I just grabbed numbers from Wikipedia. I don't claim that they're precise, only that they're all a heck of a lot larger than 115 million.
I think the high-end estimates for "Christianity", though, often include groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., whose beliefs most Christians would not consider to fall within (or even necessarily close to) the bounds of theological orthodoxy.
How are you defining a "major religion"? Christianity has around 2 billion adherents, Islam around 1.5 billion, Hinduism around a billion, Buddhism around half a billion... other than Judaism, what major religions can count less than 115 million people?
I'm not saying the USPTO doesn't need to reform its approach to granting patents that should be rejected for being obvious, but I think AC has a good point too: the concept of patents isn't going away anytime soon, and is the legal reality we have to work with. Google can continue to live in a dream world and pay the price of ignoring patents, or can come to terms with that reality and pay the lesser price of licensing them. Those are the options, in the real world.
(Posting AC because I'm at work, not because I'm going to get modded into the stone age for what I'm about to say...)
Too bad: your post deserves to be modded up +5 Insightful.
Google... described its filing with European regulators as a pre-emptive measure against a developing legal hazard for Android partners. The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android...
Um, if there's a legal hazard in using Android, maybe that means Google/manufacturer's should license patents from Microsoft (or others). I know the current belief on/. is that everybody should be able to make whatever they want, even if they copy someone else's work but, ignoring whether or not I agree with that view, that's simply not how the world works. Sorry - it isn't. The world works such that, if you invent it and you patent it, you have the right to get paid when someone else uses it (or outright block them from using it for a time). You may not like that, and many don't, but that's how the world works. Not just the US - the world. Google may view that as a problem but the solution is simple - build Android so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or license the patents so that there's no legal risk.
I know I'll be in the minority on this one but, sorry - the system is what the system is. It's simple, design around the patent or license it. Or don't and deal with the consequences.
Great idea, except it doesn't work that way. Season 2 won't be available on those services here until HBO releases the DVDs, just as Season 1 wasn't. It's exactly like the Oatmeal comic on the topic:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
If shows were all PPV, expect nothing but "sure things" to be produced.
Movies are all PPV... and there are higher budgets there than on TV. And TV series are produced based on speculation that they'll get ratings and sell advertizing and/or future DVD copies. There's always a risk involved in producing something, whatever the distribution method.
True, though it has long been possible with SkyDrive in Windows to simply map a network drive (open a SkyDrive file in Office on your computer, then choose save-as to get the URL for the file share) and use offline files to sync. Essentially that's all the new client does, just without any manual hacking required.
Go and learn about 20th century history, paying special attention to the distinctions between free democratic societies and those with totalitarian Communist regimes. As for your attempt at trolling with religion vs science, I'll simply note that it's not only a false dichotomy, but your facts are all wrong there too.
You're assuming that culture and political systems play no role. The USA has major advantages in both areas that continue to more than offset China's advantages in sheer numbers.
That's entirely possible; I am about to get married, so that probably hurts my Geek cred a bit. I'm not, however, unfamiliar with various works of speculative fiction having some fictional religious order running things and/or preserving knowledge in a dystopian future. The current Psalms of Isaak series by Ken Scholes (Lamentation, Canticle, Antiphon,...) is another example, though set on a fictional world as well not just in a fictional future. I did, however, find the presumptive priorities/priories typo amusing, and if there's a current meme that priories actually control the modern internet, I've missed that one. Was just going for a chuckle there, but thanks for the literary advice.
OK, perhaps "very rare" was too strong a choice of words; my point was that they're rare enough to be valuable, and generally script kiddies and the like don't have piles of them sitting around. And yes I'm aware of the redundancy there; it seemed the best way to get the vendor's names into the sentence though. Either way, the point is that most malware exploits happening in the wild are making use of vulnerabilities that have patches available, regardless of your choice of platform.
Priories? I've heard of Trappist beers and other contributions from monasteries, but never before encountered the theory that monks and/or nuns are running the internet.
All I'm arguing for is an accurate understanding of exactly what the decision was and the actual logic behind it (and resulting exceptions), without all the hyperbole and conspiracy theories that keep getting bandied about. I haven't commented on whether I wish it were different or not; I'm just pointing out how it actually is, as opposed to the "ZOMG!!eleventy-one! The sky is falling! The Supreme Court ordered that everyone in the country be strip searched daily!" nonsense. Not that the parent I replied to was guilty of quite that level of hyperbole, but still, the actual Opinion in question is being ignored by most commentators, who are instead relying on sensationalist stories put out by media agencies looking to bump ratings/revenue. What I'm arguing for is actually reading, understanding, and discussing what the decision was in reality as opposed to sensationalized caricatures of it.
To be fair this is a Java exploit, and it's already been closed by Apple.
The dullard users are probably receiving security updates automatically, and so they'd have been updated as of Tuesday.
To be fair, that's true of almost all malware that propagates in the wild on Windows-based systems too. Zero-days that haven't been patched by Microsoft/Apple/et al. are very rare on any platform, and usually only available to organizations with resources on the level nation states or the like for espionage/cyber-warfare purposes (c.f. Stuxnet).
You might try reading the opinion; virtually everything you said is factually incorrect.
The fellow had priors for obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon after having run from the cops in the past (he plead guilty to lesser charges), and was arrested on a bench warrant that (due to a clerical error) was still in existence for later unpaid tickets (which had since been paid). Neither side contested the question of whether he should've gone into the general population given his arrest (there was no other option, since he was arrested on a warrant, not merely detained for a traffic violation).
They don't argue that every inmate going into general population requires a strip search. The Court did say that deference to the judgment of jail administrators is needed in cases where they're not clearly in the wrong, and they said that a jail choosing to conduct such searches (for contraband, injury, delousing, detection of gang tattoos, and similar purposes) is not unreasonable for prisoners being put into the general population. Quite the opposite of suggesting that such a search be mandated, they did suggest that there are situations where it would not be appropriate, though in general it is up to the discretion of the officers involved.
See, for instance, Part IV:
This case does not require the Court to rule on the types of searches that would be reasonable in instances where, for example, a detainee will be held without assignment to the general jail population and without substantial contact with other detainees. This describes the circumstances in Atwater. See 532 U. S., at 324 (“Officers took Atwater’s ‘mug shot’ and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond”). The accommodations provided in these situations may diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches at issue. Cf. United States Brief 30 (discussing the segregation, and less invasive searches, of individuals held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for misdemeanors or civil contempt). The circumstances before the Court, however, do not present the opportunity to consider a narrow exception of the sort JUSTICE ALITO describes, post, at 2–3 (concurring opinion), which might restrict whether an arrestee whose detention has not yet been reviewed by a magistrate or other judicial officer,and who can be held in available facilities removed from the general population, may be subjected to the types of searches at issue here.
Petitioner’s amici raise concerns about instances of officers engaging in intentional humiliation and other abusive practices. See Brief for Sister Bernie Galvin et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Hudson, 468 U. S., at 528 (“[I]ntentional harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated by a civilized society”); Bell, 441 U. S., at 560. There also may be legitimate concerns about the invasiveness of searches that involve the touching of detainees. These issues are not implicated on the facts of this case, however, and it is unnecessary to consider them here.
And in Alito's concurring opinion:
It is important to note, however, that the Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population. Most of those arrested for minor offenses are not dangerous, and most are released from custody prior to or at the time of their initial appearance before a magistrate. In some cases, the charges are dropped. In others, arrestees are released either on their own recognizance or on minimal bail. In the end, few are sentenced to incarceration. For these persons, admission to the general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of a strip search, may not be reasonable, particularly if an alternative procedure is feasible.
Read the actual decision and Roberts and Alito's concurring opinions. The logic is that the people are being put into the population of prisons/jails with other prisoners, and thus could pose a risk (whether it be contraband, lice, disease, gang membership, etc.), and thus the jailers are justified in subjecting them to a strip search. It's not an issue where specific cause for a search is needed as is the case for those who haven't been arrested, but that the prison officials have a reasonable grounds for searching people before admitting them to the general population. Roberts and Alito wrote separate supporting statements in order to emphasize that the logic behind the decision revolves around the people being admitted to the general population of prisoners, and thus there is room for an exception in a case where someone is arrested but is not being put into the general prison population (for whatever reason).
"This case does not require the Court to rule on the types of searches that would be reasonable in instances where, for example, a detainee will be held without assignment to the general jail population and without substantial contact with other detainees. This describes the circumstances in Atwater. See 532 U. S., at 324 (“Officers took Atwater’s ‘mug shot’ and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond”). The accommodations provided in these situations may diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches at issue." -majority opinion (delivered by Kennedy)
"It is important to note, however, that the Court does nothold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population." -Alito's concurring opinion. He goes on to mention people detained on minor traffic stops (rather than an arrest warrant as in this case) who could be released to their own recognizance.
As for prison vs jail semantics, the distinction is usually that the former are state or federal institutions while the latter are local (city/county) institutions; both are, by definition, places of confinement for prisoners, and the ruling would apply in either case. The due process challenge would not likely be raised in the case of a state or federal prison since they usually house only convicts and not people awaiting trial, but the distinction is immaterial here. (Quoting from the decision: "The term “jail” is used here in a broad sense to include prisons and other detention facilities.")
The Supreme Court did not approve strip searches for "any arrestable offense." It approved them for anyone being put into the general prison population who, at the judgment of officials running said institution, need to be searched for health and safety reasons. Several justices wrote in attached opinions that the ruling does not necessarily apply to people who are arrested but will not be put into the general prison population. It's not "anyone who could be arrested" that may be strip searched: it's "anyone who's going to be put into the jail with other prisoners."
(Also, I actually do sometimes use Excel on my Windows Phone to enter values of measurements into a pre-existing spreadsheet I've got sitting on SkyDrive when out in the lab, instead of lugging the laptop out there. I then do whatever analysis I want to on the laptop, with the bigger screen and keyboard/mouse UI)
Yes, because we all know that using a touch interface for an accounting/data entry application makes so much sense. Bookkeepers, payroll, receivable and payables clerks do regular data entry. Is Microsoft really saying that moving hands from a keyboard to the screen and back again is the most efficient way to do that? This is an accounting application for mid to large businesses. Tablet and touch interfaces are fine for consumers of data, but by it's very nature, this is a producer of data.
No, but the desktop UI is still present (except on WOA tablet/mobile devices); the only major change when you're using desktop productivity software (e.g. x86/64 Office instead of WOA "Metro" Office) is that the start menu is full-screen when you hit the Windows key, instead of filling only a portion of it. The desktop UI is still keyboard/mouse focused (though touch-enabled just as Win7); Metro UI is touch-centric.
I imagine touchscreen laptops will become a bit more commonplace once Win8 hits the market though, and some of those clerks may take their hands to the screen and back rather than to the mouse and back to navigate amongst different applications, etc. That is, they may use the touchscreen to launch Excel, but they're sure to use the keyboard to do data entry. Whether the touchscreen or mouse is their preferred pointing device will probably come down to the individual user's preference.
Note that the restriction applies to certain divisions/classes of staff, and developers aren't among them. Salespeople don't need to purchase iPads. Developers might... Microsoft has released several smaller iOS apps (e.g. PhotoSynth); the question isn't whether they can develop for a competing platform, but whether it makes sense to shoot themselves in the foot by doing so at the expense of their own platforms. With WOA in Win8, there's an obvious tablet focus, and Office 15 is included with WOA versions of Win8, which implies that it could be a significant distinguishing feature: the message could end up being that Windows has Office and works well for content generation, while iOS is just for consumption, i.e. browsing, movies/games, etc. Not sure which strategy is best, but there is some logic to that one.
I think a key thing they're focusing on that you might not be is optimizing the UI for touch, rather than keyboard/mouse user inputs. On traditional desktop/laptop form factors, I would agree that Win8 would not be compelling, and Win7 is probably preferable. On a touch-capable device, though, the pendulum swings the other direction.
I think Win8/WP8 (or their successors, at least, possibly Win8.5/WP8.5) stand a real chance of succeeding. The Metro UI is stark and the aesthetic isn't immediately appealing to many. But having switched to a WP7/7.5 device, I have to say that for actual usability it beats the socks off iOS and Android's UIs. That's not, of course, a guarantee of market success, as they still have a very real problem of getting people to even be willing to give it a try. But Microsoft appears to be in this for the long haul, and the Win8/WP8 tie-ins could give them significant inroads. They're taking a risk, of course, but I wouldn't bet against them in the long run. They have a history of getting past version x.0 flops, making corrections, and having version x.5 successes. (Even as a very recent example look at Vista vs. Windows 7 - the former was a market flop, but the latter is garnering record sales.) Win8 might flop, but I wouldn't bet against its successor, once they've refined it a bit more.
Yes, and while D) is perfectly reasonable, C) seems like quite a valid cause for concern for other nations: we're talking about a theocratic government whose religion requires that its adherents (eventually) conquer the world, which government appears to take a particularly fundamentalist, literal view of the "conquer" aspect of that, and which is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was an observation of this, not the cause of it. Iran and N Korea were off the reservation for decades before he made that speech, and have continued to be "rogue nations" regardless of diplomacy. Saying we should normalize relations is all well and good, except that it neglects the fact that these nations are not approaching issues from a common worldview. It's not that they're irrational: it's that their philosophy, beliefs, and goals are so radically different from our own that we don't have a common premise from which to work.
That's not to say that I think invading them is the right course of action here (I don't), but in many ways, diplomacy is destined to fail, if it is based on the assumption that they just want to get along. "Diplomatic bribery" of a sort could still work: that is, don't assume they want what we want, but figure out something they actually do want, and use that carrot to convince them to give up the nuclear ambitions. The stick of economic isolation has the potential to be pretty effective if we pair it with the right carrot.
Slashdot Mirror
I just grabbed numbers from Wikipedia. I don't claim that they're precise, only that they're all a heck of a lot larger than 115 million.
I think the high-end estimates for "Christianity", though, often include groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., whose beliefs most Christians would not consider to fall within (or even necessarily close to) the bounds of theological orthodoxy.
How are you defining a "major religion"? Christianity has around 2 billion adherents, Islam around 1.5 billion, Hinduism around a billion, Buddhism around half a billion ... other than Judaism, what major religions can count less than 115 million people?
I'm not saying the USPTO doesn't need to reform its approach to granting patents that should be rejected for being obvious, but I think AC has a good point too: the concept of patents isn't going away anytime soon, and is the legal reality we have to work with. Google can continue to live in a dream world and pay the price of ignoring patents, or can come to terms with that reality and pay the lesser price of licensing them. Those are the options, in the real world.
(Posting AC because I'm at work, not because I'm going to get modded into the stone age for what I'm about to say...)
Too bad: your post deserves to be modded up +5 Insightful.
Google ... described its filing with European regulators as a pre-emptive measure against a developing legal hazard for Android partners. The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android...
Um, if there's a legal hazard in using Android, maybe that means Google/manufacturer's should license patents from Microsoft (or others). I know the current belief on /. is that everybody should be able to make whatever they want, even if they copy someone else's work but, ignoring whether or not I agree with that view, that's simply not how the world works. Sorry - it isn't. The world works such that, if you invent it and you patent it, you have the right to get paid when someone else uses it (or outright block them from using it for a time). You may not like that, and many don't, but that's how the world works. Not just the US - the world. Google may view that as a problem but the solution is simple - build Android so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or license the patents so that there's no legal risk.
I know I'll be in the minority on this one but, sorry - the system is what the system is. It's simple, design around the patent or license it. Or don't and deal with the consequences.
When idiots spam every thread with worthless "First!" posts, how could any one of these posts not be redundant?
Great idea, except it doesn't work that way. Season 2 won't be available on those services here until HBO releases the DVDs, just as Season 1 wasn't. It's exactly like the Oatmeal comic on the topic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
If shows were all PPV, expect nothing but "sure things" to be produced.
Movies are all PPV... and there are higher budgets there than on TV. And TV series are produced based on speculation that they'll get ratings and sell advertizing and/or future DVD copies. There's always a risk involved in producing something, whatever the distribution method.
Spoilers? I already read them, years ago, in the books the HBO series is based on...
True, though it has long been possible with SkyDrive in Windows to simply map a network drive (open a SkyDrive file in Office on your computer, then choose save-as to get the URL for the file share) and use offline files to sync. Essentially that's all the new client does, just without any manual hacking required.
Go and learn about 20th century history, paying special attention to the distinctions between free democratic societies and those with totalitarian Communist regimes. As for your attempt at trolling with religion vs science, I'll simply note that it's not only a false dichotomy, but your facts are all wrong there too.
You're assuming that culture and political systems play no role. The USA has major advantages in both areas that continue to more than offset China's advantages in sheer numbers.
That's entirely possible; I am about to get married, so that probably hurts my Geek cred a bit. I'm not, however, unfamiliar with various works of speculative fiction having some fictional religious order running things and/or preserving knowledge in a dystopian future. The current Psalms of Isaak series by Ken Scholes (Lamentation, Canticle, Antiphon, ...) is another example, though set on a fictional world as well not just in a fictional future. I did, however, find the presumptive priorities/priories typo amusing, and if there's a current meme that priories actually control the modern internet, I've missed that one. Was just going for a chuckle there, but thanks for the literary advice.
OK, perhaps "very rare" was too strong a choice of words; my point was that they're rare enough to be valuable, and generally script kiddies and the like don't have piles of them sitting around. And yes I'm aware of the redundancy there; it seemed the best way to get the vendor's names into the sentence though. Either way, the point is that most malware exploits happening in the wild are making use of vulnerabilities that have patches available, regardless of your choice of platform.
Priories? I've heard of Trappist beers and other contributions from monasteries, but never before encountered the theory that monks and/or nuns are running the internet.
THIS is what you are arguing FOR.
All I'm arguing for is an accurate understanding of exactly what the decision was and the actual logic behind it (and resulting exceptions), without all the hyperbole and conspiracy theories that keep getting bandied about. I haven't commented on whether I wish it were different or not; I'm just pointing out how it actually is, as opposed to the "ZOMG!!eleventy-one! The sky is falling! The Supreme Court ordered that everyone in the country be strip searched daily!" nonsense. Not that the parent I replied to was guilty of quite that level of hyperbole, but still, the actual Opinion in question is being ignored by most commentators, who are instead relying on sensationalist stories put out by media agencies looking to bump ratings/revenue. What I'm arguing for is actually reading, understanding, and discussing what the decision was in reality as opposed to sensationalized caricatures of it.
To be fair this is a Java exploit, and it's already been closed by Apple.
The dullard users are probably receiving security updates automatically, and so they'd have been updated as of Tuesday.
To be fair, that's true of almost all malware that propagates in the wild on Windows-based systems too. Zero-days that haven't been patched by Microsoft/Apple/et al. are very rare on any platform, and usually only available to organizations with resources on the level nation states or the like for espionage/cyber-warfare purposes (c.f. Stuxnet).
Maybe you should try actually reading the Supreme Court's opinion... pay special attention to Part IV and Roberts & Alito's concurring opinions.
You might try reading the opinion; virtually everything you said is factually incorrect.
The fellow had priors for obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon after having run from the cops in the past (he plead guilty to lesser charges), and was arrested on a bench warrant that (due to a clerical error) was still in existence for later unpaid tickets (which had since been paid). Neither side contested the question of whether he should've gone into the general population given his arrest (there was no other option, since he was arrested on a warrant, not merely detained for a traffic violation).
They don't argue that every inmate going into general population requires a strip search. The Court did say that deference to the judgment of jail administrators is needed in cases where they're not clearly in the wrong, and they said that a jail choosing to conduct such searches (for contraband, injury, delousing, detection of gang tattoos, and similar purposes) is not unreasonable for prisoners being put into the general population. Quite the opposite of suggesting that such a search be mandated, they did suggest that there are situations where it would not be appropriate, though in general it is up to the discretion of the officers involved.
See, for instance, Part IV:
This case does not require the Court to rule on the types of searches that would be reasonable in instances where, for example, a detainee will be held without assignment to the general jail population and without substantial contact with other detainees. This describes the circumstances in Atwater. See 532 U. S., at 324 (“Officers took Atwater’s ‘mug shot’ and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond”). The accommodations provided in these situations may diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches at issue. Cf. United States Brief 30 (discussing the segregation, and less invasive searches, of individuals held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for misdemeanors or civil contempt). The circumstances before the Court, however, do not present the opportunity to consider a narrow exception of the sort JUSTICE ALITO describes, post, at 2–3 (concurring opinion), which might restrict whether an arrestee whose detention has not yet been reviewed by a magistrate or other judicial officer,and who can be held in available facilities removed from the general population, may be subjected to the types of searches at issue here.
Petitioner’s amici raise concerns about instances of officers engaging in intentional humiliation and other abusive practices. See Brief for Sister Bernie Galvin et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Hudson, 468 U. S., at 528 (“[I]ntentional harassment of even the most hardened criminals cannot be tolerated by a civilized society”); Bell, 441 U. S., at 560. There also may be legitimate concerns about the invasiveness of searches that involve the touching of detainees. These issues are not implicated on the facts of this case, however, and it is unnecessary to consider them here.
And in Alito's concurring opinion:
It is important to note, however, that the Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population. Most of those arrested for minor offenses are not dangerous, and most are released from custody prior to or at the time of their initial appearance before a magistrate. In some cases, the charges are dropped. In others, arrestees are released either on their own recognizance or on minimal bail. In the end, few are sentenced to incarceration. For these persons, admission to the general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of a strip search, may not be reasonable, particularly if an alternative procedure is feasible.
Read the actual decision and Roberts and Alito's concurring opinions. The logic is that the people are being put into the population of prisons/jails with other prisoners, and thus could pose a risk (whether it be contraband, lice, disease, gang membership, etc.), and thus the jailers are justified in subjecting them to a strip search. It's not an issue where specific cause for a search is needed as is the case for those who haven't been arrested, but that the prison officials have a reasonable grounds for searching people before admitting them to the general population. Roberts and Alito wrote separate supporting statements in order to emphasize that the logic behind the decision revolves around the people being admitted to the general population of prisoners, and thus there is room for an exception in a case where someone is arrested but is not being put into the general prison population (for whatever reason).
"This case does not require the Court to rule on the types of searches that would be reasonable in instances where, for example, a detainee will be held without assignment to the general jail population and without substantial contact with other detainees. This describes the circumstances in Atwater. See 532 U. S., at 324 (“Officers took Atwater’s ‘mug shot’ and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond”). The accommodations provided in these situations may diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches at issue." -majority opinion (delivered by Kennedy)
"It is important to note, however, that the Court does nothold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population." -Alito's concurring opinion. He goes on to mention people detained on minor traffic stops (rather than an arrest warrant as in this case) who could be released to their own recognizance.
As for prison vs jail semantics, the distinction is usually that the former are state or federal institutions while the latter are local (city/county) institutions; both are, by definition, places of confinement for prisoners, and the ruling would apply in either case. The due process challenge would not likely be raised in the case of a state or federal prison since they usually house only convicts and not people awaiting trial, but the distinction is immaterial here. (Quoting from the decision: "The term “jail” is used here in a broad sense to include prisons and other detention facilities.")
The Supreme Court did not approve strip searches for "any arrestable offense." It approved them for anyone being put into the general prison population who, at the judgment of officials running said institution, need to be searched for health and safety reasons. Several justices wrote in attached opinions that the ruling does not necessarily apply to people who are arrested but will not be put into the general prison population. It's not "anyone who could be arrested" that may be strip searched: it's "anyone who's going to be put into the jail with other prisoners."
(Also, I actually do sometimes use Excel on my Windows Phone to enter values of measurements into a pre-existing spreadsheet I've got sitting on SkyDrive when out in the lab, instead of lugging the laptop out there. I then do whatever analysis I want to on the laptop, with the bigger screen and keyboard/mouse UI)
Yes, because we all know that using a touch interface for an accounting/data entry application makes so much sense. Bookkeepers, payroll, receivable and payables clerks do regular data entry. Is Microsoft really saying that moving hands from a keyboard to the screen and back again is the most efficient way to do that? This is an accounting application for mid to large businesses. Tablet and touch interfaces are fine for consumers of data, but by it's very nature, this is a producer of data.
No, but the desktop UI is still present (except on WOA tablet/mobile devices); the only major change when you're using desktop productivity software (e.g. x86/64 Office instead of WOA "Metro" Office) is that the start menu is full-screen when you hit the Windows key, instead of filling only a portion of it. The desktop UI is still keyboard/mouse focused (though touch-enabled just as Win7); Metro UI is touch-centric.
I imagine touchscreen laptops will become a bit more commonplace once Win8 hits the market though, and some of those clerks may take their hands to the screen and back rather than to the mouse and back to navigate amongst different applications, etc. That is, they may use the touchscreen to launch Excel, but they're sure to use the keyboard to do data entry. Whether the touchscreen or mouse is their preferred pointing device will probably come down to the individual user's preference.
Note that the restriction applies to certain divisions/classes of staff, and developers aren't among them. Salespeople don't need to purchase iPads. Developers might... Microsoft has released several smaller iOS apps (e.g. PhotoSynth); the question isn't whether they can develop for a competing platform, but whether it makes sense to shoot themselves in the foot by doing so at the expense of their own platforms. With WOA in Win8, there's an obvious tablet focus, and Office 15 is included with WOA versions of Win8, which implies that it could be a significant distinguishing feature: the message could end up being that Windows has Office and works well for content generation, while iOS is just for consumption, i.e. browsing, movies/games, etc. Not sure which strategy is best, but there is some logic to that one.
I think a key thing they're focusing on that you might not be is optimizing the UI for touch, rather than keyboard/mouse user inputs. On traditional desktop/laptop form factors, I would agree that Win8 would not be compelling, and Win7 is probably preferable. On a touch-capable device, though, the pendulum swings the other direction.
I think Win8/WP8 (or their successors, at least, possibly Win8.5/WP8.5) stand a real chance of succeeding. The Metro UI is stark and the aesthetic isn't immediately appealing to many. But having switched to a WP7/7.5 device, I have to say that for actual usability it beats the socks off iOS and Android's UIs. That's not, of course, a guarantee of market success, as they still have a very real problem of getting people to even be willing to give it a try. But Microsoft appears to be in this for the long haul, and the Win8/WP8 tie-ins could give them significant inroads. They're taking a risk, of course, but I wouldn't bet against them in the long run. They have a history of getting past version x.0 flops, making corrections, and having version x.5 successes. (Even as a very recent example look at Vista vs. Windows 7 - the former was a market flop, but the latter is garnering record sales.) Win8 might flop, but I wouldn't bet against its successor, once they've refined it a bit more.
Yes, and while D) is perfectly reasonable, C) seems like quite a valid cause for concern for other nations: we're talking about a theocratic government whose religion requires that its adherents (eventually) conquer the world, which government appears to take a particularly fundamentalist, literal view of the "conquer" aspect of that, and which is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was an observation of this, not the cause of it. Iran and N Korea were off the reservation for decades before he made that speech, and have continued to be "rogue nations" regardless of diplomacy. Saying we should normalize relations is all well and good, except that it neglects the fact that these nations are not approaching issues from a common worldview. It's not that they're irrational: it's that their philosophy, beliefs, and goals are so radically different from our own that we don't have a common premise from which to work.
That's not to say that I think invading them is the right course of action here (I don't), but in many ways, diplomacy is destined to fail, if it is based on the assumption that they just want to get along. "Diplomatic bribery" of a sort could still work: that is, don't assume they want what we want, but figure out something they actually do want, and use that carrot to convince them to give up the nuclear ambitions. The stick of economic isolation has the potential to be pretty effective if we pair it with the right carrot.