15.7 %
Seriously ?? 15.7 per cent of revenue ?? For USF ??
Doesn't sound accurate to me.
351 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Jun 2009
No - they don't teach driver's ed in schools. They used to but that was cut a loong time ago.
Drivers these days learn on-the-road. That's why driving habits here are so poor. Few U.S. drivers would survive a year driving in Germany. Or the U.K. [quite apart from the drive-on-the-left]
My take is that the Feds have realized that they bit off too much with this one. They were probably expecting all parties to settle and now face a challenge.
OTOH, Apple's MFN clause is ripe.
I'm expecting a settlement to be announced in the quiet period after the U.S. elections and before the inauguration. MFN will go away but most everything else will stay as-is.
I seem to recall that if there's an infected machine on your network, then you'll get your Windows updates from that, rather than directly from Microsoft.
So, how does this plan from Redmond get the correct update to you ?? It seems that you'll be requiring some magic fingers-on-the-keyboard somehow.
Huh? What point are you trying to make about SkyHook?
Yes - the SSID and strength database was important to Google, and - yes - it did collect that data deliberately. I'm sure lots of Google managers and engineers were familiar with this and had approved it.
That is NOT the same as the "private data slurp".
I'm not sure whether the agreed transition of Java support for Mac OS X from Apple to Oracle has happened. Apple still supplies it but do we know who does the maintenance?
Regardless of that, the plain fact is that Mac OS X 10.7 Lion does NOT install Java by default. Anyone who wants it can get it, but it's not present unless the user specifically installs it.
AT&T seem to have no moral core. No honesty. No "do the right thing"
This is the way their wireless systems operate, and I'm not surprised to find it in their other operations.
If corporations have rights as "persons" to make political contributions (as they do sine the "Citizens United" case") then why can't they go to jail when they break the law?
This is almost certainly legal if the parents are paying for the phone. After all, it's just tracking their own phone. SInce it seems to be restricted to phones on the "Family Share Plan" then I'd guess that the parents are paying for it all.
If the kids are paying then that's a whole different issue.
The significant thing in OP is that the FACTS cannot be reexamined.
The decision can be appealed on the basis of law such as that the judge misapplied the statutes, inappropriately excluded evidence, etc. But the jury's decision as regards to the facts can not be appealed - it is final.
I just want decent pricing and non-gouging on the phones.
There is no valid reason why AT&T can keep phones locked after the contract/subsidy term is up. I had expected that this would change when Verizon became the second carrier. Unfortunately not. I *will* not buy another from AT&T since they refuse to unlock.
Alex, if the Romans used uranium as we have done then we'd still have many tens/hundreds of thousands of years to go.
On the other hand, if they used thorium then it would have been safe well before the time of King Arthur.
The Chinese are moving quickly into nuclear power and it's no surprise to me that they've selected thorium for fuel.
Look, other companies don't adopt Apple's $499 price point because they want to, it's because they can't price higher.
And they can't price lower because their margin on hardware competitive with Apple is close to zero. Apple is killing them on production cost.
If Samsung or HP were able to make an iPad-competitive tablet and sell it for $249 and make a decent profit, do you think that they just got greedy by holding out for $499 ??
So get it through your thick skulls:-
1. Apple has set the tablet specs, in a general way
2. competitors have to have a better product, rather than "just as good"
3. Apple can build 'em cheaper than everyone else
It may have "cost" RSA $66M in direct cost. But is has cost their customers a whole lot more. Many are places that don't officially exist so there aren't going to be claims, are there.
In terms of overall business, my uneducated guess is that it will cost north of $1B. Trust is hard-won and easily squandered. Sorry guys :)
Longhorn, Cairo etc etc. Microsoft has a history of reaching for it all. Have never delivered on it yet.
So, tell me why it will be different this time. Don't spend time pointing out all the gleam and shine - we've had it all before. Instead, make a convincing argument for excellence of execution.
Problem is that Microsoft does not understand what business it is in.
You open a whole pile of stores, as Apple has done, because ...
1. you have compelling products that people want to buy, and
2. you're not getting acces to those people.
Microsoft sells primarily to companies, not individual consumers. They're selling we-can-do-it-all infrastructure stuff and Volume Licensing.
Stores in malls are about selling product directly to individuals. To make that work you must have compelling products that those individuals want to touch, try and buy. Sad to say, Microsoft's track record here varies between abysmal and OK. The only "OK" I can recall is Xbox (no flames please - I'm not a gamer) but it seems to have done decently despite the RRoD problems. Kinect is interesting also but I see that as an accessory rather than a product, so I'm not counting it here. For abysmal, the list includes Kin; for bad it's probably Zune.
For Microsoft to open more stores will ...
1. cost a bunch of money
2. expose just how weak their product portfolio really is
Microsoft is trying to generate "Apple buzz" by mimicking Apple's stores. It doesn't work that way. There has to be something that people want to buzz about, and Microsoft just doesn't have it. I'm not sure it ever will but it certainly doesn't look like "soon".
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But Rule #1 of imitation is that you have to do it better than the original (or at least as well in some circumstances). That won't happen here.
I think that Microsoft's Board or Directors has taken leave of its senses. There's no strategy to follow the success of the Win/Office franchise and they have Steve Ballmer in place to execute. Bad plan, folks. Bad plan.
The rules will stay for a little while and then Murdoch will change them. He's already admitted that he lied with respect to commitments made during earlier takeovers. Why should this time be different?
This is just a Gov't FAIL - pure and simple. They know who they're dealing with and it's no use pretending otherwise.
In the technology frenzy of today, your leading product will be eaten up before long. Your only decision is whether you will do it with a superior product (possibly disruptive, and lower financial returns) or some competitor will do it (probably disruptive, probably lower financial returns).
This is Microsoft's dilemma. So far it appears that they're hedging their bets on the old scheme. Bad news guys - that won't work. I've lived through a couple of these and in every case they failed. Of course, the PHBs responsible had gone with their bonuses by the time of the implosion (not all that long, actually).
contemplate "cloud" and "tablet" and you'll have a start.
It's not so much that WIndows might be displaced on PCs, although some of that will happen. It's more that Windows PCs are no longer at the center of users' experiences.
When the lock on the "clients" goes away, as it is now doing, then Microsoft's lock on the server-client interaction is worth much less than it previously was. You can't automatically sell Windows Server 20xx because it's the only thing that integrates "fully" with Windows "n" (n being some number such as 7, 8 etc).
Those heady days are gone. Steve Ballmer just hasn't realized it yet.
"The data raises the obvious question: If automatically retiring Autorun reaped such clear benefits, why didn't Microsoft do it years ago?"
Because there was NO ADVANTAGE TO MICROSOFT for doing it.
It seems that now there is, what with its previously-unassailable OS dominance under threat from various groups that no longer accept the prevalence of zero-day attacks.
Of course, Siemens *is* responsible.
After all, was it not Siemens that chose *Windows* as the OS for their system??
And the Iranians are just as culpable. Did they not choose to buy a SCADA system whose OS was *Windows*.
Do not blame malfeasance for that which can be explained by stupidity.