But more to the point, it could dual-boot. Not only did you get a nice toy to play games on, but you could even use it to practice your linux-fu. They advertised that. And then they just took it away, probably because those who used it for linux weren't buying any games.
Y2K was a deadline and people really behave differently when there are deadlines (just ask a student!)
HIPAA was a deadline and healthcare industries scrambled and fought to be ready when it went into effect.
HHS (or whomever is in charge of hospital regs) needs to define repercussions for hospitals not taking security (and backups) seriously. Not sure what the effect will be with the new administration, but it is certainly something that needs to get done *now*.
If you are running a hospital/enterprise computer system, you *are* doing backups. You are doing daily/weekly/monthly rotation backups. You should *not* be losing more than a single day's data should the worst happen. A large hospital/enterprise system would also have in place disaster management plans even in the case of when the worst does happen.
I place the most blame on email systems which permit links to be "followed." Yes there are also attachments to blame, but links are, I believe, the primary route for infecting computers; there should be a policy switch for turning that *OFF* across all mail readers.
"...Comcast will suffer significant, irreparable injury to its [...] customer relationships.They seriously wrote that down? Comcast? I know lawyers are professional truth spinners, but that *had* to hurt.
And, on top of that, Oracle may file a new case against Google for non-tablet/phone uses anyway.
... at which point Google enters the OpenJDK line of evidence showing that the API is clearly available to use; Oracle would lose quickly (of course it would really depend on what exactly they sue over).
Somewhere in all this I get the impression Oracle is upset about something that Google did or said and won't let them just close the book and move on.
Yes the cops are following bogus leads. But they request a warrant from a judge -- and the judge should call bullshit when it is all predicated on an IP address -- *IF* they knew better.
EFF should be pushing for updating the law school curriculum, and for getting the facts about IP address <> person, and how they are not appropriate for warrants, to the existing lawyers and judges. The police would learn in time: the burnt hand learns best.
I think more to the point: that if they did lock out other OS options, did they identify that fact in their literature? Lots of people buy laptops to put Linux on them. If the documentation clearly stated something to the effect of "This laptop does not support Linux" then people would know not to buy it. The problem is them not being open with their customers, not a problem with Microsoft (about this /s).