56 posts • joined 9 Oct 2009
Re: @macjules A Flagrant Rotten Denial of Justice and a Blot in the UKGBNI Landscape
Th US won't touch him anyway.
They'd like to, but there's too much risk for too little payoff. Even in the post Trump era of "fake news", the press still has the power to make life distinctly uncomfortable for politicians and even if they all hate him, letting Assange go down for receiving the Manning files would be massively against their interests.
An extradition from Australia or the UK would have political fallout for closely allied governments. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but when the chances of conviction are slim to none it's a big price to pay.
Mr Assange should probably assume his travel plans can't include any US destinations for the forseeable future, but unless he's done something other than what we know and he thinks the US can prove it, he's got zero chance of getting extradited.
Julian Assange's biggest worry is that the US won't extradite him and he'll be rendered even more irrelevant.
Re: Oh, the irony
Bitcoin is "safe" only because the government doesn't (didn't) have a decent enough set of mappings between wallets and real people. This is changing very quickly and may possibly already have changed.
Once the government has that set, working out where money is going and where it has come from is simply a matter of data analysis, the block chain literally gives you the entire history of that coin and every other coin in existence.
Creating extra wallets is completely and utterly pointless and even coin laundering services are only a data problem.
To repeat, if you're using bitcoin to escape the US government you're a fool. It's not anonymous, it just doesn't have real names.
1. Connectivity to the NBN costs ISPs $17.50 per Mbps per month (it was $20 under the original Labor plan).
2. NBN Requires ISPs to be connected to all POIs regardless of whether they have any customes.
3. This means that ISPs have to charge somewhere north of $20 per Mbps/month to offer dedicated bandwidth.
4. Based on the prices I've seen (and paid). The highest costs for home broadband come in closer to $1 per Mbps per month.
If we apply a little bit of math to this, this means that ISPs are oversubscribing their lines by at least a factor of 20.
FTTN was stupid, not because it can't deliver the speeds it promised, but because it can't deliver the cost savings it promised. In the end it will end up being relatively close to what would have been paid for Labor's plan (which wouldn't have cost what they said it did either) for an inferior product.
The reason your connection sucks though is because the NBN Co charges ISPs too much for them to give you what you think you're paying for.
Re: That's open source or you...
Not it wouldn't.
This would be the case of an early adopter getting their data munched. This would have been found just as fast in closed source.
Possibly the cause was found earlier and a resolution released earlier because of open source. Possibly.
This is the kind of shit that shouldn't get through at all though.
Re: Tesla semi?
There's a very big difference between knowing how to solve a problem and knowing which problem to solve.
Smarter people than Tesla's engineers have built an amazing product that solves the wrong problem before
Nokia died because they ran themselves like they were a monopoly. They had 3 different UIs they were paying to develop simultaneously and they doled out the good stuff only to their top of the line phones.
That worked when Nokia was the biggest player in the market, just like it worked for Microsoft when they were the undisputed king, but when the iPhone came out and started eating their lunch they couldn't compete.
Nokia's fall starts before Elop and matches exactly with the release of the iPhone. Yes, the Windows 7.5 phones getting released and then getting an end of support from Microsoft within 6 months didn't help, but they were on borrowed time before they even signed the Microsoft deal.
Re: more needed than ever
Yes and no.
Most of Microsoft's "Spying" is feature analytics to allow then to improve their product. Google and Apple know so much more about what parts of the system their users use an how they use them than Microsoft does simply because of the huge amounts of information that they're siphoning up. It's very difficult for them to compete without that information.
Beyond that, aside from the fact that you're used to spying on mobile, there's really no functional difference. Most of what Google and Apple grab from you aren't necessary to deliver a mobile platform any more than they're necessary to deliver a desktop platform. You're not comparing apples and doctors at all. You're comparing an invasion of your privacy that you've become accustomed to and one you haven't, no more, no less.
Why can't you install Windows 10 Creators Update on your old Atom netbook? Because Intel stopped loving you
Re: Microsoft murdered netbooks
Well yes, that's sort of the point.
If what you wanted was to consume content a tablet is infinitely better. If what you wanted as a laptop to create content the netbook didn't actually do the job most of the time anyway.
Netbooks felt cheap, they performed poorly, and they weren't actually that cheap compared to equivalent items. There was a period of time where tablets didn't exist and even the cheapest laptops were really expensive when netbooks shone, but they shone because of market failure, but because they were a good idea.
Re: Microsoft murdered netbooks
Tablets and lower priced laptops murdered netbooks, and Intel murdered Atom.
People bought netbooks because they couldn't afford a real computer but wanted something that sort of filled that space. Most of those people found a tablet met their needs, a few others chose chromebooks and for the rest they worked out that paying an extra couple hundred bucks for something that wasn't a steaming pile was worth it.
No one wants a piece of junk low powered laptop whatever OS it's running.
In Government Speak...
Feasible means "possible".
It doesn't mean it has actually been done or that the price to do it would be remotely sane.
Re: Weigh the coins
All US currency ever issued is legal tender. A payment in legal tender may be rejected, but no penalty can be attached for failure to pay(the debt doesn't precisely go away, but you can't refuse payment and then fine the guy for not paying). If you're buying something any kind of payment can be rejected but for a debt already incurred it's different.
If this had been loose coins it would probably not have been legitimate, but since it appears he had them all in proper rolls it's a slightly different situation.
Honestly I would suggest they mostly wanted him to go away.
Re: Shodan is evil
Would not having it make a difference? Network scans aren't hard to do and they've existed a lot longer than Shodan.
Is a web cam secure because it's not listen on some web site that it's not? Is a MongoDB install secure because it's not listed?
Maybe not having Shodan would restrict some of the lowest level bottom feeders who don't actually have the capacity to do any of this themselves, but a better solution would be just to secure your shit.
And we now live in a world where .Net is cross platform and free both savings speech and as in beer and the use of standard edition Java will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Millions of devices run Java and they're all going to pay.
Re: Aaron is a twat.
Sometimes the little Hitler is a prick, but most of the time he or she is just trying to keep a lid on things so they can actually do their job.
Supporting 30 machines is a doddle, if those machines are all the same model, running a standard environment, with relatively standard software which is still within support from the vendor.
When, as is more common, those machines are bought on the cheap from down the shops from 10 different vendors running 3 different OS versions, two of which are out of support, with each one slightly different depending on which bloatware the manufacturer installed and they're hooked into a domain controller from before the dawn of time it's much much harder.
If you want to get by on a shoestring IT budget you absolutely have to say no to anything your users don't absolutely need.
That doesn't mean Aaron wasn't a prat, but the reason your IT guy says no is because every time you ask for something special it makes his or her job significantly harder and if it isn't going to substantially increase the profitability of the business it's probably not worth it.
Re: Money raised for taxpayers?
By leaving one of the major bidders out you reduce the price which will be paid for the spectrum, potentially dramatically. The fact that Telstra have received payments from the government here for other purposes is irrelevant.
The question essentially comes down to whether setting a 20% maximum on the amount of this particular chunk of the spectrum is worth the lost revenue from the sale of this spectrum. This revenue loss will be significant as after Telstra, Optus and Vodaphone there really isn't anyone who is going to spend a lot of money on Australian spectrum.
In essence is it better to have one or two providers pay a lot of money for the spectrum and be able to deliver better services because they have more bandwidth available or to have 5 or more owners of the spectrum, with at least some of those companies paying very little and likely being unable to deliver much in the way of services.
Re: Cloud crack
It's all just another machine that goes ping.
Re: "According to some observers, there's still some way to go"
Except your analogy is completely wrong on both counts.
You change things in your computer all the time. You install new software, use it for new tasks, connect it to new devices. You and everyone else does this all the time. There are millions upon millions of different combinations. If you spent half as much time making modifications to your car it would break down all the time too. You may not understand what Microsoft is changing under the hood in the latest update, but you sure want the thing that uses it to work first time every time and fast.
Your mortar analogy is also bad, because unlike your house, your computer literally is under attack. All the time. In ever changing ways.
If you provided a list of what your computer had to do, and you never wanted to change any of that, and you disconnected it from the internet you could build a system that doesn't crash. A custom OS that only worked on that hardware, and only worked for that list of tasks and didn't have to deal with being attacked. You don't want that though, you want an OS you can install onto any hardware, and run any software on, and connect to the internet.
If you actually believe anyone else has better unicode support you're high. This kind of stuff exists all over the place and is missed by testing all the time. It's just that we only hear about it when someone like Microsoft does it because they're big and they're bad and they're easy to blame.
Australian Information Industries Association*: you're not the future of democracy, so please shut up
Re: I refuse electronic voting on principle
Australia takes a while partly because we give postal voters a long time to semd in their votes, which has arguments for and against, but mostly because we use an IRV system. When there's a clear winner we pretty much know what the result is in a couple hours, when the result is really close and a lot of people vote third party it takes a lot longer to work out.
Historically, only two elections in our history haven't had the result known the same night, they just happen to have been 2010 and 2016.
An electronic voting system could help with IRV, but not with late postal votes. An online voting system could deal with both, but as i know of no proven or even proposed mechanism for providing anonymous, secure, and unique per voter voting in an online environment, that's kind of moot.
That's not even counting forcing someone to vote in front of you.
Re: There's nowt wrong with supporting law enforcement
The ribbon analogy is actually very apt.
Apple did not create an iOS they can't decrypt. They could have, they probably should have, but they didn't.
That's the ribbon analogy. Apple can let the FBI in trivially, just like cutting a ribbon. They're refusing to, but tomorrow they could decide to. If they lose this court battle they will have to.
Re: Why are they always testing this stuff in Australia?
Android actually has that now, finally. Only in M of course, and vendors may take it away, but it is there.
No, they don't.
They yet again show that you can get incredible speed out of pristine copper over incredibly short distance with no interference. This isn't new or shiny or breathtaking. They've been getting incredibly high speeds out of uselessly short cable distances for years.
No one has ever shown anything like that kind of speed on real world copper, even newly installed real world copper, let alone the crap that's in the ground.
I've given up on having a land line because the copper in my neighborhood is so bad that you couldn't actually hear people. How am I going to go with FTTN next year? You reckon I'll get XG.Fast speeds? Do you reckon that the government is actually going to go out to every single node and upgrade it to G.Fast, let alone XG.Fast? Under FTTP you replace the units in the exchange and your home router and you're done.
The same way it always has
Microsoft will make money the same way it always has. It'll charge you for the initial version of Windows that goes on your PC and it'll charge business customers for support and software assurance.
The only difference between now and before is that Microsoft has finally worked out that the cost of supporting old versions of Windows is higher than the money it makes from the very small percentage of people who actually pay to upgrade an existing device.
How many people do you really know who have actually upgraded the Windows OS on their existing computer? How many people outside the tech industry? How many if we exclude Windows 95?
I'd bet the answer to those questions is "Not many", "Even fewer" and "Almost none".
Microsoft has never made any money out of selling OS upgrades to consumers because consumers never bought them. Plenty of people don't even pay for OSX upgrades and those have always been cheap. They have however spent a massive amount of money trying to patch old OS versions and ensure that their software is compatible with them.
Is this really a story?
Most large organizations do something like this. When your random complaint on twitter gets actually addressed by the company, 99 times out of 100 that's because of something like this. 21k is less than they'd pay in labor costs to do it without the software so it's also pretty cheap.
This is the 21st century here. Social Media and what people are saying about your company on Social Media is important. For 21k you can monitor a bunch of different sources and produce a digest that can be easily managed.
Re: Hard sell, hardly selling, selling hard
Windows 10 is a no brainer update from 8 or 8.1 and it's a reasonable upgrade from 7. It's got its issues, but its actually pretty good. At the least it eliminates most of the stupid bits of 8 and 8.1 and without the stupid bits, 8 and 8.1 were solid upgrades from 7. I won't bother to talk about Vista and XP as if you're still using either of those you're insane.
You're not the product because you're still going to be buying Windows. The payoff for Microsoft is pushing more home users into current versions of Windows to accomplish the following:
1) Push enterprise users to update their deployed Operating Systems to ones their employees are more familiar with faster than they might otherwise.
2) so that Microsoft can spend less money on backward compatibility.
Essentially expect that after the 2016 releases the Office products won't be supported on out of date Microsoft OS versions.
Worst Case Scenario, Really?
The worst case scenario is that someone will "hack" your door lock?
As if they can't enter your house in about 3 seconds with a brick.
Re: Oh Adobe...
Of course that's possible, however it's incredibly uncommon and not just at Adobe, the OpenSSL bug last year was the same kind of bug. It might be perhaps telling that we've known about these kind of exploits for 40 years and yet they're still incredibly common in code. They're common because they're really easy mistakes to make.
Every single bit of non trivial code uses the kind of data structures that are vulnerable to exploits like this over and over again, because they're just that common. All it takes is missing a bounds check on one very specific way of accessing your code that you may never have thought of or saying "no one is ever going to access this code that way" once in a project to get a vulnerability and things like that happen way, way, way more often than once in a project.
I'll guarantee that if you're actually a developer you've written at least a hundred of them, mostly in little things, only intended to be used internally or only in a specific space. Or you've counted on a library to do something and the library's author has screwed it up.
Flash is of course particularly vulnerable because Flash was first and never died. It was made when the world was a very different place and all sorts of horrors had to be coded in to make it even remotely plausible. Every attempt at a replacement has failed to date, including the idea that HTML 5 will kill it, as if YouTube videos were the only reason anyone ever used flash.
The "growth" areas are chosen by our illustrious prime minister.
With the exception of medical research nothing that is remotely forward thinking is allowed onto this list. If it wasn't a career option for Tony's father then it shouldn't be a career option for Tony's as yet unborn grandchildren.
Re: Coalition's broadband motto
I assume you're in a rural area?
Guess what, you're getting satellite, and a shit satellite at that since they coalition cut budget, and since the LNP have the Nationals on a tight leash they give even less of a toss about you than Labor.
This network is worse in every possible way than the NBN, it will take longer, it will be slower and it will cost more. We the Australian tax payer have just paid Telstra for thousands of kilometres of corroded copper in broken ducts, the vast majority will have to be ripped out of the ground and replaced with, you guessed it, fibre.
Fibre to the node might, make sense if the copper network in this country were in good nick, but it's not, it's awful. I'm in less than 10 minutes from the CBD in light traffic and the qualify of my connection to the exchange is so bad I can't get reliable fixed line telephone service, forget internet. Sticking a two meter tall powered cabinet every few hundred meters isn't going to fix that.
Re: unsigned int, anybody?
Because, and this is the answer to the question about the arbitrary precision comment below you, it's not actually the programmatic type that's causing the problem, it's the type in the database which is the issue.
For a number of reasons most db's don't have a unit type and an arbitrary precision integer is a binary blob which can't be indexed.
Re: banks and laundery
The first is that they haven't actually seen whether they get jail sentences or not.
The second is a bit more complicated. Proving who knew or didn't know something is really difficult, and unless there's a legislated duty for the person to know, you're going to have to actually prove they did. HSBC probably knew that the money was drug money, but proving it was going to be difficult so the government took a cash settlement.
These two morons spent years not filing the necessary paperwork for transactions. The government had them stone cold on that, they merely had to prove that a transaction over the reporting limit occurred, and didn't need to prove if they knew it was dodgy. Because of this, the idiots in question had to cop a guilty plea to avoid significantly more jail time.
TL;DR; To toss anyone from HSBC in jail you'd have to prove that they knew that the money was from drugs and proving what someone knew is really damned difficult. These two could have spent the rest of their lives in jail for statutory infractions so they've had to admit they knew(whether they did or didn't) to get out in as little as five years.
Re: The first problem....
There's two problems.
The first is that the issue with MtGox wasn't so much that Bitcoin isn't traceable. The issue with MtGox is that the "Bitcoin Banks" hold your money in Bitcoin wallets which belong to them, they aren't regulated as banks and so unless you've got an explicit contract with them about what they will and won't do with the money you've given them, you're SOL. MtGox lost people's bitcoins and was under no obligation to do a damned thing about it and they didn't.
The second is that, once you start actually getting paid in Bitcoins your wallet stops being anonymous. Your employer knows who they sent the money to and that number can be retrieved with a warrant (if they even need that). Bitcoin wallets are anonymous in the same way that IP addresses are anonymous. If you know who either belongs to, they aren't anonymous at all. They know where you get your salary from, so they've got a starting point. A bitcoin starts off in your wallet and ends up at Silk Road a couple hops later, you might see an agent of the government on your doorstep asking you who you sent it do.
Re: smoke and mirrors
The problem with TrueCrypt is that we have no idea who actually develops it. It could be the NSA, it could be Microsoft, it could be anyone on earth. Even the auditors don't actually know who the TrueCrypt foundation actually are. The only thing that identifies them in anyway is the cryptographic signing key they use to sign the binaries.
Using TrueCrypt requires you to take a leap of faith that you can trust those anonymous individuals to be creating a quality product. That's simply no longer possible. Even if this was a hoax and the "real" developers came forward tomorrow to tell us everything was ok, we'd have no way of determining that they were actually the real developers, because the only proof of identity we have was used to sign the current binaries.
TrueCrypt is dead, its developers have told us so. You can speculate on why that's the case for ever and a day, you can decide to use the previous binaries if you like, but it's dead and it's never coming back. Maybe someone can fork it, but they couldn't do so anonymously and if they can't do it anonymously they're under as much pressure from the NSA as anyone else.
Re: Hacked off at funds raised for audit but not support?
The keys were indeed reuploaded, but from everything I've read they're the same keys they've been using for the past decade.
TrueCrypt is dead and over. No possible explanation exists which leaves the code trustworthy at this point. Maybe a fork of the existing code base could be considered trustworthy some day, but TrueCrypt is over. You don't have to replace it with bitlocker, but you need to find a replacement.
Re: re: "closed up before a more detailed review could be done of the code"
It won't as such, but the next stage of the audit is the crypto-analysis phase which requires incredibly skilled people to actually perform. It seems incredibly unlikely that those people are going to actually perform the second stage of the audit at this point and even if they do, knowing human nature, I can't imagine they'll be doing their work with the same level of effort they would have originally.
Whatever the cause of this particular piece. TrueCrypt is dead.
Re: Oh, the irony
That's about the size of it. Essentially, when California takes a policy to referendum, which they do a lot, they put the policy and the mechanism to pay for it on the ballot separately. The result should surprise absolutely no one.
Re: malcolm turnbull is an idiot.
We want a monopoly on the wholesale side, we should never have gotten rid of the monopoly on the wholesale side because having two companies lay down heinously expensive infrastructure is a gigantic waste of everyone's money.
Selling Telstra Wholesale along with Retail is why we're in this mess in the first place. If Howard had kept the wholesale branch of Telstra and spent some of that mining dosh he threw away in tax cuts and middle class welfare upgrading the network we could have had a nice orderly move from copper through to FTTN through to FTTP over the course of about 20 years comparatively cheaply, but that's not what happened, we sold all of Telstra then regulated the hell out of it which meant that Telstra retail was effectively crippled and Telstra wholesale was still a monopoly, but a private one this time. No one won when Telstra was sold this way, not the government, not the people, not even Telstra.
The coalition's plan wouldn't be a bad plan. IF the copper network hadn't been allowed to degrade so badly and IF it weren't going to need to be upgraded to FTTP almost immediately. The issue is that that's not true. The last mile of Telstra copper in large parts of Australia is horribly degraded and the speeds they're advertising while plenty for 2013 are going to be too little for 2019 when they finish it. Fundamentally the coalition are going to end up doing far more FTTP than they've budgeted for as part of the initial roll out and then almost immediately start a second roll out of FTTP.
TLDR; Competition on wholesale doesn't work, and the coalition are going to roll out exactly the same plan as Labor except they're going to pay for it twice, take 5-10 years longer and make you prove to them that your copper is crap and needs replacing. That's what makes their plan such an epic failure.
Re: Speaking Of Australian ISPs
The censorship policy was abandoned sometime last year after being essentially dead in the water for the previous 3. Personally I think the policy was just an attempt to get Stephen Fielding's vote in the first place, but serious or not it's officially dead.
That said there's still some concerning data retention stuff going on, but the Greens are against it and the Coalition are against anything that Labor is for so not a whole lot happening there either.Part of the whole minority government deal, Tony Abbott would rather cut off his own leg than support anything Labor wants to do so everything has to pass through the cross bench to get anywhere so most idiotic policies end up on the cutting room floor.
Re: UK users?
The extra bit is outlook, publisher, and access plus the skype calls and 5 licenses instead of the current 2010 3.
YMMV as to whether that's worth it for you, but around here(Oz), the price difference between Office Home and Office with Outlook is about $100 retail rate and you only get one license when you add outlook rather than 3 without it. The price with the other two products is even higher.
I'm not saying the price is worth it. Most home users don't need access or publisher and unless you've got an exchange server to hook it up to outlook is largely surplus to requirements. Five licenses instead of three is nice, though we won't really know whether home and student will end up with five for 2013 or not. If you need those extra things though and you plan on upgrading your office and you make skype phone calls, even the UK price is a steal.
Actually it's about being able to legally sell adult games to adults.
In Australia, prior to this law change, anything which the classification board felt was too mature to be rated MA15+ was marked RC and was therefor illegal to sell in Australia. This has impacted a number of games, though some of them had last minute modifications to allow sale in Australia. If you played either of the new Fallout games this impacted you as the injection of meds was once animated and was removed to get an MA15+ rating.
This is actually believe it or not a win for freedom as the games in this category were previously blocked, we haven't added new censorship we've relaxed what we already had.
Re: wipe your glasses, Mr. iFanboy
Not that the patents Apple is suing Android over aren't ridiculous, but whether they are or not they also clearly don't apply to Windows Phone which is why Apple aren't insane enough to sue Microsoft.
You can show a jury pictures of iPhones and Samsung phones and say "they look identical give us money", the same doesn't work because the metro style interface is fundamentally different. Apple would get laughed out of court for trying to sue Microsoft.
Re: wealthy sheep.
Mom and Pop didn't invest in Facebook. Unfortunately for Mom and Pop, the corrupt hacks running their IRA/401K/Superannuation Fund did.
The second scenario is what we want.
I live in Australia, I am a parent, a gamer, and an adult. My reasons for wanting an R rating are two fold.
1) As an adult I want to be able to make decisions about what I play which reflect the fact that I am an adult.
2) As a parent I want the things in the MA15+ rating which were put there because the ratings board is highly reluctant to ban things outright but which should be R rated moved into the correct rating.
While game publishers hate having stuff moved into R rating because it interferes with their ability to sell stuff to teenagers that they probably shouldn't be playing without running it pas their parents(15 is still pretty young), most of us just want to be able to have the option as adults to legally play games intended for an adult audience. I don't care if they move 90% of what's currently MA15+ to R, if I think it's appropriate for my kid to be playing it when he's at that age I'll go with him to buy it, what annoys me is when they ban stuff that's meant for me because it might be seen by a kid.
What Assange really fears
is that he'll be go to Sweden and the US will do nothing whatever. That after all his bluster and self importance it will come out that no one gives a rats. The US isn't stupid, they've said they don't want him, he'd get off as a "journalist" anyway, and in the end they'd pay a huge political cost to let him walk.
When it first happened everyone went through the books trying to find something to charge him with and no one came up with anything, not Australia, not the US, no one. Sure they were pissed off, he's an idiot that released a lot of information that was diplomatically damaging and not in the public interest(along with information that was in the public interest). That doesn't change the fact that the only thing they could possibly want him for at this point is to testify against Manning which he won't do. Why burn the political capital?
The Australian government is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. Committing to support him if the US tries to extradite him and keeping their mitts off a non death penalty sexual assault case in a country he tried to get residency in. They probably went a bit overboard with the anti-Assange rhetoric when it first happened, but he revealed their diplomatically damaging stuff everyone knew but no one admitted to as well.
Assange is a symbol for the people who think the US is some sort of evil empire plotting world destruction or who think that the little white lies of diplomacy are some sort of crime against humanity. Yes Wikileaks released a bunch of important stuff we needed to know about, but Assange didn't do that, he was just the poster boy, and even if he was personally responsible for the entire process and only released information we needed to know, it still wouldn't and shouldn't give him a free pass for unrelated crimes.
Re: So when...
Manufacturers will never learn this BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.
Who do you think owns your PC before you do? Do you think it's sitting in some sort of legal limbo just waiting for you to get your grubby mitts on it? Up until the moment that the contract is fulfilled and you have your PC in your hands, it belongs to the manufacturer, they can do whatever the heck they like to it including install whatever crapware they like.
You can refuse to purchase from people who do this, you can argue that the item isn't fit for purpose and try to return it, if what they've installed is a root kit or the like you might even be able to sue them, but you'll never get them to learn they don't own your PC before you do because THEY DO.
People always look at this and thing "Oh, that's no good", but what that means is that with a half way decent controller, you can write the full volume of this disk 30000 times. So if you're writing the full volume of your disk every day(which would be high utilization it'll last approximately 8.2 years or about twice as long as your HDD.
There are really just very few cases where this level of rewrite cycles is even remotely an issue.
This is just reiterating an old truth. If you use undocumented APIs they can and probably will change without notice. If you're the office or internet explorer team you will probably get told this is going to happen(with at least 5 minutes notice).
It's not about the APIs being bad as such, or about Microsoft knowing what they're doing, it's about change management. Published APIs require massive amounts of hoopla to change, and they generally have to keep the old APIs around in a deprecated state for the next 10 years so that legacy code works. Unpublished APIs on the other hand can essentially be changed at will, won't remain in a deprecated state and the first notification you as an outside developer will receive that these APIs have been changed is when your program fails.
This isn't new, nor is it distinctly Microsoft. The interesting part of this article is that Microsoft realizes that crappy third party software impacts their reputation.
The problem we have is that insanity has come to rein free, and for all of the vitriol against "freetards" it didn't begin with them. We have reached a point in our society where in the telling of a single story can keep not only oneself, but one's children, grandchildren, and even great grandchildren fat and happy for all time, and all indications are that if thing don't change soon, that this protection will extend out to untold generations. We have reached a point or soon will where the protection of an idea my outlast the civilization which spawned it.
We live in a society wherein the basic building blocks of life, our very DNA is being actively patented, this isn't fantasy, it's happening. It's not really all that much of a stretch to envision a future where the act of procreation violates intellectual property laws.
Yes, the idea that information wants to be free is ludicrous, information doesn't want anything. Yes, creative works deserve protection as do all manner of other ephemeral ideas. That said, how can we criticize people for taking a ludicrous response to a ludicrous system? How do we judge someone for believing their should be no property while condoning a man who believes that an idea which was based largely on the previous efforts of others should remain the exclusive holding of himself and his heirs through the course of generations yet unborn?
For better or worse there is no known or imagined enforcement mechanism for copyright or privacy which is both functional and allows for the existence of a free society. We simply cannot determine what information people are transmitting or storing without looking at that information which is, in many ways a worse violation of privacy than any of the evil done by Google.
Enforcement of intellectual property and privacy can only be done via the medium of the social contract. Society must believe that the free distribution of such information is a moral or societal wrong, and this simply can never be the case until we begin to until we begin to claw back some of the ridiculous gains achieved by the copyright lobby.
Not too quick
Given how bad Symbian is and how much of that is the fault of the group developing it I'd say disbanding it happened too late not too quickly.
And of course
Even if you had 250 applications per machine the math doesn't work.
Any serious software company isn't going to let you reduce your 2500 licenses to 1 just because you ran it on one machine. Maybe some dinky little outfit might let themselves get screwed that way, but none of the big boys are. You want to run 2500 instances of Office off one RDP server(which is insane to begin with) you'll pay for 2500 licenses as well as the 2500 CALs for the RDP. Want to run em in a virtual desktop, you'll pay all that plus the 2500 windows licenses.
You will never find a long term solution wherin you can drastically reduce your software licensing requirements unless you didn't actually need that software in the first place or you get a deal from the vendor. You might get away with it for a little while, but vendors who don't close those loopholes go bankrupt.