Slashdot Mirror

Uhm, I think you're either leaving something out of your description, or you're confused. MAC addresses aren't transmitted across the Internet. They stop at the first router they come to. Meaning in most sane situations only your DSL modem's MAC is transmitted, and it never leaves your ISP.

newsflash: the WIRELESS MAC address address might not be transmitted across the internet but it sure is broadcast via radio. Add Google street view//norc.eu//other gps+photography+wardriving service into the mix and you've got a gps-to-router_wifi_mac lookup database.

refs:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20005051-266.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20009223-265.html
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html

Uhm, I think you're either leaving something out of your description, or you're confused. MAC addresses aren't transmitted across the Internet. They stop at the first router they come to. Meaning in most sane situations only your DSL modem's MAC is transmitted, and it never leaves your ISP.

newsflash: the WIRELESS MAC address address might not be transmitted across the internet but it sure is broadcast via radio. Add Google street view//norc.eu//other gps+photography+wardriving service into the mix and you've got a gps-to-router_wifi_mac lookup database.

refs:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20005051-266.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20009223-265.html
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html

A story(CNET; but enough company names to fire up google).

The technology is actually damn clever, ultrasonic emitter with carefully tuned wave interaction creating audible sounds only at a specific point, total sci-fi stuff; but using it to beam ghostly whispers into pedestrian's heads was pretty tactless of them.

HP Slate is easily distinguishable from the iPad.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/01/01-06-10hpslate.jpg
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/03/hp-slate.jpg

And the pictured JooJoo is the one that came out 6 months after the iPad. In it's pre-iPad form as the Crunchpad concept, it looked like this:
http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090410/crunchpad_600x415.jpg
Even more different from the iPad.

You would certainly be able to distinguish either of them from an iPad if a judge held them up 10 feet away from you. Well I could anyway, I can't vouch for other people's eyesight.

Free software exists for that also in:

1.) Yawcam .0.3.6 -> http://www.yawcam.com/

2.) Dorgem 2.1 -> http://dorgem.sourceforge.net/download.html

3.) Active WebCam 11.6 -> http://download.cnet.com/Active-WebCam/3000-2348_4-10064509.html

APK

P.S.=> There's possibly BETTER ideas on this page, but this application for classroom/school securities' the one that comes to mind since you have 45 extra cameras around, & if classrooms have PC's? Then you have security systems in those classes essentially ( &, @ any time, NOT just night or when the school closes etc./et al)... apk

Your questions (and those from others) bothered me. With as much business education and capabilities, I should be able to answer your questions better. However I type a reply and realize, I haven't really addressed the underlying fundamental question, "Where is that money going?" If the owners are pulling it out, then it has to go SOMEWHERE and usually there's taxable income. So at least the government benefits somewhat, however, their tax income isn't. One could say, "Loopholes", but given I'm only one step from the highest tax bracket and paying every penny, I'd love to know what those are. I'm a "3%"er and unlike Google, I'm getting hammered. I digress.

Then I hit, this article, "Labor's Share of Non-Farm Business Income," with this graph(it's below in the comments, which are all very insightful. I wish every on-line comment section was this civilized), and you can quantify clearly what is happening now, versus previous recoveries. To date, I've seen no explanations other than those who sound a lot like the politicians. "Blame Wall Street." "Blame the 1% Rich," etc. To me that's not meaningful because it's too close to false logic. This article shows that the difference is that clearly corporations are holding onto the profit more than at any other time in history. Now again, I don't agree capitalism has failed. If it was a failure, then why did it rebound EVERY other time. You can't define the majority by the minority in my opinion. So the meaningful dialogue is, "What changed?" You can't say people all of a sudden got greedy. Well maybe you can. But WHY did they get greedy when EVERY other time they didn't? We didn't invent greed in 2006. As I articulated in a different reply, you hand a company a $1 so that you can get $1.07 or more back (assuming 10 Yr T-Bills are paying 6%). Likewise, companies that have retained earnings (read: profits) should want to take the $1.07 THEY brought in to make ANOTHER $1.07 (or more). Holding onto it get's you $1.06 OR LESS (again assuming Tbills 6%) unless you start speculating, which no CFO worth a lick wants to do. I'll stop here but here is another article along the same lines, Income Redistribution: The Key to Economic Growth?.

What's the solution? NOT the government. If we rely on the government to be the watchkeeper of income distribution, than we will all suffer. To give an example, I read the Obama Stimulus Package being pushed through the Senate. It's been a few years so I won't have the numbers exact in spending, but I will have the percentages. For $30B in increased Food Stamps, they carved off $10.5B for "overhead." I'll let you define what that means to you, but apply it to income redistribution. If we're trying to take $15B from retained earnings sitting on the side (not investing or distributed to workers), do you want $5B spent by the government on "overhead"? No. You can regulate the behavior, but don't dictate it. For example, the government doesn't force you to buy a house, or have kids, but they do make your tax burden insanely easier (until you earn a magic number around $200k combined household) when you A) Get married w/ kids B) Buy a house. These are just ideas. Keep in mind during there are other contrary that might work as well. Under Reagan or Bush (can't remember) we lost deductions for credit card interest, and yet consumer borrowing skyrocketed.

So in summary, you're right. Although, your phantom corps sounds more like tin foil hat fodder, since the IRS or someone would love to catch someone being stupid with switching money around.

According to this article,

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple

The law says, "...under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner"

If you find a phone...any phone...there are several means inquiry that would allow you to find the owner:
1. Look in the contacts list for an owner name, or leave a message with a contact who would know the owner ("Home" or "Office" or "Mom")
2. Contact the cellular carrier
3. Leave your contact information with the owner of the business and wait for someone to claim and identify it sufficiently

Anybody finding any phone has those means of inquiry available to them; anyone who doesn't exercise at least one of them would be considered stealing under that law. The fact that the phone in fact belonged to Apple has no bearing on the matter.

It's not legal to find things in America? The article doesn't say what law he violated. I never would have thought the dude did anything illegal at all....

According to this article,

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple. Lost phones don't automatically revert ownership to the company that originally sold them.

But, according to that article, precedent follows from a ruling where Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.

Ok. So having something that you know you did not have before, qualifies as theft, because knowing you did not have the thing and now you do have it, is tantamount to knowledge you have stolen it? Yeah, right! That seems just wrong. I can see that extending to countless cases it should not otherwise apply... I suppose the only thing preventing a slippery slope is the whim of the prosecutor/judge. does anyone know if California is the only state that has such bizarre property law? Are there more elucidating precedents I can read? Cause it's early in the morning and having trouble understanding how Hogan did anything wrong.

Quick summary timeline...

Dude sees an old MacBook Pro on Craigslist listed by Seller as broken.
Dude buys it thinking maybe he can fix it.
Dude does indeed fix it, requiring reflowing of parts, adding parts (ram, HDD, etc.), chronicles it at Anandech, noting that it seems to be no ordinary MBP.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2165252&highlight=macbook+antenna - Prototype Macbook Pro with 3G: In my shop now!

Dude then sells it on Craigslist himself as he has no use for it and doesn't yet realize its uniqueness.
Buyer takes it to an Apple Store for some service, Apple Store Genius bar says "This is not an Apple product." on account of weird things in there.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/30/apple-genius-bar-didnt-recognize-macbook-pro-3g-prototype-apple-now-wants-it-back/ - Apple Genius Bar Didn't Recognize MacBook Pro 3G Prototype

Buyer sues Dude, wins (in part based on Apple Store findings), Dude is out moneys.
Dude thinks 'wtf', though, and takes a closer look at the MacBook Pro, asking around on forums.
Dude learns that the red motherboard implies it's a prototype.
Weeks pass and Dude does what anybody who isn't a fanboy would do - puts it up for sale on e-bay.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20092180-248/3g-equipped-macbook-prototype-pops-up-on-ebay/ - 3G-equipped MacBook prototype pops up on eBay

e-bay bids go up to $70k, listing is pulled due to request from Apple.
Dude then hears nothing, sits around waiting for some manner of official explanation for days on end.
CNet, however, now wants to know what happened, so arrange an interview, in which they of course also call Apple.

Apple suddenly takes very keen notice.
http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20099494&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-248 - Apple wants its 3G MacBook prototype back

Dude gets call - Apple wants their hardware back and they can have somebody stop by Dude's private residence that evening.
Dude says 'I think not, my lawyer will be in touch'.

Lawyer says Apple have no case.
Lawyer and Apple chit chat.
Lawyer says having no case matters shit all when you're Apple, so give up or incur huge costs.

Apple thus sends over a PI to pick up Prototype MBP.
Dude hands over the MBP.
Dude then sits around again wondering wtf just happened while waiting to see if he gets compensated in any way at all.
Apple does nothing.
Dude then petitions to Apple to get his shit back.
Apple says nothing, but does send an unmarked FedEx box with parts back.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20117512-248/prototype-3g-macbook-buyer-gets-parts-back - Prototype 3G MacBook buyer gets parts back

Dude now left with little option but either go "oh well", or sue the original Seller for incurred costs. Seller however says he received the MBP in earnest.

It would have been nice of Apple if they had arranged an exchange for a shiny new MBP and cover Dude's costs, as there's no reason to believe that this prototype was stolen and - as of the latest reports - Apple never filed it as such either.

The 'best' part? Being on IRC, watching a guy go from not being a fanboy but certainly an admirer of Apple, to being completely disenchanted.

Quick summary timeline...

Dude sees an old MacBook Pro on Craigslist listed by Seller as broken.
Dude buys it thinking maybe he can fix it.
Dude does indeed fix it, requiring reflowing of parts, adding parts (ram, HDD, etc.), chronicles it at Anandech, noting that it seems to be no ordinary MBP.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2165252&highlight=macbook+antenna - Prototype Macbook Pro with 3G: In my shop now!

Dude then sells it on Craigslist himself as he has no use for it and doesn't yet realize its uniqueness.
Buyer takes it to an Apple Store for some service, Apple Store Genius bar says "This is not an Apple product." on account of weird things in there.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/30/apple-genius-bar-didnt-recognize-macbook-pro-3g-prototype-apple-now-wants-it-back/ - Apple Genius Bar Didn't Recognize MacBook Pro 3G Prototype

Buyer sues Dude, wins (in part based on Apple Store findings), Dude is out moneys.
Dude thinks 'wtf', though, and takes a closer look at the MacBook Pro, asking around on forums.
Dude learns that the red motherboard implies it's a prototype.
Weeks pass and Dude does what anybody who isn't a fanboy would do - puts it up for sale on e-bay.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20092180-248/3g-equipped-macbook-prototype-pops-up-on-ebay/ - 3G-equipped MacBook prototype pops up on eBay

e-bay bids go up to $70k, listing is pulled due to request from Apple.
Dude then hears nothing, sits around waiting for some manner of official explanation for days on end.
CNet, however, now wants to know what happened, so arrange an interview, in which they of course also call Apple.

Apple suddenly takes very keen notice.
http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20099494&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-248 - Apple wants its 3G MacBook prototype back

Dude gets call - Apple wants their hardware back and they can have somebody stop by Dude's private residence that evening.
Dude says 'I think not, my lawyer will be in touch'.

Lawyer says Apple have no case.
Lawyer and Apple chit chat.
Lawyer says having no case matters shit all when you're Apple, so give up or incur huge costs.

Apple thus sends over a PI to pick up Prototype MBP.
Dude hands over the MBP.
Dude then sits around again wondering wtf just happened while waiting to see if he gets compensated in any way at all.
Apple does nothing.
Dude then petitions to Apple to get his shit back.
Apple says nothing, but does send an unmarked FedEx box with parts back.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20117512-248/prototype-3g-macbook-buyer-gets-parts-back - Prototype 3G MacBook buyer gets parts back

Dude now left with little option but either go "oh well", or sue the original Seller for incurred costs. Seller however says he received the MBP in earnest.

It would have been nice of Apple if they had arranged an exchange for a shiny new MBP and cover Dude's costs, as there's no reason to believe that this prototype was stolen and - as of the latest reports - Apple never filed it as such either.

The 'best' part? Being on IRC, watching a guy go from not being a fanboy but certainly an admirer of Apple, to being completely disenchanted.

Quick summary timeline...

Dude sees an old MacBook Pro on Craigslist listed by Seller as broken.
Dude buys it thinking maybe he can fix it.
Dude does indeed fix it, requiring reflowing of parts, adding parts (ram, HDD, etc.), chronicles it at Anandech, noting that it seems to be no ordinary MBP.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2165252&highlight=macbook+antenna - Prototype Macbook Pro with 3G: In my shop now!

Dude then sells it on Craigslist himself as he has no use for it and doesn't yet realize its uniqueness.
Buyer takes it to an Apple Store for some service, Apple Store Genius bar says "This is not an Apple product." on account of weird things in there.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/30/apple-genius-bar-didnt-recognize-macbook-pro-3g-prototype-apple-now-wants-it-back/ - Apple Genius Bar Didn't Recognize MacBook Pro 3G Prototype

Buyer sues Dude, wins (in part based on Apple Store findings), Dude is out moneys.
Dude thinks 'wtf', though, and takes a closer look at the MacBook Pro, asking around on forums.
Dude learns that the red motherboard implies it's a prototype.
Weeks pass and Dude does what anybody who isn't a fanboy would do - puts it up for sale on e-bay.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20092180-248/3g-equipped-macbook-prototype-pops-up-on-ebay/ - 3G-equipped MacBook prototype pops up on eBay

e-bay bids go up to $70k, listing is pulled due to request from Apple.
Dude then hears nothing, sits around waiting for some manner of official explanation for days on end.
CNet, however, now wants to know what happened, so arrange an interview, in which they of course also call Apple.

Apple suddenly takes very keen notice.
http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20099494&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-248 - Apple wants its 3G MacBook prototype back

Dude gets call - Apple wants their hardware back and they can have somebody stop by Dude's private residence that evening.
Dude says 'I think not, my lawyer will be in touch'.

Lawyer says Apple have no case.
Lawyer and Apple chit chat.
Lawyer says having no case matters shit all when you're Apple, so give up or incur huge costs.

Apple thus sends over a PI to pick up Prototype MBP.
Dude hands over the MBP.
Dude then sits around again wondering wtf just happened while waiting to see if he gets compensated in any way at all.
Apple does nothing.
Dude then petitions to Apple to get his shit back.
Apple says nothing, but does send an unmarked FedEx box with parts back.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20117512-248/prototype-3g-macbook-buyer-gets-parts-back - Prototype 3G MacBook buyer gets parts back

Dude now left with little option but either go "oh well", or sue the original Seller for incurred costs. Seller however says he received the MBP in earnest.

It would have been nice of Apple if they had arranged an exchange for a shiny new MBP and cover Dude's costs, as there's no reason to believe that this prototype was stolen and - as of the latest reports - Apple never filed it as such either.

The 'best' part? Being on IRC, watching a guy go from not being a fanboy but certainly an admirer of Apple, to being completely disenchanted.

Didn't you watch the latest keynote? Apple has 5% of the overall cellphone market. What are you talking about????

All your rant is prefectly legitimate whenever a company is in a position of monopoly. UIS law has provisions for this. Your rant is just not applicable to Apple.

Double standard my ass. Check your facts. People like iOS. Others like Android. Some like WP7. So what? Some are stupider than others? Give people some credit.

Skewing facts much?
5% worldwide cell phone market share is not the same thing as mobile OS market share in the US market which is what I was referring to. Here are the facts if you even care to see them. And if you want to see what it was around a year ago you can look here. Failure to do one's own research while faithfully swallowing keynote speeches is one sure way to be in the dark.

Very good question.

Here's a link to the earlier hack by German reseachers in PCworld , with links to video demonstration and paper of University of Virginia.

A similar hack on the same chip also in 2008 was published by Dutch researchers from Radboud Univeristy in Nijmgen, in the Netherlands. This case attracted additional attention because the company making the Mifare chip, NXP (formerly Phillips semiconductors), tried to block publication of the hack and was denied this in a Dutch court of law (security guru Schneier on this).

Even more recently, the " improved" system, but still using the same chip on the cards, was targeted by Dutch investigative journalist Brenno de Winter who was cleared from prosecution by a judge as recently as three weeks ago. His research showed that hacking was possible by using a freely available windows program (you-tubevideo of his sadly overly-long presentation at DefCon 16).

Last week it became public that the company responsible for the system, Trans Link Systems ( somewhat uninformative site) has silently been introducing cards using a different chip for two months now. It uses the Infineon SLE-66 chip (producer unknown to me; anyone?), that can have software installed. The software that was installed by TLS is to block any tampering. Dutch news site nu.nl has had such a card for two weeks and was not able to hack it with the currently known methods (their article, Dutch only, I'm afraid). Old cards are still in production until he end of the year for subscriptions (linked to personalized accounts) but the new cards are used for the anonymous day cards. Equipment of public transport personnel has been adapted to reveal hacking attempts.

So, the big question to all the security experts hovering around slashdot: how realistic is the claim that this card will prevent fraud? Let's be realistic and assume that it can eventually be hacked in the lab, but that practical application of this hack is not feasible. The interesting case is a hacking method that would make free transport available on a large scale, as is the case now.Can chip-installed software block such tampering attempts?

have you considered selling this prodigy to AT&T? he wouldnt be the first.

That sounds like an awfully high number, even for normal USB

If you're counting anything that has a normal USB port, no way, especially if you count every such device that has ever been manufactured instead of requiring it to be currently in use.

This CNET article claims that there the number of cell phone subscribers hit 5 billion last year. Many of those have USB. Add in all the computers, mice, keyboards, cameras, flash drives, game consoles, controllers, etc. and 10 billion looks almost conservative.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but honestly I think that these huge screens are totally idiotic if you really want to go mainstream with a phone. See, half of your potential customers are women (which tend to have smaller hands) and not too few will be teenagers.

Is the Nexus line really branded as a 'mainstream' product? I figured it's targeted at the gadget-crazy that would find the extra real estate useful. That seems to be Android's niche anyway -- more male, more techie, more left-brained.

I'm sure the demographic data isn't perfect, but the skew seems pretty reasonable to me: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20092784-71/study-android-users-sad-hicks-iphone-users-rich-girls/

iPhone 4S aka (iPhone 4 Suckers...)

They final fixed the "You're holding it wrong" antenna issue (people will pay for the upgrade) and and still no 4G.

"Apple today unveiled the iPhone 4S, which features a modest upgrade over the iPhone 4." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20115460-37/apple-unveils-iphone-4s/#ixzz1aJKc6lyD

This isn't going to be very useful if it requires a user to be already logged in to work.

It has just that limitation:

The technology right now is limited so that permission must be granted each time remote administration is activated. "This version enables users to share with or get access to another computer by providing a one-time authentication code. Access is given only to the specific person the user identifies for one time only, and the sharing session is fully secured,"

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20117619-264/chrome-extension-enables-remote-computer-control/#ixzz1aEa5rPhB

Ha ha funny, at least seven years link (see the comments), but maybe even older due to the 'token ring' mention

No dissin' Woz, but what, exactly, did he do after Apple?

He made a universal remote none has ever heard of, sponsored a failed music festival, then gave up and went dancing.
Woz is a nice guy, a genius even, but he's not exactly savvy.

No company would back any RnD they didn't have exclusive rights to.

However, right now we have companies scaling back their R&D way back and publicly funded projects are doing the majority of development. Academia has been developing all sorts of solutions to problems only to have them snapped up and monopolized by industry.

Here's an example: University of Wisconsin-Madison develops a way to make processors more efficient. Intel uses this in their Core 2 Duo processors. [1] Who paid for the research? Let's look at the citation in one of UW-Madison's publications [2]:

NSF Grants CCR-9303030 and MIP-9505853, ONR Grant N00014-93-1-0465, and by U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca under Contract DABT63-95-C-0127 and ARPA order no. D346.

Looks like you and I did.

Who profits from it? Intel and UW-Madison.

This pattern has been repeated endlessly and in all sorts of fields. Academia is on the cutting edge of drug and medical research using funding from the US taxpayers, but the pharmas are claiming to have spent billions of dollars researching their drugs. Yeah, billions were spent, but they were the American public's. Just another example of public risk with privatized profits.

The OLPC cost $400 because you were buying two devices. the second device was your donation through the Give One Get One program. It was the only way you could buy them.

The reason the devices cost $200 each was because the OLPC suffered a bit of feature creep and bad pricing projections on components.

The idea was that volume sales would bring pricing down more closely to the $100 level. I will mention that both Microsoft and Intel tried their best to derail the project*

[*] - http://news.cnet.com/Negroponte-Windows-key-to-OLPC-philosophy/2100-1016_3-6215837.html

So what is the solution?

Well, there are several solutions.

First, stop the patenting of the obvious. For example, multi-touch on a touch screen. Or a patent for a rectangle smart phone with icons.

Next, stop patenting how people use things. The multi-touch (above) is an example. Could you imaging what the GUI would be like if Apple were able to patent the double-click?!!? How about if Ford patented where hands were placed on a steering wheel? Could Gibson patent a guitar chord or method for rock stars to bash a guitar on stage? Or how about "A handheld computing device is introduced comprising a motion detection sensor(s) and a motion control agent. The motion detection sensor(s) detect motion of the computing device in one or more of six (6) fields of motion and generate an indication of such motion. The motion control agent, responsive to the indications of motion received from the motion sensors, generate control signals to modify, one or more of the operating state and/or the displayed content of the computing device based, at least in part, on the received indications." Also known as an accelerometer. Yes, this patent was granted.

Stop patenting evolution. If I were to patent the web browser, someone else shouldn't be able to patent using graphics in a web browser. If were to hold the patent to the TV, someone else shouldn't be able to patent the wide-screen.

Stop patenting conventions. If something is accepted as an industry standard with the patent holder's blessing, USB for example, the patents should immediately expire. This would prevent patent holders like Apple, Intel and Rambus from pushing their patented solutions over better, open ones.

Stop overly-broad or vague patents. Patents should include a proposed use for the idea. For example, if I were to make the language vague enough, I could easily get the patent for the automobile. Someone could have seen the PAD on Star Trek and grabbed a patent for that. "Flat, rectangular, electronic device used to hold and present information". I've seen examples of patents filed years ago that were violated by products that were not what the patent holder was thinking of when he got the patent.

There are more. These are just off the top of my head.

And the iPhone 3GS is free, FREE!!! I tell ya! Just like those free androids, but better!

Imagine a free new iPhone from Apple, with the very latest and greatest iOS 5 and rapid updates! FREE!!! (maybe they are giving 2 for 1 too..)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20069641-1/how-well-does-ios-5-run-on-iphone-3gs//
(iOS 5 runs very well on 3GS)

the start menu is an easier way of locating programs than anything else that MS has provided. The only reason I can think of for people not using it is that they already have the 3 programs they use pinned to the task bar.

Seriously, this is another example of GUI design based on the average idiot user. Misguided and idiotic GUI redesigns serve no purpose but to annoy the userbase (ex. KDE4 and GNOME3). I find that I use the Start menu far less often because I've moved the apps I use to the PA menu. It's my way of doing what MS should have done a long time ago - separation and modularization of the apps from the OS (no install, no registry crap, etc). Seriously all this GUI rework and MS has yet to implement truly useful and fundamental changes to the OS. They still by default cram all the OS, apps, and data into a single place on a single drive (seriously 'My Documents', 'My Music', etc.. argh, does anyone actually use this idiotic and stupidly placed directory structure for managing their data?) Tying all that together insures when an OS gets corrupted/infected/whatever a reinstall will become a painful and long process.

But no, instead of something useful like eliminating the registry, they spend their time unnecessarily reinventing the GUI. Perhaps at least they will finally discover multiple desktops. Of course just looking at the tile-based monstrosity I can just imagine how they will play the hide-the-system-settings game. Instead of something useful I'm guessing they will play the usual game of shuffling the settings and burying them several layers deep (you know as far as possible from the user).

Probably...yes...realistically...Someone will root the device before the end of the month and CyanogenMod (LOL my auto-correct wants Carcinogenicity) will be ported to it days later. But yes Amazon would love to be able to prevent you from rolling your own since they are selling the Fire at a loss. They know the vast majority will not bother.

Amazon knows they need to get ahead of this iPod as media device trend and they also know they are WAY behind with little hope of catching up without making a concession or two in the short term.

It's likely they shoved out a hobbled $80 model with the expectation that most people will buy the next one up but they can still claim the lower price point.

No.

$199 Kindle Fire = Upgrade to $399 Kindle

$79 Kindle = for people who never owned a Kindle before or used the free Kindle smartphone app.

$79 is also a great price point for Christmas gifts. The average US adult spends $658 on gifts and $79 allows them to buy one for everyone on their list rather than only a few $199 Kindle Fires.

In the field of pixel-addressable e-ink screened devices, $80 is very aggressive pricing. It would appear that they have chosen to go with the "make it cheaper" option, (which advances in technology generally provide as an alternative to "make it better"), for this particular kindle.

It's a Amazon ebook reader to purchase and read Amazon ebooks and little else. Honestly I was surprised they allowed people to surf the web at all on them, but I suppose Amazon realized few people would spend $399 on only an ebook reader so they packed it full of features to make it worth $399.

Now they have the bargain basement $79 Kindle and like a cheap car or cheap laptop, it can't do everything it's more expensive sibling can do. No surprise there, I don't think Amazon wants people to "upgrade" from a $399 Kindle to a $79 Kindle, the cheap Kindle is for people who really wanted a Kindle but didn't want to spend $399

Recently, Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress, using not a Chromebook, but... a Macbook Air.

Why should I buy a Chromebook if Google's own excecutives won't use one?

(Aside: Will these stores just turn into Motorola stores at some point?)

After reading this article I think maybe they want to destroy Firefox on purpose.

I'm amazed more don't put two and two together. Most of Mozilla Foundation's income comes from Google. Seems like a huge conflict of interest...

And many others feel the same way - below is an excerpt from a cnet article from a few years ago to ponder when considering what's happened with Firefox lately...

"However, the open secret in the tech sector is that at the end of the day, Google calls the shots. As this blog post will explain, when a pro-user security feature in the browser threatens Google's business model, it is the feature that is made to compromise--not the search engine."

Read entire article at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9776759-46.html

One has to wonder whether some driving Firefox development are really in cahoots with Google with the objective of marginalizing Firefox as a Chrome clone.

Regardless of whether that's the case, Firefox is looking to be more like Chrome all the time ... and, hence, imho, it's no surprise so many Firefox users are flocking to Chrome.

I have a Motorola Droid and an HD7. Despite the age of the Droid, it launches apps faster than the Windows Phone. Furthermore, there are many small ways that the HD7 falls down that are just inexplicable. One is text reflow. When I zoom in on a web page, I expect the text to reflow so that I don't have to scroll side to side. This is a solved problem on iOS and Android since antiquity yet windows phone doesn't do it. Also, why can't I input a url into the browser in landscape mode? Why doesn't flash work? Why is the launcher stuck in portrait? Why can't I side-load apps on my own device without having to pay a fee? Why can't I tether? Why can't I hook my HD7 up to my computer without having to go through the Zune software? Why not just USB drive mode? Why does it take 3 times as long on it to load a web page vs my Droid? Why are third party apps so choppy (Engadget anyone?)? And on and on. This says it best.

Sun made Java to do what exactly?

Initially it was for television-based devices.

I never figured it out, they never seemed to get any real kickback from people using Java. No hardware sales, no software sales, no licensing fees, no split of any profits of anything built using Java that I can tell.

They licensed it to mobile devices, and I think some other partners as well:

"That had become lucrative: a source familiar with Sun's Java work said royalty payments for mobile Java was the dominant part of the hundreds of millions of dollars a year Sun took garnered in Java revenue. "

You're right, though, that for as big as Java was brand-wise, they didn't profit all that much. Then again, they ended up being bought by Oracle for a lot of money, and a big part of that was because of Java, so it wasn't exactly a losing bet. Their biggest problem was the competition with Linux and cheap PCs. Java at least gave them name recognition in the tech world.

Yes, it's just rounded corners, heaven forbid it also be about the fact that Samsung repeatedly steals Apple's UI IP.

like so.

I really don't give a shit anymore about who wins. this isn't apple's first legal wrangling over look and feel, and I don't give a shit if they win or lose.

Reality is, it is inarguable that everyone's rushing to make iPad competitors because the iPad hit it big and to do that they have to steal what made the iPad a success in the first place(minimalist hardware, touch screen UI).

Samsung's idea of a tablet pre-iPad

And of course, post-iPad it looks like a fucking iPad.

From TFA:

Apple originally applied for the trademark on January 9, 2007, the day the iPhone was introduced.

...and I'm writing this post on a Thinkpad X60 tablet that was marketed as a "MultiTouch" model in 2006.

[Citation needed]. This review says nothing about multi-touch capability... unless you're referring to the fact that you can use your finger or a stylus.

Well since the Carly's first order of business was getting rid of those fools who might interfere with her plans to destroy every major PC manufacturer...WAIT A MINUTE? Carly single handedly (with Michael Capellas help) destroyed the number one and number two PC manufacturers...Coincidence? I wonder if she's met Michael Dell or Steve Jobs? Hrmmmmm....

Yes, they did!

This is going to be interesting...

You can be bugged very easily. A sound bug can be no bigger than a pin, but it is not necessary to plant one. Directional microphones are very effective, and can be used from several hundred metres away if necessary, but it is much easier to use the telephone. Either a home landline or a mobile can be remotely activated to serve as a microphone, bugging the room even though the handset is down, or the mobile switched off. The resulting sound can be cleaned up to surprising quality."

The FBI apparently uses similar technology that they call a "roving bug". Apparently this is the big secret that they don't want to reveal in court - that they can remotely modify the firmware or baseband firmware of various cell phones and then record all communications and utilise them as remote bugs, even when the phone is turned off.

The same thing happened when AT&T merged with BellSouth. The FCC made them provide DSL for $20/month.

See for example: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html

Note the title was a bit misleading, the company was able to deny the FBI 's request, because doing the bugging broke the service the customer was paying for. You can be pretty sure that problem has been fixed by now.

I was under the impression that if a Google+ ban affected non-Google+ services, a user could downgrade his profile to get out of the Google+ ban. According to this article: "Products like Picasa, Reader, and Buzz will revert to the same state they were in before you upgraded to Google+" after a downgrade.

The reliability of a cell phone connection is directly proportional to its SAR radiation level. That's because while the fractal antenna may be good, the ability for the phone to transmit back may be too weak to reach the cell tower through external obstructions. While debated to be unsafe, the higher the SAR level, the more reliable the connection. CNET keeps a list of current phones with SAR levels.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-2.html?tag=page;page

I will change a bit the order of quoting

As for the Zune, it's clearly a media player UI. That Metro has that style is unsurprising, but the original Zune in no way portends Metro.

How can say so it's beyond my comprehension. Have a look at this side-by-side picture of Zune V1 and V2: http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/13/zune-2-0-update-ready-for-your-first-generation-zune I'm pretty sure everyone can recognize traits of the same design language.

Metro and WP7 before it were a striking change from the Windows GUI and Windows Mobile. The changes that they made were similar to the ones Apple made of getting rid of much of what makes a PC OS a PC OS.

TBH, I think this is simply a common belief coming from Apple marketing department and channeled through Apple fan boys. If anything, I'd say that Microsoft GUIs are exactly what were already under change. Apple simply pushed the changes to happen (far) more quickly.

For example, have a look at these:

1. Zen Portable Media Center (announced 2003, release 2004). This is probably the most stretched example. However, it's the first one I could trace back regarding the shift to typography based GUIs as Metro. Interface example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Media_Center
2. Windows Media Center (around 2006). This is the first clear example of where MS was hading to with GUIs for devices that were not regular PCs. Early interface examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Media_Center_Edition and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn_WwstUIlE
3. Zune device and software (around 2006-2007). The first generation already headed to typography based UI, later generations are clearly Metro styled. Examples of the device OS here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune and here http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/13/zune-2-0-update-ready-for-your-first-generation-zune example of the software here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune_Software
4. XBox 360 (around 2008). Again, first generations (of the Dashboard) were only seminal, the new one is clearly Metro. Examples are here http://news.cnet.com/hands-on-with-the-new-xbox-360-dashboard and the new one here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1home30rock0531.JPG
5. Windows Mobile 6.5 (around 2010). With 6.5 you can clearly see similarities with Metro. Then again, the real Metro was around the corner. Still, you can see there's a continuity from the Zune (2007). Examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_mobile

Save all pictures somewhere, review the Metro design language article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language) and then tell me again that Microsoft started changing GUIs after Apple push.

MS was already undertaking changes in various GUIs and I can clearly see the Metro design behind those changes. They may have not spelt out a name for it, and/or formally defined design rules, but I can clearly see the common roots. They already had the grounds and simply came up with the concept of tiles that was new.

Prior to the iPhone, MS's answer to tablets and phones was to shoe-horn in Windows. Apple was the first to make a tablet OS designed specifically *for* the tablet, and no

It's already turning out that with most carriers, I can't use a smartphone on their network without being automatically charged for a data plan. ATT uses IMEI lookups to charge you:
http://www.bgr.com/2009/08/21/att-to-require-smartphone-data-plans-starting-september-6th/

This should be illegal! Just because I want to jot down notes on my phone doesn't mean I should be forced to pay $30 every month to ATT! This is just one of the effects of few large monopolies. Another well known example: texting plan rates were hiked up in lockstep by the monopolies. Yet another effect of a market with few, large monopolies: high rates for customers.

On a yearly basis, American cell phone users are spending about $635.85 on cell phone service. [...]By contrast people in the Netherlands and Finland pay the lowest amount for cell phone service, only $131.44 per year. And cell phone users in Sweden only pay $137.94 per year. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10307726-94.html

Why on earth would we want to allow even fewer and even larger monopolies?

It's already turning out that with most carriers, I can't use a smartphone on their network without being automatically charged for a data plan. ATT uses IMEI lookups to charge you:
http://www.bgr.com/2009/08/21/att-to-require-smartphone-data-plans-starting-september-6th/

This should be illegal! Just because I want to jot down notes on my phone doesn't mean I should be forced to pay $30 every month to ATT! This is just one of the effects of few large monopolies. Another well known example: texting plan rates were hiked up in lockstep by the monopolies. Yet another effect of a market with few, large monopolies: high rates for customers.

On a yearly basis, American cell phone users are spending about $635.85 on cell phone service. [...]By contrast people in the Netherlands and Finland pay the lowest amount for cell phone service, only $131.44 per year. And cell phone users in Sweden only pay $137.94 per year. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10307726-94.html

Why on earth would we want to allow even fewer and even larger monopolies?

If the total pool of software patents numbers 1.5 trillion, then the total pool of relevant software patents is probably 1.4 trillion. Really, there is no such thing as a "relevant patent" when you're writing software, because everything from pure maths to data structures can be patented. Even if the codec is patent free, there is no guarantee the implementation will be. If one developer throws in an "information storage and retrieval utility" utilising "a hashing technique with external chaining and on-the-fly removal of expired data" then they are liable to be sued by Bedrock - as was the case with Linux.

"the first time this method has worked in a carnivore"? Eh? Here's a report of glowing cats from 2007: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9833107-1.html

Hard to tell what the veracity of the South Korean report is, though, and what sort of technique they used. So maybe "this method" really is new?

You're pretty close. Just read this article. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html

From what you can see there is a "normal" looking PSU with a couple of changes.

#1 - there's only a 12v rail just like many server PSUs used by Dell, Supermicro, etc. All other voltage conversions are done by sub-converters or the motherboard.
#2 - Distributed AC/DC conversion + Distributed battery backup.

As shown by things like 80Plus ratings for PSUs, if you know the exact load your server is expected to use you can build a VERY efficient AC/DC conversion. Building central AC/DC isn't really needed, besides you would still need to distribute at a higher voltage than 12v. I can't imagine the kind of bus bar you would need for a hundred racks of servers at 12vdc.

It isn't a question of whether Oracle has the evidence, but whether or not Oracle would get the money they originally demanded.

Oracle's original win from SAP of $1.3 billion got knocked down to a (relatively) tiny $195 million.

By those proportions, Google could lose the case, but still likely end up paying less than what Oracle normally would charge for licensing fees.

I'm guessing that news alone is/was enough to get Ellison to shut up and pay attention, and probably even got him to consider sitting down with Google at a table to try and work things out in advance. Of course, Google now has a pretty good advantage as well, in that they may decide to let the trial go on anyway if the negotiation pricetag doesn't suit them.