Since 2009, Microsoft (MS) had been threatening to end support (start killing it) for XP and instead of carrying out the threat, it extends updates for Windows XP security products until July 14, 2015. The extensions seem to me now like the issue of government reform promises—it never happens.
So if MS will forever be indecisive about terminating XP, why not just continue updating it and give users the option of paying for the OS? That way, if the buyers of XP fall short of the required minimum, MS will have the reason to finally terminate the OS. Why kill a product that would still sell?
‘Microsoft today announced it will continue to provide updates to its security products (antimalware engine and signatures) for Windows XP users through July 14, 2015. Previously, the company said it would halt all updates on the same day as the end of support date for Windows XP: April 8, 2014.
‘For consumers, this means Microsoft Security Essentials will continue to get updates after support ends for Windows XP. For enterprise customers, the same goes for System Center Endpoint Protection, Forefront Client Security, Forefront Endpoint Protection, and Windows Intune running on Windows XP…’
Verizon Beat The FCC—But Not Net Neutrality
What Happens Now That Verizon Has Vanquished The FCC
‘The FCC issued its Open Internet Order in December 2010, and it immediately became a hot topic among technologists and policy wonks. Net neutrality is a term that inflames hearts and inspires mobs with pitchforks to assail cable and cellular companies. Those companies then fight back and gather their own mobs and rattle their sabers at the edge providers like Google, Amazon and Netflix. Much vitriol is expended and nobody really accomplishes anything.
‘Surprisingly, though, the specifics of the Open Internet Order are actually tangential to the court case Verizon just won. The appellate court issued no ruling on the policy itself; it just determined that the FCC had improperly assumed the authority to implement it…’
Who Killed Net Neutrality?
If Verizon wants to kill something beneficial for all netizens, why not kill Verizon instead?
‘Tasked by President Obama with codifying the principle, the previous chairman of the F.C.C., Julius Genachowski, was cowed, leading to the present debacle. Put less generously, he blew it. In 2010, the F.C.C. introduced formal net-neutrality rules, in what it called the Open Internet Order. Genachowski, inexcusably, did not use his agency’s main authority over wire communications to enact it. Since its creation, the F.C.C. has had the authority to police all communications by wire in the United States. Instead, Genachowski grounded the rules in what is called—in legal jargon—the agency’s “auxiliary authority.” If the F.C.C. were a battleship, this would be the equivalent of quieting the seventeen-inch-inch guns and relying on the fire hoses.
‘What could possibly have convinced the agency to pursue a legal strategy that any law student could see was dubious? As in any big mistake, there were compounding errors…’
The Man Behind ViralNova on the Viral Bubble
‘To the average online journalist, few words are as irksome as the clinical and ill-defined “content.” Everything on the internet is content, which means a reblogged chart about millenials with a clickbaity title is lumped into the same category as a yearlong investigation into New York City homelessness. As social feeds like Twitter and Facebook become a significant source of referral traffic for online publishers, content creators like The New York Times compete with content aggregators like Upworthy for the same likes and retweets, hoping an article makes its way into a person’s linear timeline. And so far in the war for an appearance on your timeline, the content aggregators might be winning: in November, a high-water mark for many web sites, BuzzFeed boasted 130 million monthly unique visitors. and Upworthy said it received 87 million unique visitors — numbers that far outstrip any traditional media outlet…’