I guess I can see that if I didn't know the setting existed. I tend to "read the manual" so to speak. EULAs and ToS on the otherhand...
I still don't have a problem understanding the settings though, though I suppose its also about how available the settings are. Even if FB left the settings basically alone, but organized the interface so it's more or less one page rather than a bunch of different sections it would be more intuitive.
Skype has been in the process of trying figure out how to better monetize their product well before Microsoft purchased them. They were even already testing out video ads on a small percentage of their users. I recall at one point Skype was thinking about popping up full screen ads on you. Glad that didn't happen.
While Microsoft could have stopped the idea of advertising, you can't say they bought Skype and changed the entire direction of the company's view on ads.
Second, it's not nearly as bad as the article brings it out to be. It's first of all only on voice calls, so it's not interrupting your video chat. Are you really staring at the picture of your friend or their avatar when you voice chat with them? They also aren't going to insert audio messages inside of the middle of your conversations. Don't want to see some ads... minimize the program and be done with it. I don't see where the "interrupting" idea is coming in.
Skype also has a free "business" version. I haven't heard if that is getting ads, but I would guess that they probably aren't going to put it in that version (could be wrong though).
About the only thing I agree with is that ads do not add to the experience, which obviously is where the guys at Skype are quite off their rockers. The people using their service aren't looking to purchase anything, so there are no "relevant" ads. They are looking to communicate. If anything, they should try selling headsets and other items related to voice and video chat. It would also be smart to put a checkbox in the options menu to disable ads completely.
I think Richard hit the issue on the head when he said that these large providers are often constantly under attack. No matter who you are, you are eventually going to make a mistake. When you have such a large user-base out there, not only are more and more people going to try to break in (because if they do they've hit gold), but with so many users it's more likely someone will NOTICE the issue. If my home Web server has a bug that lets you authenticate with any password, it may take months before you even notice it yourself. When it's a service that has many thousands of users, someone will notice quite quickly and someone will take advantage of it.
I believe the court said that the 'illegal copy' of the OS was when it was copied into RAM. This never made any sense to me, but I remember reading a while ago that there was precedent to this argument. The copying of the OS into RAM is usually authorized when software is purchased, but in this case Apple did not authorize the copying of their code in that fashion.
This (and a few other reasons) is why any online seller should set up some sort of alerting system if a product page is receiving insane amounts of traffic, and ESPECIALLY so if that high amount of traffic becomes a high amount sales.
While I absolutely agree with you, Mike, on your stance concerning Google Street View and that it can be quite useful for certain things, catching criminals in action probably isn't one of those things. That's a once in a decade happenstance and thus wouldn't be fair to be used as an argument for being pro Street View. Other than the fact it shows that sometimes image records come in handy as a historical reference, there's really nothing more than an eye-catching coincidence here.
Concerning cell phones in the classroom, I'm on both sides of the line. Do cell phones even belong in the classroom? I don't personally think they do. They are a distraction to the class if they go off and there will always be those who will text and such when they should be paying attention.
If there's an emergency, I think most classrooms by now have either a phone or intercom system to convey that message to someone. If there's a home emergency, they can always call the school's office and have them pull the student out of class. If a student needs to call a parent after school for a pickup or something like that, why not allow phones at the school, but not in the classroom. They can keep it in their locker. At the very least, students should have their phones in silent mode during the class.
Obviously, I do not think it is appropriate for a teacher to hit a student for any reason unless the student was intending bodily harm to someone in the class. A cell phone with video capabilities would be a good tool to record what actually happened. But, the danger with all things like this is that it can often leave out much of the story, or just pick up the second half of what really happened.
Case in point, my uncle is currently subbing at a school for a teacher who was forced to go for hitting a student. What I found out after my initial reaction is that the stupid kid decided to piss on the teacher. If a 17 year old was pissing on me, my initial thoughts for reaction would probably be something along the same lines. I'd probably think better of it a few milliseconds later.
All that being said, maybe if a school is really that bad, they should have cameras in most of the classrooms recording what happens at all times (if they could afford it which is probably not).