Win32 still runs 16 bit applications and still runs on 32 bit processors. Since there were 32 bit CPU's designed to be Vista compatible, it makes sense to keep around the 32 bit version of Windows 10 so long as the operating system can still reasonably be run on those computers and CPUs.
Servers are a different matter entirely. Most of the new developments in Windows Server (like virtualization) require more than 4GB of RAM to run effectively. For legacy environments, an upgrade to Server 2008 will keep old servers running for several decades.
By contrast, my old tablet PC from 2005, which shipped "Vista compatible" with XP Tablet PC edition works very well (as well as can be expected) with Windows 7. It works very well as a test-system for doing things such as data logging and as a OneNote entry device at home (my other Tablet PC has a smaller, touch-sensitive LCD which makes it more ideal for mobile computing than sitting at my desk writing out equations).
Engineers have no problem understanding the old code versions. Windows 3.0 was a major upgrade from 2.0 whereas 3.1 was a minor upgrade and 3.11 was pretty much less than even a "service patch".
Consumers found it confusing so most companies got away from it. Microsoft uses the old naming scheme for the NT kernel but uses the consumer naming scheme for the average schmoe.
The actual kernel has only had one major upgrade since Windows 2000, which was Vista (6.0). The purpose is to let Microsoft engineers and other professionals know what version they are using (for instance, Windows 2012 and Windows 8 are both 6.2) and how extensively different the operating system is.
The actual names since the introduction of Windows 2000 are just marketing. This is common in software development, to have an internal version number separate from the marketing name.
They also don't have very good penetrating power and still rely on exposing people to dangerous ionizing radiation. It's not as if you can image someone's bones using the naturally-occurring X-rays in the environment, unless that person happens to be standing naked on the moon.
For $10, you can buy a radar-equipped stud-finder and use it to locate the frame behind your sheetrock.
Laser rangefinders can also locate distance to laser-reflective sources and there are many other similar technologies, such as those used in autofocus cameras.
I don't know of any portable technology that could be used to find a broken bone without exposing people to ionizing radiation, but I'm sure we'll figure it out one day.
--The multimeter could be an interesting device. But I'm not really sure what this will allow anyone to do. Sure it's all well and good that you can collect data with it, but you'll have to be able to interpret this data into something that's useful. --
The devices already all have uses, but scientific instruments are typically expensive. Something like this could potentially replace a whole lot of instruments, just as the multimeter did, and it could also be cheap enough to be useful for school or home science kit usage.
Basically, it already has a ton of usages right out of the box plus, if it achieves wide distribution, people will think up all kinds of new uses for it.
1. I have seen no evidence that Apple has increased the speed of its patching of security vulnerabilities since the study was conducted (this latest patch delay being just one example). Do you have any evidence that Apple has changed?
2. Red Hat is the best-supported corporate Desktop Linux distro, so it makes since to use them as a base of comparison as opposed to something more consumer-oriented like Ubuntu.
3. Multiple other studies have show that Apple lags behind in fixing security flaws.[1] [2]
Do you have any actual quantitative data to present to provide some context or counterpoint to the data I have presented, because speculation and cherry-picking is not really a valid criticism. The truth is in the numbers.
The OS X BASH vulnerability patch is still not available as an automatic update whereas most Linux repositories had one available within 72 hours of the exploit. Studies of operating system security show that vulnerabilities in OSX persist the longest without being patched (assuming you discount big server OS's like Solaris) while Windows is patched the quickest. [1]
It shows a huge difference in attitudes, in my opinion. Microsoft is enterprise focused, so they take security vulnerabilities very seriously. Apple is consumer focused, so they consider security to be a luxury that few of their customers care about.
Sure, but how many server administrators are going to actually update? Linux has a reputation of updates breaking builds and I suspect a lot of budget server administrators don't touch the updates on their Linux boxes once they go live for fear of borking them.
. . . it seems the law is not intended to go after residents who "waste food." It is intended to go after residents who put significant amounts of food into the trash bin instead of the food/yard waste bin, the same way it already went after people who were throwing away large amounts of recyclable glasses or cans.
Engineers can be producers of science instead of consumers of science. If you are creating a design and then testing it empirically under relatively controlled conditions to determine if it works, then you are doing science. We just call it engineering if the results are artificial and practical.
If the core has a lot of young, hot stars then it could certainly sterilize a galaxy, especially a small one (I haven't done the calculations myself, but I suspect they would back me up if I did do them).
Our galaxy is middle aged and very large, so we are probably not in so much danger out here in the galactic suburbs.
Master shipwrights built naval vessels for centuries while knowing little of nautical engineering. Engineers are the guys who design things using science, not the guys who create something with their own two hands. Those are artisans and craftsmen. Some engineers are craftsmen, but many if not most have clean nails.
I don't think you get to define what science is and what it is not. Words are based on usage, and the usage of the word science encompasses the following:
1. The philosophy of science (that is, how philosophers, scientists, and the public believe science is or should be carried out). 2. The actual practice of science (what scientists actually do in reality) 3. The sociology of science (how scientists actually behave as a community in relation to each other, e.g. : how they are educated, how they work, how they behave at conferences, how they behave in published journals. . . et cetera) 4. The body of knowledge of science (i.e. what knowledge we have that is considered both by scientists and non-scientists to be scientific).
Aristotle was the first Greek famous for actually gathering empirical evidence and Galileo's experimentation with dropping objects from towers is largely believed to be apocryphal. Most likely, it was the result of a thought experiment.
1. Science is the pursuit of Truth (with a capital "T"), which is the philosophical concept that there is some "right" answer. We can see Truth as a limiting factor. We tend to approach Truth over time, but science does not allow us to know or believe we have achieved it. Rather, science believes it has achieved a working model of Truth, which is good enough until something better comes along.
2. If you can figure out a way to do physics without 14 years of mathematics education or biochemistry without using arcane jargon, please inform us because it would truly be a wonder.
3. Almost every major scientific achievement was done, in some part, by using "high school math", and it absolutely is science. There are limitations to what can be concluded by statistical correlation and if the public does not understand that, it is because the media needs to hire better science writers.
4. Scientific knowledge can inform public policy and, to some degree, can also test public policy. For instance, we used science to figure out that CFC's were damaging the Earth's Ozone layer. We used science to predict what kind of long-term damage it would cause, and science to determine public policies that could lead to a more desirable outcome. Then we used science to confirm that the public policies were achieving the desired effect.
This is really excellent advice. Once you're in the "industry" so to speak, you start building your resume and can pursue learning on your own time, and usually these jobs have flexible hours.
Also, it is worth noting that if you have a background in computer science, you can usually start working right away on research projects if you go back to school, because a lot of students who want to do research, even if they have the necessary physics and astronomy knowledge, struggle with coding programs to analyze the data so many researchers are happier to teach an undergraduate or MS student to do science rather than teaching them to do programming.
OSX is very popular in astronomy because of the combination of commercial and open-source tools available for it: i.e. you can run Word, Excel, Matlab, Mathematica, IDL, iraf, ds9, et cetera.
Personally, I prefer Windows and I have found a combination of Windows and Ubuntu can combine to run pretty much anything. Technically, you can get most UNIX software that astronomers use working under Cygwin, but it can be a real hassle (getting working under Ubuntu and OSX can also be problematic).
However, I have to say that hands-down, the best two planetarium programs out there are:
1) Microsoft Worldwide Telescope. This is free software that gives you access to huge astronomical databases. This program is used by the most advanced planetariums in the world. The downsides are that it requires a constant internet connection, Windows 7 or better (there is a java version that lacks most of the best features), a good graphical coprocessor or two (this program is used to drive some of the highest-resolution screens in the world so it can be GPU intensive depending on your setup and may be unsuitable for laptops without a good discrete GPU), and the level of customization of some programs.
2) Starry Night: this is a great program, but it is also expensive and OSX and Windows only.
Open source planetarium programs range from mediocre to quite excellent. The ones you mention are probably some of the best, along with KDEStars.
It's hard to get too far in astronomy or astrophysics without some kind of UNIX access, whether it be cygwin, OS X (seems to be the most popular), Linux dual-boot/VM/discrete workstation, or UNIX server access (Solaris/ HP-UX/BSD seems mostly to have died in physics/astronomy except for big servers or legacy workstations).
Absolutely this sounds like an awesome program, but keep in mind that if you don't have an undergraduate degree in physics, astronomy, or something similar, you are going to have a hard time continuing with your studies after you complete this particular MSc, because you will not have the mathematical or physics skills required for most research-based positions as well as having little or no research experience. This means that if you wanted to continue on, you would probably have to go back to school to get an MSr in physics or something similar.
On the other hand, there are quite a number of jobs in astronomy that probably do not require strong mathematical rigor, such as teaching high school astronomy, teaching GE astronomy at a 2 year college, being a science writer, and certain technical jobs in astronomy.
That's not really true. I would say that astronomy and astrophysics classes typically had between 5-20 students, probably averaging around 12. At the PhD level (which you need to obtain to train astronomers and astronomy teachers), it might actually be less than one astronomy/astrophysics student per PhD-holder. There are a lot of people who get an astronomy/astrophysics degree at the undergraduate and graduate level who do not get a PhD or do not teach university students. Some teach primary, secondary, and post-secondary students like at high schools or junior colleges. Some work in the civilian and military government sectors. Some apply their astronomy skills toward writing financial algorithms for big traders and banks. Some have academic positions with little or no teaching responsibilities. Some work for non-profits like science museums and research centers. Some become science communicators or facilitators, either to the public or among scientists.
There are probably around 10,000 professional astronomers in the US. There are maybe 100-300 astronomy and astrophysics PhD's awarded each year. There are not a lot of jobs, but there is not a lot of competition either, especially when you consider the number of GE astronomy classes offered at universities and colleges across the US. At the very least, you could probably find a job as a lecturer without too many problems.
. . . and drawing conclusions. Most of astrophysics is creating models based on a deep understanding of the physics involved in astronomical objects. In both cases, it boils down primarily to having a good understanding of the physics of what you are doing and being good with computer programming and analyzing data.
The barrier for entry is theoretically really low, because most people have a fast computer. But can you really learn years of physics and astronomy as well as analytical techniques on your own? Quite possibly, especially if you already took the whole lower division math and physics courses as part of another degree (3 Semesters of Physics, 3 semesters of calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, computer programming for science and engineering, statistics). A lot of astronomy is done with the data already available from first class telescopes such as the Hubble and you could probably read all the basic undergraduate and introductory graduate texts on your own.
On the other hand, if you're coming into the field with no background in math and physics, it's going to be tough to read books full of differential equations, triple integrals, and electromechanics. Could you learn all that math and physics background on your own? Possibly, but you'd probably be best served with night school at the JC.
On the other hand, amateur astronomy can be fun. You can collaborate with professional astronomers on projects, and you can learn at your own pace without getting bogged down in the details right away. It is a lot more fun to look at Orion nebula through a 12" scope than it is to calibrate it for spectroscopy or photometry and analyze the data.
Education in the US is like media in the digital age. When you have the potential for unlimited consumption, you do not appreciate what you have. Only when it is a scarce commodity does a population appreciate the value of education.
Presuming that you subscribe to the notion that uploading child pornography should be a crime (which indeed it is by federal law), then it is not unreasonable to open an investigation into any computer located in the US which is openly offering to upload child pornography.
There is nothing wrong with "casting a wide net" in a situation like this, because the only IP's you are going to snag are those used to commit crimes. I would see it as similar to installing a license plate reader at a toll plaza that triggers an alarm when a stolen car passes by.
Now, there are some specific issues I think are relevant.
1) There is not a lot of evidence that most people who share this material are actually involved in harming children in any way.
2) Even being accused of such a crime can cause irreparable harm to someone.
3) Many of the IP's involved may be compromised in some way or used by someone who is not the owner, someone likely to suffer significant social, legal, financial, and occupational consequences even if the charges are dismissed.
But those concerns aside, what the agent did was perfectly appropriate and lawful. The conviction was thrown out not because "casting a wide net" in this regard is unconstitutional, but because he did not have law enforcement authority over civilians per the federal code, so basically, it was thrown out on a technicality designed to keep the military out of police work.
The old Windows CE based OS's were the most open devices on the market, but with the new OS, Microsoft has gone the Apple route, which is a shame.
The new Windows Phones are very friendly to the unsophisticated consumer, perhaps even more so than the iPhone, but they were so slow to react to the iPhone and lost so much market share that I'm not sure the product will ever be the success it once was.
That said, it is smart to integrate Windows RT and Windows Phone.
Their biggest challenge is to convince developers to actually release for this OS. They are far behind since deciding to kill off open development and switch to the iOS model of software sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Win32 still runs 16 bit applications and still runs on 32 bit processors. Since there were 32 bit CPU's designed to be Vista compatible, it makes sense to keep around the 32 bit version of Windows 10 so long as the operating system can still reasonably be run on those computers and CPUs.
Servers are a different matter entirely. Most of the new developments in Windows Server (like virtualization) require more than 4GB of RAM to run effectively. For legacy environments, an upgrade to Server 2008 will keep old servers running for several decades.
By contrast, my old tablet PC from 2005, which shipped "Vista compatible" with XP Tablet PC edition works very well (as well as can be expected) with Windows 7. It works very well as a test-system for doing things such as data logging and as a OneNote entry device at home (my other Tablet PC has a smaller, touch-sensitive LCD which makes it more ideal for mobile computing than sitting at my desk writing out equations).
Engineers have no problem understanding the old code versions. Windows 3.0 was a major upgrade from 2.0 whereas 3.1 was a minor upgrade and 3.11 was pretty much less than even a "service patch".
Consumers found it confusing so most companies got away from it. Microsoft uses the old naming scheme for the NT kernel but uses the consumer naming scheme for the average schmoe.
The actual kernel has only had one major upgrade since Windows 2000, which was Vista (6.0). The purpose is to let Microsoft engineers and other professionals know what version they are using (for instance, Windows 2012 and Windows 8 are both 6.2) and how extensively different the operating system is.
The actual names since the introduction of Windows 2000 are just marketing. This is common in software development, to have an internal version number separate from the marketing name.
They also don't have very good penetrating power and still rely on exposing people to dangerous ionizing radiation. It's not as if you can image someone's bones using the naturally-occurring X-rays in the environment, unless that person happens to be standing naked on the moon.
For $10, you can buy a radar-equipped stud-finder and use it to locate the frame behind your sheetrock.
Laser rangefinders can also locate distance to laser-reflective sources and there are many other similar technologies, such as those used in autofocus cameras.
I don't know of any portable technology that could be used to find a broken bone without exposing people to ionizing radiation, but I'm sure we'll figure it out one day.
--The multimeter could be an interesting device. But I'm not really sure what this will allow anyone to do. Sure it's all well and good that you can collect data with it, but you'll have to be able to interpret this data into something that's useful. --
The devices already all have uses, but scientific instruments are typically expensive. Something like this could potentially replace a whole lot of instruments, just as the multimeter did, and it could also be cheap enough to be useful for school or home science kit usage.
Basically, it already has a ton of usages right out of the box plus, if it achieves wide distribution, people will think up all kinds of new uses for it.
1. I have seen no evidence that Apple has increased the speed of its patching of security vulnerabilities since the study was conducted (this latest patch delay being just one example). Do you have any evidence that Apple has changed?
2. Red Hat is the best-supported corporate Desktop Linux distro, so it makes since to use them as a base of comparison as opposed to something more consumer-oriented like Ubuntu.
3. Multiple other studies have show that Apple lags behind in fixing security flaws.[1] [2]
Do you have any actual quantitative data to present to provide some context or counterpoint to the data I have presented, because speculation and cherry-picking is not really a valid criticism. The truth is in the numbers.
SOURCES:
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
[2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/secu...
The OS X BASH vulnerability patch is still not available as an automatic update whereas most Linux repositories had one available within 72 hours of the exploit. Studies of operating system security show that vulnerabilities in OSX persist the longest without being patched (assuming you discount big server OS's like Solaris) while Windows is patched the quickest. [1]
It shows a huge difference in attitudes, in my opinion. Microsoft is enterprise focused, so they take security vulnerabilities very seriously. Apple is consumer focused, so they consider security to be a luxury that few of their customers care about.
[1]
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2...
Sure, but how many server administrators are going to actually update? Linux has a reputation of updates breaking builds and I suspect a lot of budget server administrators don't touch the updates on their Linux boxes once they go live for fear of borking them.
. . . until they do.
With more Apple computers running in high-value commercial enterprises, one has to wonder why they are so lax about security.
. . . it seems the law is not intended to go after residents who "waste food." It is intended to go after residents who put significant amounts of food into the trash bin instead of the food/yard waste bin, the same way it already went after people who were throwing away large amounts of recyclable glasses or cans.
Engineers can be producers of science instead of consumers of science. If you are creating a design and then testing it empirically under relatively controlled conditions to determine if it works, then you are doing science. We just call it engineering if the results are artificial and practical.
If the core has a lot of young, hot stars then it could certainly sterilize a galaxy, especially a small one (I haven't done the calculations myself, but I suspect they would back me up if I did do them).
Our galaxy is middle aged and very large, so we are probably not in so much danger out here in the galactic suburbs.
That is not engineering. That is craftsmanship.
Master shipwrights built naval vessels for centuries while knowing little of nautical engineering. Engineers are the guys who design things using science, not the guys who create something with their own two hands. Those are artisans and craftsmen. Some engineers are craftsmen, but many if not most have clean nails.
Science gives us engineering, ergo, science gives us airplanes.
A->B, B->C, => A->C
I don't think you get to define what science is and what it is not. Words are based on usage, and the usage of the word science encompasses the following:
1. The philosophy of science (that is, how philosophers, scientists, and the public believe science is or should be carried out).
2. The actual practice of science (what scientists actually do in reality)
3. The sociology of science (how scientists actually behave as a community in relation to each other, e.g. : how they are educated, how they work, how they behave at conferences, how they behave in published journals. . . et cetera)
4. The body of knowledge of science (i.e. what knowledge we have that is considered both by scientists and non-scientists to be scientific).
Aristotle was the first Greek famous for actually gathering empirical evidence and Galileo's experimentation with dropping objects from towers is largely believed to be apocryphal. Most likely, it was the result of a thought experiment.
1. Science is the pursuit of Truth (with a capital "T"), which is the philosophical concept that there is some "right" answer. We can see Truth as a limiting factor. We tend to approach Truth over time, but science does not allow us to know or believe we have achieved it. Rather, science believes it has achieved a working model of Truth, which is good enough until something better comes along.
2. If you can figure out a way to do physics without 14 years of mathematics education or biochemistry without using arcane jargon, please inform us because it would truly be a wonder.
3. Almost every major scientific achievement was done, in some part, by using "high school math", and it absolutely is science. There are limitations to what can be concluded by statistical correlation and if the public does not understand that, it is because the media needs to hire better science writers.
4. Scientific knowledge can inform public policy and, to some degree, can also test public policy. For instance, we used science to figure out that CFC's were damaging the Earth's Ozone layer. We used science to predict what kind of long-term damage it would cause, and science to determine public policies that could lead to a more desirable outcome. Then we used science to confirm that the public policies were achieving the desired effect.
This is really excellent advice. Once you're in the "industry" so to speak, you start building your resume and can pursue learning on your own time, and usually these jobs have flexible hours.
Also, it is worth noting that if you have a background in computer science, you can usually start working right away on research projects if you go back to school, because a lot of students who want to do research, even if they have the necessary physics and astronomy knowledge, struggle with coding programs to analyze the data so many researchers are happier to teach an undergraduate or MS student to do science rather than teaching them to do programming.
OSX is very popular in astronomy because of the combination of commercial and open-source tools available for it: i.e. you can run Word, Excel, Matlab, Mathematica, IDL, iraf, ds9, et cetera.
Personally, I prefer Windows and I have found a combination of Windows and Ubuntu can combine to run pretty much anything. Technically, you can get most UNIX software that astronomers use working under Cygwin, but it can be a real hassle (getting working under Ubuntu and OSX can also be problematic).
However, I have to say that hands-down, the best two planetarium programs out there are:
1) Microsoft Worldwide Telescope. This is free software that gives you access to huge astronomical databases. This program is used by the most advanced planetariums in the world. The downsides are that it requires a constant internet connection, Windows 7 or better (there is a java version that lacks most of the best features), a good graphical coprocessor or two (this program is used to drive some of the highest-resolution screens in the world so it can be GPU intensive depending on your setup and may be unsuitable for laptops without a good discrete GPU), and the level of customization of some programs.
2) Starry Night: this is a great program, but it is also expensive and OSX and Windows only.
Open source planetarium programs range from mediocre to quite excellent. The ones you mention are probably some of the best, along with KDEStars.
It's hard to get too far in astronomy or astrophysics without some kind of UNIX access, whether it be cygwin, OS X (seems to be the most popular), Linux dual-boot/VM/discrete workstation, or UNIX server access (Solaris/ HP-UX/BSD seems mostly to have died in physics/astronomy except for big servers or legacy workstations).
Absolutely this sounds like an awesome program, but keep in mind that if you don't have an undergraduate degree in physics, astronomy, or something similar, you are going to have a hard time continuing with your studies after you complete this particular MSc, because you will not have the mathematical or physics skills required for most research-based positions as well as having little or no research experience. This means that if you wanted to continue on, you would probably have to go back to school to get an MSr in physics or something similar.
On the other hand, there are quite a number of jobs in astronomy that probably do not require strong mathematical rigor, such as teaching high school astronomy, teaching GE astronomy at a 2 year college, being a science writer, and certain technical jobs in astronomy.
That's not really true. I would say that astronomy and astrophysics classes typically had between 5-20 students, probably averaging around 12. At the PhD level (which you need to obtain to train astronomers and astronomy teachers), it might actually be less than one astronomy/astrophysics student per PhD-holder. There are a lot of people who get an astronomy/astrophysics degree at the undergraduate and graduate level who do not get a PhD or do not teach university students. Some teach primary, secondary, and post-secondary students like at high schools or junior colleges. Some work in the civilian and military government sectors. Some apply their astronomy skills toward writing financial algorithms for big traders and banks. Some have academic positions with little or no teaching responsibilities. Some work for non-profits like science museums and research centers. Some become science communicators or facilitators, either to the public or among scientists.
There are probably around 10,000 professional astronomers in the US. There are maybe 100-300 astronomy and astrophysics PhD's awarded each year. There are not a lot of jobs, but there is not a lot of competition either, especially when you consider the number of GE astronomy classes offered at universities and colleges across the US. At the very least, you could probably find a job as a lecturer without too many problems.
. . . and drawing conclusions. Most of astrophysics is creating models based on a deep understanding of the physics involved in astronomical objects. In both cases, it boils down primarily to having a good understanding of the physics of what you are doing and being good with computer programming and analyzing data.
The barrier for entry is theoretically really low, because most people have a fast computer. But can you really learn years of physics and astronomy as well as analytical techniques on your own? Quite possibly, especially if you already took the whole lower division math and physics courses as part of another degree (3 Semesters of Physics, 3 semesters of calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, computer programming for science and engineering, statistics). A lot of astronomy is done with the data already available from first class telescopes such as the Hubble and you could probably read all the basic undergraduate and introductory graduate texts on your own.
On the other hand, if you're coming into the field with no background in math and physics, it's going to be tough to read books full of differential equations, triple integrals, and electromechanics. Could you learn all that math and physics background on your own? Possibly, but you'd probably be best served with night school at the JC.
On the other hand, amateur astronomy can be fun. You can collaborate with professional astronomers on projects, and you can learn at your own pace without getting bogged down in the details right away. It is a lot more fun to look at Orion nebula through a 12" scope than it is to calibrate it for spectroscopy or photometry and analyze the data.
. . . school's out forever!
Education in the US is like media in the digital age. When you have the potential for unlimited consumption, you do not appreciate what you have. Only when it is a scarce commodity does a population appreciate the value of education.
I disagree.
Presuming that you subscribe to the notion that uploading child pornography should be a crime (which indeed it is by federal law), then it is not unreasonable to open an investigation into any computer located in the US which is openly offering to upload child pornography.
There is nothing wrong with "casting a wide net" in a situation like this, because the only IP's you are going to snag are those used to commit crimes. I would see it as similar to installing a license plate reader at a toll plaza that triggers an alarm when a stolen car passes by.
Now, there are some specific issues I think are relevant.
1) There is not a lot of evidence that most people who share this material are actually involved in harming children in any way.
2) Even being accused of such a crime can cause irreparable harm to someone.
3) Many of the IP's involved may be compromised in some way or used by someone who is not the owner, someone likely to suffer significant social, legal, financial, and occupational consequences even if the charges are dismissed.
But those concerns aside, what the agent did was perfectly appropriate and lawful. The conviction was thrown out not because "casting a wide net" in this regard is unconstitutional, but because he did not have law enforcement authority over civilians per the federal code, so basically, it was thrown out on a technicality designed to keep the military out of police work.
The old Windows CE based OS's were the most open devices on the market, but with the new OS, Microsoft has gone the Apple route, which is a shame.
The new Windows Phones are very friendly to the unsophisticated consumer, perhaps even more so than the iPhone, but they were so slow to react to the iPhone and lost so much market share that I'm not sure the product will ever be the success it once was.
That said, it is smart to integrate Windows RT and Windows Phone.
Their biggest challenge is to convince developers to actually release for this OS. They are far behind since deciding to kill off open development and switch to the iOS model of software sales.