No; there have been many previous anti-competition fines and a number that were for much larger sums. This is the first time that they have fined a company
for breaking the terms of a settlement they had previously agreed to to escape a much bigger fine
and carrying on with that breach for 17 months
for a company with a record of completely ignoring the law
in a completely public massive publicity case
where the company has used that to get dominance in many other markets
This should be the worst possible case. The available fine is up to 7Billion Euros and they haven't even fined them 10% of that.
but I assume you know that are are just trolling based on your user name.
If you stole a car, you might expect 10% of the sentence first time round. If you stole another one whilst still on parole, trust me the judge would lock you away and throw away the key. I assume from the fact that you can't see that that you, and the mods who modded me "troll" are being paid to ignore the obvious facts in front of you. This is yet another example of how the goverments bow down to the big corporations.
If this had been a small company the EU would have had no problem fining them 10% of revenue which is allowed for an act like this. Just because Microsoft has the lawyers to 'cooperate with the Commission' shouldn't allow them off with such a small fine.
Right, the Apple product is perfect in every way and everything else is either just a copy or shite.
You are the ONLY one saying that. Nobody else said that. Just you.
So the question is: why did you fabricate an incorrect statement and rage against it as if someone else said it? Wouldn't it be easier to address what the poster actually said?
This is a legitimate and correct question and shouldn't have been modded down. In my original I even mentioned that I only have Android (and some other Linux) devices myself. Accusing me of being an Apple fanboi was a really wierd thing. Especially given that my posting record doesn't exactly set me up as a fan of Apple; I consistently criticise them for trying to use lawsuits to win the market rather than technical excellence; for thinking they own things they largely copied and for cooperating with Microsoft. (they do lots of bad things; people who try to say they are as bad Microsoft are fantasising, however in D&D terms, if Microsoft is Chaotic Evil then Apple has definitely become Lawful Evil).
a.1) and not getting arrested because just your software control software went a bit beserk and actually used twice as many OS instances at one moment as you thought you did and declared. When things go all dynamic they can get a bit weird. You do not want to have to explain that to a BSA audit crew.
What exactly is there about FOSS that you need to "get the scaling benefits of the cloud"?
a) Ability to use 10X the amount of software installs and 10X the amount of virtual machines that you have ever used because today your special offer went viral on Slashdot.
b) Strong guarantees of future portability and availability on all different platforms by using an open source abstraction layer; either CentOS/Red Hat at the IaaS level or Python/Ruby/Java at the PaaS level where you know there is no single owner proprietary vendor that can stop the technology being ported to different cloud systems in future.
2) "With an Android device... and keep most of your data "in the cloud"..." - why did you specify with an Android device? My documents are in the cloud and accessible on whatever device I happen to use (iMac at home, iPhone wherever, MBA or iPad in meetings).
It's not the difference of being able to keep the documents in the cloud. The difference is that you can configure two accounts on a modern Android device (I'm not sure exactly when this feature dates from). If you configure everyone in the family's account on all of the family's Android devices then you can swap around as you wish. So you have, say, two Nexus 10s and two Nexus 7s. Most of the time you use the Nexus 10 and give the kids the Nexus 7. However, if you go on a business trip you change to the Nexus 7 and leave the kids the Nexus 10.
The kids have no problem with this because all their data and apps are available on the Nexus 10 immediately they get it. With an iPad you can do this changeover only once every few months. Otherwise you have to share all your data and apps with each other in one account.
Some people who had a 10 in iPad are now migrating to the 7s but the great majority are happier with the larger screen. Once the pent up demand is satisfied I expect the larger iPads will again be the better sellers.
As I read this I was thinking to myself "why not both". I guess the obvious answer is "cost", but that's never stopped Apple fans before. With an Android device you can have multiple accounts and keep most of your data "in the cloud" which makes it easier to share devices in a family. In that case I guess you would have a travel device (7") and a home device or two (~10"). The person who wants to travel just takes the smaller device.
I guess something like this might be the future? Enough devices that people pick and choose?
Now there's two iPad sizes. And lots of sizes for Android tablets. A fair amount of choice for Win 8 too. Everyone's happy!
I think it does matter. Jobs was even right about the big size being needed, though his explanation given was wrong (and who knows if he even told the full truth). If tablets had initially come at 7" then they would have been far too close to phones. There would have been almost no application that you could do on a tablet that couldn't be done reasonably on a phone just a bit worse. There wouldn't have been a reason to keep the two separate and development of tablet interface programs would be much slower. In the end people would have just called the iPad a "too big phone which you can't call from" and it would not have sold as it did. I think Android is only just managing to break through this barrier and Apple wouldn't have had nearly the success they have had first mover advantage.
The iPad is its self almost exactly the maximum reasonable size for a tablet for most people. Even a tiny bit heavier than the heaviest iPad and many people can't hold it in one hand it for long. It's already big enough that it has to have a special split keyboard for some people to be able to type on comfortably. Also the iPad is close to the limit which fits comfortably into your personal space in economy class (no; a laptop is not "comfortable") and feels spacious elsewhere. On the other hand; the size is a limitation for some applications such as a full screen magazine spread. The battery is a limitation as a replacement for a book. For photo editing, a thing which a tablet could be good for the screen is still very much on the small side. You can see why really big people with big hands and their own private jets might like a bigger tablet and you can also see why Microsoft made the mistake of making the surface too big and heavy. If you were designing the iPad from scratch and you could make it fold and add anti-gravity and had no cost limts then you would probably end up with an even larger device with more inertia and much higher resolution (I wouldn't call it more "weight").
An iPad mini makes sense now; however that's only because the iPad went before it and defined the category of a tablet. If that hadn't happened people would just be complaining that it's a too heavy phone. Me; I have multiple android devices and I find myself switching sizes; however I definitely prefer a tablet to a phone for plenty of stuff. I'm even wondering if it wouldn't be better to just have a dumbphone and a tablet instead.
Yes, it does. And as a judge, he should avoid "looking bad." Reverse the position: imagine that Judge Lucy Koh (you know, the one who awarded a big-ass judgement against Samsung here in the US) 'retires,' and goes to work in Apple's legal department two months later.
Funny you should mention that. Judge Koh actually did do work for Apple before she became a judge. Are you suggesting she should have recused herself?
I've used Blender to create models collaborated with guys using Max and Maya with no problems, them using proprietary modeling programs had no effect on my use of Blender.
Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.
Non-free software doesn't "take away" any rights, not yours, not mine, not anybody's. Why? Because who in God's name (pun intended, choose your own deity) gave us these rights? where does it say that these *things* are, in fact, rights? are inalienable?
I hope that you are not from the USA like most on this site; because if you are then
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
ought to be a familiar quote and you should know where it comes from. However, even if you are not, the Universal declaration of human rights ought to be clear enough:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
And, in case you are wondering, the fundamental right we are talking about is the right to freedom of speech. And that right can only be guaranteed if you have control over your own information.
You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic.
He's already given an absolutely clear justification which you have not addressed properly at all. If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.
He takes this a little far. There are certain specific proprietary software groups which make promises such as Google's data liberation front. These companies specifically promise that they will stick to standards and/or allow you to export your data to those standards. As a counter example, try asking Microsoft to provide a support contract including Linux clients for their Exchange servers. This is something that they almost go out of their way to break in some new subtle way with each new release. Google will do this without a problem (their commercial contract guarantee is that whatever works now will work in future versions). However, with the specific exception of companies committed to true open standards (and that doesn't include RAND or ISO standards) the general point stands.
He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"
Er Freenet has supported peer to peer darknets for some time. It's not nearly perfect but it's definitely not something from science fiction. There are others though probably it's even more difficult to tell how trustworthy they are.
There is something real going on; there are always hackers from all Nations and there are probably more from China right now and also there is a conspiracy to take advantage of that.
Except that it has NOTHING to do with OS X security.
No; bullshit. There is a whole load of security stuff that could have protected against that. The SELinux stuff that came from the NSA, that RedHat has been working on for years; that is present in Fedora; is exactly what could protect against this kind of user level stuff. There was a choice made by a number of computer manufacturers to put in ease of use without thinking through how to do that securely. Apple and Microsoft both, together, chose to push out alternative more secure solutions by trying to fool the users into thinking things could be easier. Without click to install there could never have been email viruses (did you youth know that we used to think these were an impossible joke). Even today, iOS, Android, Bada, BB(?) and Windows Phone come with fixed app permissions which don't allow you to reduce privilages. This is a choice of convenience over security, yet again.
Anyway; stupid article. I don't know if Microsoft did it for legal reasons, however no matter what, coming clean about a security breach is not something to be criticised. Well done Google, Apple and Microsoft. Shame on the ones who haven't yet discovered or admitted to it. Now you have admitted you have a problem start to give the users the ability to secure their own systems.
An please note that there are other ways of compromising email addresses; e.g. using them in plaintext on a compromised access point or a mail server between you and the company but outside their control. If you want to proove this you have to be absolutely sure about the security of the address and check that every connection is (at least) encrypted.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.
This is the Internet, where we screw each other over for a jolt of satisfaction. There are peons and lulz lizards; trolls and victims.
you could argue that he's just continuing what LulzSec started. Does anyone know if any of LulzSec ever rejected that part of their manifesto? I mean, given that they all seem to have been identified despite attempts to hide shouldn't they all ask us to laugh at their security?
It's important to remember he "faces up to 124 years in prison"; not "he will get 124 yeas". Likely he has some plea bargain already agreed reducing that considerably. Presumably he has already got that agreed down to the level where the prosecutor will recommend 20 years or less and has some set of conditions which lead him to come lower.
Leaving plea bargains completely with prosecutors (US prosecutors can decide exactly which crimes to prosecute for; US judges have strict sentencing guidelines which depend on that choice) is what converts the US criminal law system from a "justice system" into an enforcement system. In almost every other country the Judge is allowed to review everything. If an unreasonable guilty plea has been made he can ignore it or reduce the sentence completely. If the prosecutor has ignored certain crimes to get a settlement, the Judge can even sometimes reinstate those. This reduces proprietorial discretion from something around 1000% (Sabu is a supid git, but IMHO it's worth maximum 5 years even if you think crimes against stupidity should be strongly punished; probably really a few months) down to about 20-50%. This makes prosecutors think seriously about doing their job and not just going out for publicity. That's what went wrong with Aaron's case. Imagine your friend with a newborn kid makes a small mistake (curiously wonder what that SQL string is in your bank login; check it before you realise what you are doing) and gets a shit like Ms Ortiz. Imagine she begins to believe that the only way she's going to see her kid again before the kid grows up is if she says who taught her how to do that. Imagine it was you tried to teach her how to secure her web server.
If you are a US voter, for the love of god (or whatever it is you worship) write off to your congressmen and explain why Aaron's case was wrong. Try to fix at least the computer legislation if not the system of plea bargains.
Why is this hidden........ its the most appropriate comment on this subject and will be all week!
Because, like your comment, it was posted anonymously. If you want your posts to be more visible keep an account and log in. If you don't, as you can see, all of the competent mods with strong stomachs (or a love of the trollers art) on Slashdot browse at -1 and someone will pick up a good post in a few minutes. Occasionally if someone finds your comment interesting then they will reply to you which will also make it more visible. If plenty of people then metamod, the good moderators also get more mod points.
If you really need to be anonymous then you should be posting through tor (watch out for browser leakage; run your browser in a context that knows nothing about you) and just register new accounts from time to time. If you are just posting casually then don't worry.
BTW. I agree it's a pretty good and pointed comment.
Actually; I knew the joke (seen it used before in comments about database data loss - it seemed appropriate to Microsoft cloud) but hadn't seen the original video. Thanks for that one. It's almost better than the "I want an iPhone". Actually the video is pretty appropriate for Microsoft Azure which seems to be pretty much about "WebScale" whilst missing completely the fact that you need FOSS to properly get the scaling benefits of the cloud.
N.B. I'd definitely compare against the LTE version.
2.5GHz Core i5
that's a battery vs speed trade off where normally I will go for more battery and a lighter (LXDE?) desktop
8GB RAM
that's a difference ; however I plan to run Linux so I'm not as concerned about that. 4 is normally plenty for me.
128GB SSD
vs 64G that's again a noticeable difference but again using Linux tends to mean more is shared from program to program so you end up with more free
Against that you have: built in LTE; a better screen with more vertical pixels (these are worth much more than horizontal to me) and touch (which isn't worth much to me). The main killer for me will be if it has proper Linux device drivers. I don't trust MacBooks on that.
In the end, all things being equal I think I might go for the MacBook. The thing which clinches it for me is that Apple is such a strong patent supporter. To me that means that they are setting out to destroy the earnings of all individuals which work with computers and that makes them an enemy. As long as Google isn't actively suing people who are uninvolved in the patent racket then that's enough of a difference to clinch the deal.
Slashdot Mirror
then I realised that it's the other way around.
This is the first time they've fined a company,
No; there have been many previous anti-competition fines and a number that were for much larger sums. This is the first time that they have fined a company
This should be the worst possible case. The available fine is up to 7Billion Euros and they haven't even fined them 10% of that.
but I assume you know that are are just trolling based on your user name.
If you stole a car, you might expect 10% of the sentence first time round. If you stole another one whilst still on parole, trust me the judge would lock you away and throw away the key. I assume from the fact that you can't see that that you, and the mods who modded me "troll" are being paid to ignore the obvious facts in front of you. This is yet another example of how the goverments bow down to the big corporations.
If this had been a small company the EU would have had no problem fining them 10% of revenue which is allowed for an act like this. Just because Microsoft has the lawyers to 'cooperate with the Commission' shouldn't allow them off with such a small fine.
Right, the Apple product is perfect in every way and everything else is either just a copy or shite.
You are the ONLY one saying that. Nobody else said that. Just you.
So the question is: why did you fabricate an incorrect statement and rage against it as if someone else said it? Wouldn't it be easier to address what the poster actually said?
This is a legitimate and correct question and shouldn't have been modded down. In my original I even mentioned that I only have Android (and some other Linux) devices myself. Accusing me of being an Apple fanboi was a really wierd thing. Especially given that my posting record doesn't exactly set me up as a fan of Apple; I consistently criticise them for trying to use lawsuits to win the market rather than technical excellence; for thinking they own things they largely copied and for cooperating with Microsoft. (they do lots of bad things; people who try to say they are as bad Microsoft are fantasising, however in D&D terms, if Microsoft is Chaotic Evil then Apple has definitely become Lawful Evil).
a.1) and not getting arrested because just your software control software went a bit beserk and actually used twice as many OS instances at one moment as you thought you did and declared. When things go all dynamic they can get a bit weird. You do not want to have to explain that to a BSA audit crew.
What exactly is there about FOSS that you need to "get the scaling benefits of the cloud"?
a) Ability to use 10X the amount of software installs and 10X the amount of virtual machines that you have ever used because today your special offer went viral on Slashdot.
b) Strong guarantees of future portability and availability on all different platforms by using an open source abstraction layer; either CentOS/Red Hat at the IaaS level or Python/Ruby/Java at the PaaS level where you know there is no single owner proprietary vendor that can stop the technology being ported to different cloud systems in future.
2) "With an Android device ... and keep most of your data "in the cloud" ..." - why did you specify with an Android device? My documents are in the cloud and accessible on whatever device I happen to use (iMac at home, iPhone wherever, MBA or iPad in meetings).
It's not the difference of being able to keep the documents in the cloud. The difference is that you can configure two accounts on a modern Android device (I'm not sure exactly when this feature dates from). If you configure everyone in the family's account on all of the family's Android devices then you can swap around as you wish. So you have, say, two Nexus 10s and two Nexus 7s. Most of the time you use the Nexus 10 and give the kids the Nexus 7. However, if you go on a business trip you change to the Nexus 7 and leave the kids the Nexus 10.
The kids have no problem with this because all their data and apps are available on the Nexus 10 immediately they get it. With an iPad you can do this changeover only once every few months. Otherwise you have to share all your data and apps with each other in one account.
Some people who had a 10 in iPad are now migrating to the 7s but the great majority are happier with the larger screen. Once the pent up demand is satisfied I expect the larger iPads will again be the better sellers.
As I read this I was thinking to myself "why not both". I guess the obvious answer is "cost", but that's never stopped Apple fans before. With an Android device you can have multiple accounts and keep most of your data "in the cloud" which makes it easier to share devices in a family. In that case I guess you would have a travel device (7") and a home device or two (~10"). The person who wants to travel just takes the smaller device.
I guess something like this might be the future? Enough devices that people pick and choose?
Now there's two iPad sizes. And lots of sizes for Android tablets. A fair amount of choice for Win 8 too. Everyone's happy!
I think it does matter. Jobs was even right about the big size being needed, though his explanation given was wrong (and who knows if he even told the full truth). If tablets had initially come at 7" then they would have been far too close to phones. There would have been almost no application that you could do on a tablet that couldn't be done reasonably on a phone just a bit worse. There wouldn't have been a reason to keep the two separate and development of tablet interface programs would be much slower. In the end people would have just called the iPad a "too big phone which you can't call from" and it would not have sold as it did. I think Android is only just managing to break through this barrier and Apple wouldn't have had nearly the success they have had first mover advantage.
The iPad is its self almost exactly the maximum reasonable size for a tablet for most people. Even a tiny bit heavier than the heaviest iPad and many people can't hold it in one hand it for long. It's already big enough that it has to have a special split keyboard for some people to be able to type on comfortably. Also the iPad is close to the limit which fits comfortably into your personal space in economy class (no; a laptop is not "comfortable") and feels spacious elsewhere. On the other hand; the size is a limitation for some applications such as a full screen magazine spread. The battery is a limitation as a replacement for a book. For photo editing, a thing which a tablet could be good for the screen is still very much on the small side. You can see why really big people with big hands and their own private jets might like a bigger tablet and you can also see why Microsoft made the mistake of making the surface too big and heavy. If you were designing the iPad from scratch and you could make it fold and add anti-gravity and had no cost limts then you would probably end up with an even larger device with more inertia and much higher resolution (I wouldn't call it more "weight").
An iPad mini makes sense now; however that's only because the iPad went before it and defined the category of a tablet. If that hadn't happened people would just be complaining that it's a too heavy phone. Me; I have multiple android devices and I find myself switching sizes; however I definitely prefer a tablet to a phone for plenty of stuff. I'm even wondering if it wouldn't be better to just have a dumbphone and a tablet instead.
Yes, it does. And as a judge, he should avoid "looking bad." Reverse the position: imagine that Judge Lucy Koh (you know, the one who awarded a big-ass judgement against Samsung here in the US) 'retires,' and goes to work in Apple's legal department two months later.
Funny you should mention that. Judge Koh actually did do work for Apple before she became a judge. Are you suggesting she should have recused herself?
I've used Blender to create models collaborated with guys using Max and Maya with no problems, them using proprietary modeling programs had no effect on my use of Blender.
Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.
Non-free software doesn't "take away" any rights, not yours, not mine, not anybody's. Why? Because who in God's name (pun intended, choose your own deity) gave us these rights? where does it say that these *things* are, in fact, rights? are inalienable?
I hope that you are not from the USA like most on this site; because if you are then
ought to be a familiar quote and you should know where it comes from. However, even if you are not, the Universal declaration of human rights ought to be clear enough:
And, in case you are wondering, the fundamental right we are talking about is the right to freedom of speech. And that right can only be guaranteed if you have control over your own information.
You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic.
He's already given an absolutely clear justification which you have not addressed properly at all. If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.
He takes this a little far. There are certain specific proprietary software groups which make promises such as Google's data liberation front. These companies specifically promise that they will stick to standards and/or allow you to export your data to those standards. As a counter example, try asking Microsoft to provide a support contract including Linux clients for their Exchange servers. This is something that they almost go out of their way to break in some new subtle way with each new release. Google will do this without a problem (their commercial contract guarantee is that whatever works now will work in future versions). However, with the specific exception of companies committed to true open standards (and that doesn't include RAND or ISO standards) the general point stands.
He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"
Er Freenet has supported peer to peer darknets for some time. It's not nearly perfect but it's definitely not something from science fiction. There are others though probably it's even more difficult to tell how trustworthy they are.
Just as long as you don't seem to be able to tell which is which I will be happy.
Both
There is something real going on; there are always hackers from all Nations and there are probably more from China right now and also there is a conspiracy to take advantage of that.
Except that it has NOTHING to do with OS X security.
No; bullshit. There is a whole load of security stuff that could have protected against that. The SELinux stuff that came from the NSA, that RedHat has been working on for years; that is present in Fedora; is exactly what could protect against this kind of user level stuff. There was a choice made by a number of computer manufacturers to put in ease of use without thinking through how to do that securely. Apple and Microsoft both, together, chose to push out alternative more secure solutions by trying to fool the users into thinking things could be easier. Without click to install there could never have been email viruses (did you youth know that we used to think these were an impossible joke). Even today, iOS, Android, Bada, BB(?) and Windows Phone come with fixed app permissions which don't allow you to reduce privilages. This is a choice of convenience over security, yet again.
Anyway; stupid article. I don't know if Microsoft did it for legal reasons, however no matter what, coming clean about a security breach is not something to be criticised. Well done Google, Apple and Microsoft. Shame on the ones who haven't yet discovered or admitted to it. Now you have admitted you have a problem start to give the users the ability to secure their own systems.
An please note that there are other ways of compromising email addresses; e.g. using them in plaintext on a compromised access point or a mail server between you and the company but outside their control. If you want to proove this you have to be absolutely sure about the security of the address and check that every connection is (at least) encrypted.
Given my nick and the moderation on my post I will have some difficulty arguing with you :-)
Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.
Damn, the ACs are out with good comments today. Just to strengthen his case, you may even know you are committing a crime. For example as we can learn from the "Don't talk to the police video" did you know possession of a lobster can be a crime. In fact policemen may show that you are a criminal just because you were confused.
you could argue that he's just continuing what LulzSec started. Does anyone know if any of LulzSec ever rejected that part of their manifesto? I mean, given that they all seem to have been identified despite attempts to hide shouldn't they all ask us to laugh at their security?
It's important to remember he "faces up to 124 years in prison"; not "he will get 124 yeas". Likely he has some plea bargain already agreed reducing that considerably. Presumably he has already got that agreed down to the level where the prosecutor will recommend 20 years or less and has some set of conditions which lead him to come lower.
Leaving plea bargains completely with prosecutors (US prosecutors can decide exactly which crimes to prosecute for; US judges have strict sentencing guidelines which depend on that choice) is what converts the US criminal law system from a "justice system" into an enforcement system. In almost every other country the Judge is allowed to review everything. If an unreasonable guilty plea has been made he can ignore it or reduce the sentence completely. If the prosecutor has ignored certain crimes to get a settlement, the Judge can even sometimes reinstate those. This reduces proprietorial discretion from something around 1000% (Sabu is a supid git, but IMHO it's worth maximum 5 years even if you think crimes against stupidity should be strongly punished; probably really a few months) down to about 20-50%. This makes prosecutors think seriously about doing their job and not just going out for publicity. That's what went wrong with Aaron's case. Imagine your friend with a newborn kid makes a small mistake (curiously wonder what that SQL string is in your bank login; check it before you realise what you are doing) and gets a shit like Ms Ortiz. Imagine she begins to believe that the only way she's going to see her kid again before the kid grows up is if she says who taught her how to do that. Imagine it was you tried to teach her how to secure her web server.
If you are a US voter, for the love of god (or whatever it is you worship) write off to your congressmen and explain why Aaron's case was wrong. Try to fix at least the computer legislation if not the system of plea bargains.
Why is this hidden........ its the most appropriate comment on this subject and will be all week!
Because, like your comment, it was posted anonymously. If you want your posts to be more visible keep an account and log in. If you don't, as you can see, all of the competent mods with strong stomachs (or a love of the trollers art) on Slashdot browse at -1 and someone will pick up a good post in a few minutes. Occasionally if someone finds your comment interesting then they will reply to you which will also make it more visible. If plenty of people then metamod, the good moderators also get more mod points.
If you really need to be anonymous then you should be posting through tor (watch out for browser leakage; run your browser in a context that knows nothing about you) and just register new accounts from time to time. If you are just posting casually then don't worry.
BTW. I agree it's a pretty good and pointed comment.
Actually; I knew the joke (seen it used before in comments about database data loss - it seemed appropriate to Microsoft cloud) but hadn't seen the original video. Thanks for that one. It's almost better than the "I want an iPhone". Actually the video is pretty appropriate for Microsoft Azure which seems to be pretty much about "WebScale" whilst missing completely the fact that you need FOSS to properly get the scaling benefits of the cloud.
Against that you have: built in LTE; a better screen with more vertical pixels (these are worth much more than horizontal to me) and touch (which isn't worth much to me). The main killer for me will be if it has proper Linux device drivers. I don't trust MacBooks on that.
In the end, all things being equal I think I might go for the MacBook. The thing which clinches it for me is that Apple is such a strong patent supporter. To me that means that they are setting out to destroy the earnings of all individuals which work with computers and that makes them an enemy. As long as Google isn't actively suing people who are uninvolved in the patent racket then that's enough of a difference to clinch the deal.