>It seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time. And it's executed almost to the point of perfection.
Like an arcade game? It costs $0.99 for a fresh set of lives in Candy Crush Saga. $0.25 cents in 1984, adjusted for inflation, is $0.54 today, so an extra set of five lives in the game is about double what an arcade game cost in 1984. So what's the big deal?
It's against Apple's best interest in this case if the person they sold the machine to couldn't get their software to work. Then it's most likely a return and an unhappy customer.
When you help the customer get a solution they need then when they need a cell phone, want a music player for when they're at the gym, or are going buying kid a laptop for school they'll remember your service and consider Apple. That is in Apple's best interest.
More importantly they get more out of publicly screwing you over. You become an example, something that instills fear in the population. The government's treatment of you makes their job easier because people self-censor or adjust their behavior, assuming that they're monitored and would be caught, which means the government needs to tap and monitor less.
Better smart phones and better sensors means you can opt-in to be part of a research study with your smart phone being the telemetry device, providing valuable medical data to scientists and doctors.
Anybody with any sense knows you're a plant, not a hacker, and your hacking charges were laid there by the US Attorney to give you cover to turn on real hackers. Wired has been part of the compromised media from the day they published anything written by you.
>So why should the prosecution get a free pass, if they are using cell phone records to prosecute the the other men but don't have any to tie Brown to the area they should be able to just assume his guilt.
Welcome to America where you are not allowed on a jury if you even hint that police officers are human and therefore capable of error or dishonesty.
It's probably harder to create a "unit bundle" key with Valve for Steam if you're only going to sell this bundle once and never in the future. You don't need any coordination with Valve to give away Steam keys. You only need coordination with the game developer.
These seem like such basic errors. Not validating responses because you trust the software you interact with to behave is such a basic mistake that you'd think the people that work on the X server from X.Org would have learned not to do that long ago.
The reason that the blame is shifted toward "hackers" is that being proactive with security, while the right thing to do, costs money and time. In a market where software from different vendors is usually only determined by price and update frequency spending additional money and time is a competitive disadvantage. However, if you can push your security failings off onto "hackers" not only do you minimize costs but your customers, if they're not sufficiently savvy to this game, think that you're the better vendor because you're able to "beat hackers at their own game".
Nowhere is this mindset more prevalent than in the anti-virus software field, which of course is another can of worms itself.
Windows is a better desktop for consumption of media. All of the major music, television show, and movie stores run there. Virtually all of the gaming digital download stores run there. Almost all of the file sharing applications run there. All of the TV tuner hardware works there. If you want to consume media the Windows is ideal. Even though Windows is an ideal desktop for the consumption of media there is something much more important.
Windows holds the lead as the top desktop for the production of anything creative: code, graphics, music, videos, and games. While certain parts of this may not be without frustration (I'm looking at you, Visual Studio) the support provided is generally superior to what you find in the Linux world (there is no Linux parallel to MSDN). Photoshop has no peer in the professional image manipulation world, though GIMP could fill that role for an ambitious amateur. Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premere or Sony Vegas are in no way threatened by any free software solution. While Ardour is amazing, Cubase and Pro Tools make it look like a joke in a professional environment.
Linux excels as the platform that ties the Internet together. Windows, by and large, sucks as a server. Any of the major free software mail transfer agents (sendmail, postfix, exim) blow Exchange Server out of the water for email (not counting all of the other things Exchange Server does). IIS is a sick joke compared to Apache, lighttpd, and nginx. Nobody can look me straight in the face and say FileZilla Server outclasses vsftpd or proftpd.
Now, the gaps are closing little by little. I think that the Windows consumption market is going to be cannibalized by Windows RT on tablets. I think that free software production tools are going to get better and better and eventually beat out their professional counterparts on Windows. I just don't think that day is today. Or next year. Or the next ten years.
Noblesse Oblige is dead. The ultra-rich hoard their wealth. They won't even invest in their own country by paying their taxes without tax shelters. What makes you think they would invest in something that might benefit others?
Or because it allows them to have a disconnected SMTP server that receives mail. It would be the solution that I would use if I had a multi-user mail server on a network that only occasionally dialed up to the Internet to send/receive mail but was otherwise disconnected.
With the abundance of other video calling solutions on Linux that are cross platform is this just dead on arrival with Microsoft being able to read all of your messages?
Like an arcade game? It costs $0.99 for a fresh set of lives in Candy Crush Saga. $0.25 cents in 1984, adjusted for inflation, is $0.54 today, so an extra set of five lives in the game is about double what an arcade game cost in 1984. So what's the big deal?