Passport Control at Heathrow routinely asked me why I was in the country and where I was staying when I flew in and out of there pre-911. That's fine; that's offical UK business.
Being asked by an airline to list the friends you'll be seeing is a different matter. If it this is, in fact, a TSA requirement, the TSA should acknowledge it.
And, if it is, was every other passenger on that flight asked the same question?
Of course not. I'm arguing that all rights inherent in any created work come into existence simultaneously with that work's creation, and that those rights belong, exclusively, to thework's creator. The only possible way for anyone else to acquire any of those rights is by transfer from the work's creator.
This applies for any created work, not just those to which copyright law applies.
Copyright law typically asserts that the work's creator maintains those rights for a specificed period of time. If copyright law does not apply, as it does not to most of the things we make, then those rights are maintained in perpetuity.
This is only a rights issue if you believe people have the right to steal.
If the people selling those films wanted other people to have the right to make copies, they would have explicitly sold those rights. They are the source and origin of those rights. The only rights anyone else had in those films are the rights transfered to them from the film's creators.
Such opinions are usually trashed by the Luddite set around here. Of course, they can't present a convincing argyment that their rights to copy a copyrighted work come from someone other than the work's creator.
It's also not a technology issue. Cheers to the Hong Kong authorities for going after the people using the tool, not the tool itself.
What a breath of fresh air: common sense on Slashdot.
Claiming that this is a rights issue, and deliberately, and incorrectly, using the hot button phrase "big brother", is simple evidence of the pandering to bias and bigotry that Michael and the other phony editors at Slashdot have stooped to in order to keep up their count of page impressions.
The only difference between this and the stereotypical radio talk show hatemeisters are their political leanings. Slashdot is otherwise down in the cesspool with the best of them.
These calls are recorded to monitor and evaluate the performance of the employee who is talking to you. Since those people are hired specifically to speak with people on the telephone, it seems reasonable that their supervisor might listen in on occasion to assess their performance.
What you're talking about is not criminalization of IP violations, but the sentences imposed on anyone found guilty of those violations.
A forum like Slashdot is far too biased to expect any rational discussion of IP issues, since its so-called editors practice old fashioned yellow journalism (e.g., the headline for this story, which conveniently ignores the fact that the news piece it is leeching is talking about criminalizing IP in China). Real editors have a responsibility to understand that, otherwise, the mention of a U.S. official will lead readers to conclude the the U.S., not China, is the country at issue.)
Contrary to the ill-founded extreme positions typically taken here, it is possible to support copyright and oppose the efforts of the entertainment industry to distort the law. (For me, it boils down to the fact that I own what I make. You have no right to it unless I say so. That means if I want to make music and sell it you on a CD, I can retain the exclusive right to make copies of the music. You own the CD -- a round plastic thing -- but you don't own the music.
As for sentences, -- if copyright violatios were to be criminalized -- then one-off violations should be subject to minimal sentences or fines, if prosecuted at all. Large-scale operations, e.g. hosting and distributing content on websites, deserve large-sentences.
I agree that free software follows an effective development model, but I don't accept that it has any advantages over closed source in relation to the creation of better and innovative software.
I don't see commerical developers reinventing the wheel. Rather, they have an incentive to develop and market products that are, in fact, new and innovative. Meanwhile, innovation may well be constrained by the free software culture's tendency to reuse and repackage existing tools, and to adhere to the "don't fix it if it isn't broke" adage.
Use of shared libraries is certainly not unique to free software. Access to source is not necessary to use a shared library; all this is required is publication of the libraries interface.
Static libraries, of course, have been common for decades in all platforms and environments.
Businesses lobbying Congress in their own interest isn't exactly news, is it? The Reuters piece at the link isn't useful: What specific legislation is involved, and how? My guess is that CNN chopped the story to fit.
In any case, the key word is "may". I'm a copyright supporter, but don't have much use either for the entertainment industry or folks who argue that copyright doesn't exist. Acquiring the name of someone who's illegally distributing copyrighted material -- on the net or elsewhere -- ought to require a subpoena issued only after presentation of convincing evidence linking a specific, but unidentified, person with specific copyrighted material.
No one should be able to go on a fishing expedition with ISP's, any more than they can go on a fishing expedition with printing press operators.
Nor do I own maya, ms office 2003, photoshop, macromedia studio, or adobe suite. If I wanted one of those, I'd buy them.
When I use Windows, I use something I bought.
Even by your specious argument, I have every right to express my opinion.
I Don't Care; I Want Better Software, Period
on
Being Free is Hard to Do
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Along with everyone who is not a developer, I'm not likely to have any interest in three of those freedoms: Studying the source, redistributing copies, or changing the program for the benefit of the community.
So long as I can use the damn thing, those other 3 freedoms don't interest me.
I'm interested in using computers. I am not interested in writing code. (It's a parallel to watching TV: We all watch TV, but very few of us are interested in learning how to build a television.) Studying the source is of not interest to me, as is changing it.
As a corollary, I believe the only "community" that exists here is a small number of developers who support free software for ideological and political purposes. Otherwise, free software users are no more a community that are Windows users. (An analogy might the small number of vegetarians who actively lobby to for their dietary beliefs versus all the other folks who simply choose ti eat that way.)
I'm interested in more and better software. If some of that can come from free software developers, fine. If some of that can come from proprietary developers, fine. Frankly, though, little new and innovative software has been coming from either source for several years.
I don;t know the specifics of Apple's charges. I'm just asserting that (A) Apple has a right to sue, and (B) anyone publishing anything, on the web or elsewhere, needs to be aware of the consequences of that act.
Apple has the same right to sue as you or me, and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Think Secret doesn't deserve any extra protection simply because it chooses to publish online. It also doesn't deserve any less protection. Ditto for Apple. Apple has a right to its trade secrets.
If Apple can show that its legal rights were violated by Think Secret, then they likely win their suit. If they can't, they won't.
The argument that Apple's suit stifles protected free speech doesn't hold water. Apple is known for assertively protecting its rights, so no one can claim to be surprised by this suit. Whether or not Think Secret is the right target for this suit is another question.
Slashdot and its readers seem to believe that law and precedent don't apply to online publications simply because they use a different technology. That's not true, and it should not be true. Anyone who publishes alleged Apple trade secrets -- on the web or in your morning newspaper -- has to be either extremely naive or extremely foolhardy to imagine that Apple would not respond. That's why mainstream publications retain lawyers and insure they have the funds to defend themselves in court. Online publications need to be prepared to do the same thing.
Think Secret has every right to publish that story, and every right to retain the identity of its source. Apple has every right to to sue them.
Being prepared to defend your right to keep your sources secret and to defend your right to publish is a cost of doing business of any new publication. Think Secret and other online publications don't get a free pass, but neither should they be exempted from the same standards that apply to and protect traditional publications.
>>...basically killed by cell phones and internet.
Wouldn't that apply only to people who saw ham radio as a means to an end -- talking -- but not to people who were interested in the technology itself? If someone can be lured away from ham radio by a cellphone, he couldn't have been much of a ham.
I'm not a ham, but it seems to me that there isn't much basis in fact for an assertion that amateur radio is "horribly outmoded".
My guess is that you think it has been made obsolete by the Internet. That strikes me as being palpably untrue, as well as a bit like saying the fact that so many people eat pizza means good restaurants are outmoded.
Two different technologies, two different sets of purposes and abilities.
>> High GPA is not a guarantee of strong performance in the "real world."
I didn't say it was a guarantee, or the only facotr I'd use in selecting employees. I said it was an indication of someone who was competitive and could succeed, even if that success came about because they cheated like hell, slept with their teachers, "played the grade game" by taking the easiest possible classes, etc., etc. The "real world" rewards more than just the ability to score high on tests.
So, if I was looking for a software developer, I'd likely tend to give more weight to a candidate with a 3.0 and a degree in computer science than I would a candidate with a 3.9 and a degree in veterinary science. But, that, alone, would not guarantee I'd hire the 3.0 or reject the 3.9.
And, for what it is worth, the only time I've actually ever noticed GPA's is when I was reading through a stack of resumes trying to decide who to interview. I typically had a limit on how many to call in for an interview, so I used GPA, along with other factors, to rank and stack the resumes. So, yes, it was important at that stage, but not later. Once I met an applicant, they were on there own.
>>...such trivialties as GPA scores and well-roundedness, the very things comments here tend to think are overrated...
GPA scores and being well-rounded are trvial only if you have bad scores and a cardboard personality.
If I'm hiring someone, I want an employee who is competitive, someone who has the ability and the will to outperform his or her colleagues. A high GPA score tells me that person has already done exactly that in an academic environment. Why should I take the risk that someone with a mediocre score will suddenly decide to apply himself once he's on my payroll?
As for the well-rounded part...well, if you're boring, you're boring, OK? Given a choice, interesting is better.
1. "New" doesn't mean "superior". Your boss may buy something because he thinks those two words are synonymous, but they aren't.
2. Techies who argue "Windows is unusable" -- a palpable untruth --often do so simply to assert their own elitism. They just want us to know that they've defined themselves as too smart to use Windows. Conveniently, then, anyone who does use Windows is stupid. It's just a peacock display.
3. Techies who whine that businesses put profit before technology forget that profit spreads technology. If someone doesn't make and sell the stuff for a profit, how is it going to exist? Are all those good little techies going to devote their lives to making and giving away "stuff"?
4. People aren't mindless lab rats at the mercy of marketeers. Just because someone's ads try convince me I need something, why should I pay attention?
People aren't interested in "better" technology for its own sake. (And, "better" is usually a matter of debate. Just because techies think something is better, why should the rest of us agree? Or care?)
People buy "stuff" that that we can use to do whatever it is that we want to, preferably without breaking a sweat or needing to read a book first. Technical superiority, by itself, isn't much of a sales pitch. Why should I buy something that is "superior" if I know I won't use that "superiority"?
Techies like to say things like "Windows is unusable" (when most of the world uses it) or "corporations put profit above technology" (gee, do you think?). Just shows why a lot of them get along better with hardware than with people.
I've never believed that Netscape, HTMl, Javascript and Java were anywhere close to making the OS irrelevant. Not then, not now. None of notions about "internet and web standard technologies" have ever seriously challenged any OS, even where MS is not a factor, such as Linux and open source.
MS has the financial resources to buy anything that threatens to dethrone Windows. That gives them the ability to move away from Windows to that Next Big Thing.
Seeking wealth built and sustains civilization. The logic, such as it is, of your kneejerk assertion would have all of us living in a presumed fantasy as hunter-gatherers in a state of ethical perfection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Greed may provoke antisocial behavior today, but do you doubt your distant ancestors did whatever it took to get their share of the latest kill, including stealing or murdering for it?
If MS has "sacrificed profit" to preserve its monopoly, it has been a short-term tactic in the interests of its long-term goal: profit.
Including IE with the OS, at no "extra" cost", was simply recognition of the fact that size of the market for selling a browser is effectively zero (or, no bigger than Opera's marketshare). Given the choice between trying to sell IE into a market dominated by the free Netscape browser, or to entice more Windows sales by bundling IE with the OS, MS made the choice to boost Windows sales and, hence, its profits.
If the primary objective was to maintain an OS monoploy, and if it believed Netscape was going to release a competitive OS (a doubtful proposition) the most direct course of action would have been to buy Netscape.
MSN and XBox represent less than wildly successful ventures by MS, not deliberate efforts to maintain a monopoly at all costs. If that was the case, they'd simply give away Xbox units and MSN accounts. They don't because their prinary objective is profit.
MS will do everything it can to maintain and increase its profits, like any other business. Those profts depend, today, on Windows. But MS has the means and the ability to drop Windows, quickly, if and when it needs to move on to something different. It isn't about to maintain a monopoly if that cuts its profits.
Microsoft wants profit, not monopoly. Predictions and wish-fulfillment fantasies premised on the notion that the goal of of MS is, first and foremost, to preserve its effective OS monopoly, are wrong.
That monopoly certainly helps MS rake in the money, but it is only a means to an end.
I'm very skeptical about any proposed PC-successor that doesn't allow people to keep their software on their hardware. Likewise, I doubt people will allow tomorrow's equivalent of Time Warner or Verizon to remotely admin their hardware: Would you believe them when they claimed they won't look at your data?
That said, if something does emerge to threaten the personal computer, my guess is MS will use a portion of those tens of billions of dollars sitting in its coffers to buy its way out of obsolescence.
Slashdot Mirror
Passport Control at Heathrow routinely asked me why I was in the country and where I was staying when I flew in and out of there pre-911. That's fine; that's offical UK business.
Being asked by an airline to list the friends you'll be seeing is a different matter. If it this is, in fact, a TSA requirement, the TSA should acknowledge it.
And, if it is, was every other passenger on that flight asked the same question?
Hello? Anyone actually read anything?
TrekToday is actually reporting the showrunner's, Manny Coto, denial of the cancellation rumor. Rather the opposite of the Slashdot tease.
As for the alleged March production crew layoffs, Coto says Enterprise production always ends in March.
>>"...that they can get for cheaper then from..."
/. really doesn't use editors.
At last, proof that
Of course not. I'm arguing that all rights inherent in any created work come into existence simultaneously with that work's creation, and that those rights belong, exclusively, to thework's creator. The only possible way for anyone else to acquire any of those rights is by transfer from the work's creator.
This applies for any created work, not just those to which copyright law applies.
Copyright law typically asserts that the work's creator maintains those rights for a specificed period of time. If copyright law does not apply, as it does not to most of the things we make, then those rights are maintained in perpetuity.
This is only a rights issue if you believe people have the right to steal.
If the people selling those films wanted other people to have the right to make copies, they would have explicitly sold those rights. They are the source and origin of those rights. The only rights anyone else had in those films are the rights transfered to them from the film's creators.
Such opinions are usually trashed by the Luddite set around here. Of course, they can't present a convincing argyment that their rights to copy a copyrighted work come from someone other than the work's creator.
It's also not a technology issue. Cheers to the Hong Kong authorities for going after the people using the tool, not the tool itself.
What a breath of fresh air: common sense on Slashdot.
Claiming that this is a rights issue, and deliberately, and incorrectly, using the hot button phrase "big brother", is simple evidence of the pandering to bias and bigotry that Michael and the other phony editors at Slashdot have stooped to in order to keep up their count of page impressions.
The only difference between this and the stereotypical radio talk show hatemeisters are their political leanings. Slashdot is otherwise down in the cesspool with the best of them.
These calls are recorded to monitor and evaluate the performance of the employee who is talking to you. Since those people are hired specifically to speak with people on the telephone, it seems reasonable that their supervisor might listen in on occasion to assess their performance.
What you're talking about is not criminalization of IP violations, but the sentences imposed on anyone found guilty of those violations.
A forum like Slashdot is far too biased to expect any rational discussion of IP issues, since its so-called editors practice old fashioned yellow journalism (e.g., the headline for this story, which conveniently ignores the fact that the news piece it is leeching is talking about criminalizing IP in China). Real editors have a responsibility to understand that, otherwise, the mention of a U.S. official will lead readers to conclude the the U.S., not China, is the country at issue.)
Contrary to the ill-founded extreme positions typically taken here, it is possible to support copyright and oppose the efforts of the entertainment industry to distort the law. (For me, it boils down to the fact that I own what I make. You have no right to it unless I say so. That means if I want to make music and sell it you on a CD, I can retain the exclusive right to make copies of the music. You own the CD -- a round plastic thing -- but you don't own the music.
As for sentences, -- if copyright violatios were to be criminalized -- then one-off violations should be subject to minimal sentences or fines, if prosecuted at all. Large-scale operations, e.g. hosting and distributing content on websites, deserve large-sentences.
Of course, I'm the customer. Without customers, developers (on the slim chance that you actually are one) would not exist.
If you all know what we customers want, why aren't you providing it, rather than all the rubbish that's foisted off on us?
Political debates among developers and wanna-be developers are irrelevant to the real world.
I agree that free software follows an effective development model, but I don't accept that it has any advantages over closed source in relation to the creation of better and innovative software.
I don't see commerical developers reinventing the wheel. Rather, they have an incentive to develop and market products that are, in fact, new and innovative. Meanwhile, innovation may well be constrained by the free software culture's tendency to reuse and repackage existing tools, and to adhere to the "don't fix it if it isn't broke" adage.
Use of shared libraries is certainly not unique to free software. Access to source is not necessary to use a shared library; all this is required is publication of the libraries interface.
Static libraries, of course, have been common for decades in all platforms and environments.
Businesses lobbying Congress in their own interest isn't exactly news, is it? The Reuters piece at the link isn't useful: What specific legislation is involved, and how? My guess is that CNN chopped the story to fit.
In any case, the key word is "may". I'm a copyright supporter, but don't have much use either for the entertainment industry or folks who argue that copyright doesn't exist. Acquiring the name of someone who's illegally distributing copyrighted material -- on the net or elsewhere -- ought to require a subpoena issued only after presentation of convincing evidence linking a specific, but unidentified, person with specific copyrighted material.
No one should be able to go on a fishing expedition with ISP's, any more than they can go on a fishing expedition with printing press operators.
I don't steal software.
Nor do I own maya, ms office 2003, photoshop, macromedia studio, or adobe suite. If I wanted one of those, I'd buy them.
When I use Windows, I use something I bought.
Even by your specious argument, I have every right to express my opinion.
Along with everyone who is not a developer, I'm not likely to have any interest in three of those freedoms: Studying the source, redistributing copies, or changing the program for the benefit of the community.
So long as I can use the damn thing, those other 3 freedoms don't interest me.
I'm interested in using computers. I am not interested in writing code. (It's a parallel to watching TV: We all watch TV, but very few of us are interested in learning how to build a television.) Studying the source is of not interest to me, as is changing it.
As a corollary, I believe the only "community" that exists here is a small number of developers who support free software for ideological and political purposes. Otherwise, free software users are no more a community that are Windows users. (An analogy might the small number of vegetarians who actively lobby to for their dietary beliefs versus all the other folks who simply choose ti eat that way.)
I'm interested in more and better software. If some of that can come from free software developers, fine. If some of that can come from proprietary developers, fine. Frankly, though, little new and innovative software has been coming from either source for several years.
I don;t know the specifics of Apple's charges. I'm just asserting that (A) Apple has a right to sue, and (B) anyone publishing anything, on the web or elsewhere, needs to be aware of the consequences of that act.
Apple has the same right to sue as you or me, and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Think Secret doesn't deserve any extra protection simply because it chooses to publish online. It also doesn't deserve any less protection. Ditto for Apple. Apple has a right to its trade secrets.
If Apple can show that its legal rights were violated by Think Secret, then they likely win their suit. If they can't, they won't.
The argument that Apple's suit stifles protected free speech doesn't hold water. Apple is known for assertively protecting its rights, so no one can claim to be surprised by this suit. Whether or not Think Secret is the right target for this suit is another question.
Slashdot and its readers seem to believe that law and precedent don't apply to online publications simply because they use a different technology. That's not true, and it should not be true. Anyone who publishes alleged Apple trade secrets -- on the web or in your morning newspaper -- has to be either extremely naive or extremely foolhardy to imagine that Apple would not respond. That's why mainstream publications retain lawyers and insure they have the funds to defend themselves in court. Online publications need to be prepared to do the same thing.
Think Secret has every right to publish that story, and every right to retain the identity of its source. Apple has every right to to sue them.
Being prepared to defend your right to keep your sources secret and to defend your right to publish is a cost of doing business of any new publication. Think Secret and other online publications don't get a free pass, but neither should they be exempted from the same standards that apply to and protect traditional publications.
>> ...basically killed by cell phones and internet.
Wouldn't that apply only to people who saw ham radio as a means to an end -- talking -- but not to people who were interested in the technology itself? If someone can be lured away from ham radio by a cellphone, he couldn't have been much of a ham.
I'm not a ham, but it seems to me that there isn't much basis in fact for an assertion that amateur radio is "horribly outmoded".
My guess is that you think it has been made obsolete by the Internet. That strikes me as being palpably untrue, as well as a bit like saying the fact that so many people eat pizza means good restaurants are outmoded.
Two different technologies, two different sets of purposes and abilities.
>> High GPA is not a guarantee of strong performance in the "real world."
I didn't say it was a guarantee, or the only facotr I'd use in selecting employees. I said it was an indication of someone who was competitive and could succeed, even if that success came about because they cheated like hell, slept with their teachers, "played the grade game" by taking the easiest possible classes, etc., etc. The "real world" rewards more than just the ability to score high on tests.
So, if I was looking for a software developer, I'd likely tend to give more weight to a candidate with a 3.0 and a degree in computer science than I would a candidate with a 3.9 and a degree in veterinary science. But, that, alone, would not guarantee I'd hire the 3.0 or reject the 3.9.
And, for what it is worth, the only time I've actually ever noticed GPA's is when I was reading through a stack of resumes trying to decide who to interview. I typically had a limit on how many to call in for an interview, so I used GPA, along with other factors, to rank and stack the resumes. So, yes, it was important at that stage, but not later. Once I met an applicant, they were on there own.
>> ...such trivialties as GPA scores and well-roundedness, the very things comments here tend to think are overrated...
GPA scores and being well-rounded are trvial only if you have bad scores and a cardboard personality.
If I'm hiring someone, I want an employee who is competitive, someone who has the ability and the will to outperform his or her colleagues. A high GPA score tells me that person has already done exactly that in an academic environment. Why should I take the risk that someone with a mediocre score will suddenly decide to apply himself once he's on my payroll?
As for the well-rounded part...well, if you're boring, you're boring, OK? Given a choice, interesting is better.
1. "New" doesn't mean "superior". Your boss may buy something because he thinks those two words are synonymous, but they aren't.
2. Techies who argue "Windows is unusable" -- a palpable untruth --often do so simply to assert their own elitism. They just want us to know that they've defined themselves as too smart to use Windows. Conveniently, then, anyone who does use Windows is stupid. It's just a peacock display.
3. Techies who whine that businesses put profit before technology forget that profit spreads technology. If someone doesn't make and sell the stuff for a profit, how is it going to exist? Are all those good little techies going to devote their lives to making and giving away "stuff"?
4. People aren't mindless lab rats at the mercy of marketeers. Just because someone's ads try convince me I need something, why should I pay attention?
People aren't interested in "better" technology for its own sake. (And, "better" is usually a matter of debate. Just because techies think something is better, why should the rest of us agree? Or care?)
People buy "stuff" that that we can use to do whatever it is that we want to, preferably without breaking a sweat or needing to read a book first. Technical superiority, by itself, isn't much of a sales pitch. Why should I buy something that is "superior" if I know I won't use that "superiority"?
Techies like to say things like "Windows is unusable" (when most of the world uses it) or "corporations put profit above technology" (gee, do you think?). Just shows why a lot of them get along better with hardware than with people.
I've never believed that Netscape, HTMl, Javascript and Java were anywhere close to making the OS irrelevant. Not then, not now. None of notions about "internet and web standard technologies" have ever seriously challenged any OS, even where MS is not a factor, such as Linux and open source.
MS has the financial resources to buy anything that threatens to dethrone Windows. That gives them the ability to move away from Windows to that Next Big Thing.
Seeking wealth built and sustains civilization. The logic, such as it is, of your kneejerk assertion would have all of us living in a presumed fantasy as hunter-gatherers in a state of ethical perfection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Greed may provoke antisocial behavior today, but do you doubt your distant ancestors did whatever it took to get their share of the latest kill, including stealing or murdering for it?
If MS has "sacrificed profit" to preserve its monopoly, it has been a short-term tactic in the interests of its long-term goal: profit.
Including IE with the OS, at no "extra" cost", was simply recognition of the fact that size of the market for selling a browser is effectively zero (or, no bigger than Opera's marketshare). Given the choice between trying to sell IE into a market dominated by the free Netscape browser, or to entice more Windows sales by bundling IE with the OS, MS made the choice to boost Windows sales and, hence, its profits.
If the primary objective was to maintain an OS monoploy, and if it believed Netscape was going to release a competitive OS (a doubtful proposition) the most direct course of action would have been to buy Netscape.
MSN and XBox represent less than wildly successful ventures by MS, not deliberate efforts to maintain a monopoly at all costs. If that was the case, they'd simply give away Xbox units and MSN accounts. They don't because their prinary objective is profit.
MS will do everything it can to maintain and increase its profits, like any other business. Those profts depend, today, on Windows. But MS has the means and the ability to drop Windows, quickly, if and when it needs to move on to something different. It isn't about to maintain a monopoly if that cuts its profits.
Microsoft wants profit, not monopoly. Predictions and wish-fulfillment fantasies premised on the notion that the goal of of MS is, first and foremost, to preserve its effective OS monopoly, are wrong.
That monopoly certainly helps MS rake in the money, but it is only a means to an end.
I'm very skeptical about any proposed PC-successor that doesn't allow people to keep their software on their hardware. Likewise, I doubt people will allow tomorrow's equivalent of Time Warner or Verizon to remotely admin their hardware: Would you believe them when they claimed they won't look at your data?
That said, if something does emerge to threaten the personal computer, my guess is MS will use a portion of those tens of billions of dollars sitting in its coffers to buy its way out of obsolescence.