What happens when the Powers that Be go full retard with Trusted Computing? I mean, why do people think the concepts in Secure Boot stop at the UEFI? Certainly you could easily expand the bootloader verification mechanism to verify the signature for ALL software... you could also tie the License Key to the computer's "Trusted Computer Unique cryptoID chip" or whatever, and then installing the thing in a VM ain't gonna work for shit. Like another commenter wrote, there's (almost, I would say) always a technical solution, but at some point it's just not practical, even less for the average (or even above average) user.

What happens when using a VM'd or cracked copy of a program involves basically reverse engineering a microchip with an electron microscope, and just to run the program in a SINGLE computer?

I guess at some point this will backfire for the likes of MS, Apple, etc., but today installing other OS's than WinRT in Surface (ARM) is the only limit (not to mention what Apple and "friends" do with tablets and cellphones), tomorrow only signed apps can be installed, the day after every PC works the same way 'cause only geeks give a shit and everybody else just wants convenience, and if the competent authorities stare into nothing with their thumb up their asses... I'm NOT entirely convinced they CAN'T get away with it...

The forum post is an example of people's previous discussion of the issue, which by the way (and this must be the millionth example of how computer geeks live in an echo chamber, where the iPod is lame and regular people's inability to deal with config files and scripts is surprising, I mean, everyone writes at least a couple of Perl scripts in their lives, ammirite or ammirite?), is NOT common knowledge for "normal" people, you know, non-nerds, and that is a problem for everyone including nerds.

I'm no expert on the way/. works or should work, nor do I know if timothy is competent or not, and frankly right now I do not care. But before you proclaim (anonymously, how classy of you) that someone should get fired, you Anonymous Coward little prick, perhaps you should go back to school and LEARN TO READ. Then kindly DIAF.

HAHAHAHAHAA*gasp*HAHAHAHA I love this kind of brilliant satire, so close to a Poe. Here, lemme help you:

"No, we are not. People and companies willing to pay for top-quality healthcare have access to it. The expectation that poor people should get equal access to healthcare at the same level of decent healthcare as rich folk will always keep the average service below the average service in other countries that are willing to pay what it costs. But that is not 3rd world status.

Besides, do you really think that transplants are going to be cutting edge by the end of our lifetimes? Maybe if you are old. I personally am holding out hope for cost-effective Star Trek Teleporter regeneration, where the boundary of fantasy and reality makes no difference."

HAHAHAHA Hey, if you think neutrino-based telecommunications is great, wait until they activate the Ansible! I just hope those damned Buggers don't find us. 10/10 Troll, Would laugh again

Look Ma! "Only" 3 degrees rise! Less strong storms, some more rain over here, some less rain over there... I'm sure farmers can just move, and populations will freely follow, with our current situation of open borders worldwide and such... I guess now the IPCC is no longer the CENTER OF THE ILUMINAT--er... CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY, now it's a reputable scientific report, yeah I think we can *cough* spin *cough*, I mean clearly demonstrate the "change" in "climate change" to be nothing but a small nuisance, why, less strong storms? Maybe it's an improvement! Except, you know, the part about coastal regions... But it's not like some of the most economically important cities are located near the coast, no siree... I mean, what's a meter more in rise than previously expected? Like 3 feet, right? No biggie.

A phrase often ritually quoted by people whithout thinking about it first. I believe it was here in Slashdot that I read a comment to the effect of: "YES, YES IT IS. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it certainly is EVIDENCE of it". I can't help but to concur, although I think this can stem from the ambiguousness of the word "evidence" (evidence as proof, or evidence as something that increases the probability of truth for a prediction). Failing to detect something can mean simply that the instrument or method used were inadequate, but as "failures to detect" pile on, scientists who predict said observation can begin to get nervous, and rightly so. Sometimes a prediction is tied to a well tested theory, and it's more reasonable to wait for further studies than to dismiss the theory altogether, but eventually the observation is made (or the failure of the prediction is ratified) or the theory can't be considered to be falsifiable, and is therefore unscientific.This (in my opinion) mistake is the reverse of another often misused phrase "Correlation is not causation", that is: "The presence of evidence is not evidence of presence" (I'd say: Yes, it is, it's just not PROOF of presence).

See, I don't get that. I respect the religious, and the religious' right to having their beliefs, I just don't see why I have to respect their beliefs. I understand the line between skepticism and prejudiced denialism is hardest to see for those who have crossed it, but it's hard to trust the good faith of your criticism when you throw blanket statements like that, mischaracterizing skepticism as simply "critical examination of fringe science", labeling everyone now claiming to adhere to skepticism as a troll... Although, it's great that you are skeptic about skepticism and the people who claim to be skeptics, which along being skeptic about one's own skepticism are both important requirements for properly being a skeptic to begin with, which is more a philosophy of life than the glorified peer review you make it out to be.

I suppose it can be argued that it all hinges and the meaning of the word "believe", but aside from that, what can I get away with calling "God"? Truth, Liberty, Love, Free Speech, the Right to Property, Gravity? At some point saying that someone "believes in God" because they apply that label to something simply becomes an easy cop out. eg.: Christians who say "God is Love" don't stop at that, and at some point have to profess their specific devotion to Jesus Christ as their savior. If I can pick and choose the meaning of "believe" and "God", then "I believe in God" becomes some sort of tautology, everyone "believes in God":

10 LET BELIEVE_IN$ = "Adhere to the philosophical principles of"

20 LET GOD$ = "Skepticism/Atheism"

30 PRINT "I " + BELIEVE_IN$ + GOD$

But seriously, do you expect something as vast and ambitious as Wikipedia to exist without a somewhat intimidating rulebook? I'm not saying Wikipedians shouldn't be more welcoming or helpful, or that they're not, perhaps the problem is related to the way the site is structured. It's not easy for newcomers to find their way around the place, or around the people.

I don't know who "Log" is. I do fondly remember the one Captain who was confidant of all the others: Captain 'sLog. Pity they never showed the guy, he was like the neighbor from "Home Improvement". I wonder what species he belonged to. Sounds Klingon to me.

Huh? What does not taking obvious loser cases have to do with this? And since when does knowing you can win a case mean you are taking advantage of the plaintiffs? I mean, if it's so "clear cut", they can surely "shop around" for lawyers then... The plaintiffs are not going to win this without some good legal advice anyway, are they?

By the way, "Never take a case you know you won't win" contradicts your sig: "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower" (I'm sure the context for the quote is different, but still...)

  And who decides what a "clear cut case" is? Setting the fees at 10-15% of the awards for all cases pretty much kills the posibility of many people succeding in cases where the legal expenses are high and they can't afford it, and if you think the problem is (not quoting you, just defining) "clear cut cases where the lawyers know they'll win and take home an easy paycheck", trying to codify into law what a "clear cut case" is involves putting the cart before the horses, I believe. It pretty much collides directly with habeas corpus, doesn't it? It involves deciding the case before there's even a trial... I'm pretty sure the defendants wouldn't consider it so "clear cut".

The plaintiffs did indeed win "a" victory, as you put it. They burned a hole in the defendant's pocket, didn't they? And they showed a succesful strategy towards hitting them again where it hurts, if the defendant again breaks the law. I don't think arguing the results are unfair without clearly explaining exactly why they're unfair, providing an alternative, and showing how the alternative doesn't result in more injustice, is constructive.

Cook: refrigeratoaster, buwahahaha
luser1: A toaster AND a refrigerator? BY JOVE THIS IS BRILLIANT
luser2: Small freezer, only makes 2 toasts at a time. Lame.
If I'm to go by Apple's past behavior, expect the iRefrigeratoaster on Q2, 2013.