All good points, but I think everyone is missing the real point here. It was (probably) illegal for the company to release this information prior to an announced release time, but they screwed up, and had it on their server (again probably) with an easily guessed url. Reuters found the information, and dutifully published it. The information was released illegally, but the company doesn't want to take responsibility, so they HAVE to blame Reuters.
This is just more of the "It's somebody else's fault" culture.
Hard drives have been disposable parts for years. On the way into work today, my carpool partner was bringing in a hard drive he wanted to fix, and I asked him why he didn't just replace it. The (only possible) answer is that he's trying to recover some of the data. There is no other reason to repair a hard drive, warrantee or no.
Slashdot Mirror
All good points, but I think everyone is missing the real point here. It was (probably) illegal for the company to release this information prior to an announced release time, but they screwed up, and had it on their server (again probably) with an easily guessed url. Reuters found the information, and dutifully published it. The information was released illegally, but the company doesn't want to take responsibility, so they HAVE to blame Reuters. This is just more of the "It's somebody else's fault" culture.
Hard drives have been disposable parts for years. On the way into work today, my carpool partner was bringing in a hard drive he wanted to fix, and I asked him why he didn't just replace it. The (only possible) answer is that he's trying to recover some of the data. There is no other reason to repair a hard drive, warrantee or no.