continue with your life of creating consumer electronic toys.
The doctors who gave Jobs and David Crosby their livers should be ashamed of themselves.
You do realize that SJ himself recognized the ridiculous fact that his wealth enabled the prolongation of his life because he could "be anywhere in hours" which is what is needed to maximize odds for a liver transplant? He noted that and used his influence to make it more likely that those without his means might have increased chances for a healthy life [1].
No it doesn't make what he did more ethical (cancer patients have the lowest survival rate for liver transplants), but in comparison to some rich and powerful folks who are secretive, private and never give back, this was a noble gesture to counterbalance what he did. In a lot of ways, that might be more important than his dying early and offering a single person in Tennessee a liver sooner.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/how-steve-jobs-got-sick-2010-04
It's not the computer they're trying to control, it's the communications. And they are most definitely winning right now.
It amazes me that a tiny minority can run the world so completely.
The tiny minority (the 0.1%) gets the next 20% to follow them by the fiction called the "stock market". This (easily game-able and impossible to adequately regulate) market allows those with the most to decide the winners (with insider knowledge) while constantly funneling money towards them [1]. While they fleece and rape the rest of the world and get the lion's share of the plunder, the next 20% have an opportunity to ride the wagon for a bit and get a bit more wealthy. Only when that next-to-top 20% wake up and coordinate with lower 79.9% will anything fundamental change. And thus you will see that kind of activity being made "illegal" under false-pretenses to "curb piracy" [2] or "hunt terrorists" [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
The main problem with any voting/representation mechanism is authentication. In addition to the random trolls and ballot-stuffers, you do realize that companies are busy trying to automate astroturfing and "persona management" [1]. This makes the internet magnitudes easier to game.
[1] http://www.factoverfiction.com/article/3654
No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s.
I did get fixed... but for the 1%. The problem is that any significant populist organization (and figurehead) is either a) co-opted and corrupted, b) politically assassinated or, barring that, c) has a fatal accident or is assassinated IRL.
Feel free to call this conspiracy, but any populist organizing has been treated like terrorism against the status quo.
I don't see why this developer guy, this "Igor Pusenjak, president of Lima Sky" thinks that there's something about the Kindle Fire that makes it an attractive game platform. It's an android tablet, not a very good one, and there's an Amazon skin on top of it. Why would that be a better game platform than another android tablet? Is there something about the Amazon skin that makes it better? Is there something about the lack of an SD slot that makes it better?
It's all about the numbers. If it's reasonably easy to port the code (say you've developed on Unity3D) and Amazon sells enough units, it could pose a large enough target to make the effort.
There are lots of qualifiers in that previous sentence, however (and another one: Amazon's pricing is not as cut-and-dried as Google or Apple's).
That doesn't matter, fanboi. Just ask Apple's board what they think about going from 98% dominance to 40-50% in just 18 months.
Apple doesn't concern itself so much with "market share" as much as "profit share". Take a look at the PC/Mac sector. They have single-digit marketshare yet wield a lions share of the profits by having really great margins.
The same could play out on the mobile and tablet fronts, yet Apple as a company could still do very well. Fact is, if they were concerned about marketshare in priority, they would be fighting yesterday's battles instead of creating new markets like they did with the original Apple][ and iPad.
Just look at the greasy finger marks
You know, the OS could mitigate this quite easily by moving around the picture, reorienting or rotating it. This would eliminate the benefit of muscle-memory, but allow it to be more secure.
Then again, so does a manual transmission, and intelligent downshifting technique - lol!
Sure, you trade a brakepad life for a reduced transmission/clutch lifespan.
I've owned about 3 manual transmission cars (great fun on a switchback, but annoying on stop/go commutes). Until I owned my Prius, I wouldn't dream of giving up that manual control. However, the software drive-by-wire on the Prius really is awesome, and far more responsive, efficient and powerful than an automatic transmission and completely less leg-work than a manual.
Because real life has to compromise. In that though you should be a big supporter of those Tea Party Republicans who will vote down any tax raises. They are standing by their guns and sticking to their promises even though they are obviously bad for the United States.
You mean those same tea-partiers who defied GOP leadership [1] and decided the middle class didn't deserve a continued tax break? Yea, that's a class act right there... tax cuts are good...only for the 1%. Shows you the teaparty's true colors (ie, green as the funding from Koch brothers).
[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/20/133652/house-passes-year-long-payroll.html
This gets 125MPG, is a diesel/electric hybrid, and is much cooler looking than any Tesla.
http://reversetrike.com/xr3-hybrid.html
Oh, and it's cheaper too.
Yeah, that thing looks sweet. However, the site says it's estimated price ($10k-25k), not final price. It requires assembly, since it's a DIY kit. Furthermore it's not even ready yet. What a silly comparison (will it pass even standard safety tests?)
What, because it's electric it won't need ANY maintenance? What planet do you hail from where electric devices don't break down? You realize that a lot of the basic components of a car will probably still exist and require maintenance. Yeah, you won't need oil changes, but stuff is still going to break.
My 6-year old Prius has had the following maintenance (note: this is still a hybrid not fully electric, so it has both electric and gas componentry - but no transmission): routine service, oil changes, wipers, filter changes, tires/alignment, brake lights, 12v battery replaced.
Here's what I haven't done (and have had to do one of these with every other car I owned more than 5 years): Engine resurfacing, transmission replacement, brakes/pads (yes, original brake pads on my Prius are less than 50% worn), rotors/boots, headlamp bulbs.
This car will likely last 12-15 years and still get 45+MPG with that old of a HV battery. If battery is the only long-term replacement cost, that's quite low.
My 2002 Prius is 10 years old now (remember, 2012's come out in 2011).
Battery is still working. And it's not even as fancy as the new ones.
And the replacement cost (if you ever need one) has dropped from the initial $8000 or so down to about $1500. My 6 year old Prius still gets 53+ MPG on a commute.
I mean the high-end model goes 300 miles.
Yeah, and? Our Honda Civic costs less than half as much, goes at least 50% further, and takes a fraction of the time to 'recharge'.
You're comparing a Model S with a Civic? Hell, the old Prius vs. Carolla comparison was silly, but this is ludicruous. These cars serve different markets, not unlike the netbook vs. iPad vs. Corei7 Alienware, the only thing you acheive by making the apple-oranges comparison is showing your ignorance.
Here is a short incomplete list of differentiating factors that might show you why the Model S is worth it's price: {prestige, driver interface, handling, comfort, road noise, looks...} if you don't think those are worth paying for, then go about happy with your Civic (which is a decent car). If you really consider those to be important you might feel like the limited range and cost are worth the gains.
Mac OSX (only available on Apple hardware, Apple openly sues you for building hackintoshes).
Though I agree completely with the majority of your post, this particular fact is in error. IIRC, Apple will only sue you if you build hackintoshes and then sell them (ie, Psystar). There are some great hackintosh build-it-yourself sites like my favorite [1]. None of these sites nor any individual has been sued or had C&Ds against them.
[1] http://tonymacx86.blogspot.com/
iPad killed the netbook market.
The iPad was the final nail in the coffin. The netbook (inspired by the original OLPC), of which the original EEE PC was an exemplar, ran Linux, cost $300, had a small cheap (but fast enough) SSD and made a great email, web and IM terminal... this scared the shit out of both Intel and Microsoft... who consequently conspired to kill or cripple it [1] [2]. So Intel flooded the low-end market with the gfx-gimped Atom and Microsoft twisted the arms of companies like Asus, Acer and the like to drop Linux. Then they pushed 160GB HDs (sounds a lot better value than a 16GB SSD, right?), and saddled it down with Vista/Win7 Starter.
This was around 2008/2009, long before the iPad arrived. When iPad did hit the market, it fully capitalized on this strategy of "lets keep netbooks crappy" by offering their take: lighter, app-store, and dead sexy.
[1] http://gizmodo.com/5270094/the-netbook-conspiracy-intel-and-microsoft-collude-to-keep-netbooks-crappy
[2] http://samj.net/2009/02/conspiracy-theories-about-intels-role.html
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
Then start a business and see if you're right. I suspect Dell knows a bit more about this than you're guessing they do.
-jcr
I'm 99% with you on most of your opinions, but keep in mind, at some large companies, a project/product not only has to be profitable, but needs to get insane ROI to even get approval for funding. Bean counters at large companies aren't even looking for growth anymore, they're looking for insane margins or a hockey stick... I'm guessing Dell here just thought there was disruption or domination potential that just didn't pan out.
At a smaller company, things are completely different.
You are forgetting one friend:
4. Size and Price. Most people frankly aren't gonna give a second thought to anything but size and price, you can trumpet your warranty to the high heavens but if the other guys offers a 2Tb for $50 even if it has a 30% failure rate after 1 years the average users are gonna run right over you to get to the cheap fatty.
These aren't cheeseburgers or car parts or even power supplies (where quality of one component can affect the whole), these are hard drives, where a combination of RAID and/or aggressive backup can mean that the 30% fictitious failure rate can be tolerated given enough discount (ie, I'm building a RAID-5/6 for my home server - I'll take a 20% discount for massively cheap drives, even if that means the system could be redundant-less more often). At a significant enough discount, I can double the setup and mirror/backup.
It's important to note that there is also a customer feedback loop these days - look to product discussion boards and enthusiast forums.. you'll find obvious duds that are then deeply discounted. People (in aggregate) are not stupid, and don't suffer bad deals for too long.
5. Security by Poverty: Don't own anything worth stealing and drive a junky car that probably won't have anything of worth inside anyway
6. Security by Deception: Put leave a case with a Compaq logo on it in a very visible spot, leave your car unlocked. Keep you laptop under the seat.
If you park your car in a bad enough neighborhood, leaving any (even janky) stuff visible even while leaving the car unlocked doesn't necessarily help. A friend from years ago used to leave his car unlocked just so thieves wouldn't break his window... one stupid criminal didn't bother even trying the lock, and just smashed his window, and took an empty (but promising looking) bag.
The basic idea is to simply have your car blend in and don't leave anything that is valuable (or even hints of valuables like visible iPod connectors, etc... this resulted in a smash and grab for me last year).
What happens when someone else puts that sticker on your stuff?
Simple... you remove the sticker and vow to not let that person have physical access to your stuff unattended again. They'd have to have access to some details proving they own it when they activate the sticker... even so it's only something that adds to real ownership evidence like receipts, etc.
If the FBI is using Carrier IQ data for investigative purposes, doesn't that call into question the earlier claim from security researchers that Carrier IQ isn't logging data?
If you read closely, you'll see that Carrier IQ's argument relies heavily on that data never hitting their servers. The fact that their keylogger-capable malware allows the carrier to extract that info, and consequently hand it to the FBI, is "not their fault" [1].
[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/08/carrier-iq-interview
Better reliability is a somewhat dubious claim.[...]
Until stories of people chugging along on 5 or 7 year old SSDs are commonplace, the technology simply won't have the track record to justify such claims.
I have no idea why people insist on their drives being so damn reliable. Shit breaks. You need to have a backup plan. You can get free, reliable disk-imaging software that mirrors your drive(s) for all three major desktop OSs.
I run all my personal laptops on SSDs with a weekly imaging (my OSX laptop has time machine that runs nightly). If my drive fails, I just boot from external for immediate issues, and I can replace the drive in a day or two if while I RMA or buy a replacement.
The key here is to have a process that emphasizes backups. I've gotten all my relatives on the religion too... nowadays there's no excuse other than you wanted to save $100 or so to not buy a 2nd external HDD.
In 2000 Cisco acquired a company that had used it, and quickly dropped the line. Then Cisco fraudulently tried to resurrect the trademark after Apple came asking about iPhone.
Cisco owns both the iPhone and iOS trademarks, and has licensed both of them [1,2] to Apple. No one is fraudulent or infringing in this case.
[1] http://betanews.com/2007/01/09/cisco-offers-to-license-iphone-name-to-apple/
[2] http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/08/cisco_licenses_ios_name_to_apple_screenshot_shows_iwork_on_iphone.html