Slashdot Mirror

Nice of you to respond to that in a completely different thread. You said it was an "u820". So I looked up u820 and found: http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/samsung-reality-sch-u820/4505-6454_7-34078840.html which is a smartphone.

And I don't want a smartphone. I want a combination of devices (Camera, Phone, MP3 player, Text Messager) that would use the same processor with a double power system to protect the most important function-- communication. That doesn't make a smartphone.

In fact, those things are standard on all "feature phones" except feature phones also come with game (demos) and are constantly trying to convince you to go their crippled versions of "the internet" to complete unnecessary tasks.

But again, when Microsoft says the same thing, slashdotters hear something completely different. Maybe they all want the same thing, but like I said, Google will not play this game any less effectively than anybody else as long as the current rules are in place.

It's good that you tested to see what was going on. But I imagine you used Google services and contacted Google servers. That means information can be tracked about you without leaving markers on your local computer (see here and here). And I'm sure Google's own browser will be sure to act in ways that are standard and don't hinder this. Google is certainly opposed to the 'Do Not Track' flag.

Google is very open about what they believe in and that's not a lot of privacy or anonymity. In 2009 Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.". And their actions re Google+ effectively shows them agreeing with Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg who recently said "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away.". And 97% of their revenue is from advertising, selling what they know about all of us.

Google wants to know *everything* about us. They want as much of that data to be as good as possible. And the WiFi data gathering and other events show that if there's a chance to get information, they get it, record it, and correlate it with what else they have. There appears to be no decision to limit what they get unless they violate statues and are found to have done so.

I believe in my controlling my privacy, being public and being anonymous as I decide circumstances dictate. I limit my interactions with Google as much as possible. Despite their good works (and there are a lot of them) they have a core philosophy that is just wrong.

1) Put phone on airplane mode

That's not enough.

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

Pro-tip: Remove the battery.

HAve you paid attention to the level, the effort of recourse? no. of course you haven't.

And why do you thing the Dems have control of the house?

also:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20023476-281.html

the issue is, we are in a no win situation. If the TSA'a responsibility is rolled back to pre-9/11 and something happens, even of the TSA wouldn't have caught it, it's political suicide.
That is why removing the threat levels was such a political risky move.

How many republicans have come out and wanted the TSA to stop.. oh wait, none.

You are correct, it's not the simple; but don't let that make you think it's equal.

I'm afraid that IBM beat you to this by several years, as they patented patent trolling back in 2007. Your technique is not precisely the same, but it would probably infringe on their patent...

One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.

How deep. Grow up.

In fairness, with regard to RIM there is more to that pithy oft-repeated-by-people-who-don't-really-think-about-it-but-want-to-sound-clever phrase than just a pithy oft-repeated phrase.

RIM have always protested the end-to-end security of their system to be unwavering for anyone, they have state that they not only will not but can not hand over any useful information to authorities or other third parties (hence the little spat with India).

If they are will, and show they are able, to help in a situation where we would support them snooping on some users (the looting little fuckwits who should be shopped), how do we know that they can't be cajoled into helping governments and security forces here and in other countries to monitor the activity of its users in ways we find less palatable?

If they show capability now then those wanting their assistance will know they can give it no matter how hard they protest otherwise, and with their declining position they are less and less unlikely to be able to afford to take the stance their users expect/want in the face of being cut off from an entire country worth of potential users for refusing (their declining market share meaning they can't pull anything out of the hat like a "you wouldn't inconvenience your own people like this" argument worth a damn).

If they are ever forced to do this, and it becomes known they did, they've blown their own unique selling point out of the water and their decline to irrelevance will be sealed with little hope of recovery. The way their CEO recently stormed out of an interview with the BBC like a petulant child when the India question came up, might be an indication that they know how precarious a position that does put them in. Maybe the access they have given that government (see http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20028395-83.html amongst other reports) gives them more useful information then RIM would like people to think, maybe the fall from grace is nearly complete. It would have ramifications far away from the freedom-fighter/looting-cock dividing line - if a government department or security force has access to useful data about messages being sent, then there are people who might be bribable by a commercial entity in order to get information about messages sent between other commercial entities (traditionally RIM's core market) and even if the content of the messages can not be gleaned, the fact they exist at all could be useful information to a competitor. If I were a high-flying BB user I might be concerned.

A bit of wild speculation on my part there, I'll admit, but far from implausible IMO.

The thing is, bad press doesn't matter. Outside the technical community, no one notices these things.

It's gone way beyond that. There have been very critical articles in the New York Times. Google executives are being forced to testify before a Senate committee. Google's search problems are being noticed.

Shops are full of them because demand for Netbooks has drastically fallen off. Secondly, Netbook sales have never been beyond around 5% of PC sales which is hardly a sign of them being "popular".

Call me crazy but a piece of non-executable code in a HTML file on a partition in the firmware does not sound a) exploitable, or b) critical.

Something has to process the HTML file. HTML is a complex standard -- far more so than plain text. An HTML rendering engine needs code to process every tag it supports.

I remember back in the day when the Goodtimes virius hoax was making the rounds. Software professionals were incredulous that people actually believed it was possible to catch a virus simply by reading email. Yet a few years later viruses started popping up that exploited security holes in email clients.

Back to the subject of HTML, here are a few security vulnerabilities in HTML rendering engines:

• KHTML
• Firefox
• Internet Explorer

Siemens is taking the issue seriously.

While the Easter egg may have simply been a developer's idea of fun, Beresford says he's still examining it to see if it's possible to send commands through the html page back to the PLC.

That being, stopping wasting their money on buying patents, and using their considerable amount of cash to push the elimination of software patents. Just imagine the amount of money and bullshit that would get saved long term.

Google have built their whole company on a software patent -- PageRank

Yes they Did.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20070742-281/exclusive-googles-web-mapping-can-track-your-phone/?tag=mncol;txt

Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?

Multiple sources according to CNET : "Industry online paper DigiTimes is also reporting that Chimei Innolux will also help in producing screen replacement units for iPads along with LG Display and Samsung Electronics."

I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.

Apple doesn't use OLED screens, Samsung so far hasn't proven itself in the tablet market unlike in the smartphone market and even there it can't touch Apple's volume. Doesn't seem so scary to me.

Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.

Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.

I'll agree the gloves are definitely off and no punches are being pulled but it's no use blaming the player for the rules of the game. Patent reform is the only thing that will end this once and for all.

Ernie Ball (guitar strings) went through what Kagetsuki is going through.

In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.

Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

As soon as you are done with your BSA nightmare, I advise you to stop using proprietary software. If Ernie Ball can do it, so can you.

But did Ernie Ball ever stop using proprietary software?

Ball's IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat's version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla's Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn't be duplicated by open source.

Rockin' on without Microsoft [August 20, 2003]

The problem with the Ernie Ball story, like so many of the geek's favorite memes, is that it has been kicked around for so many years now that it showing some wear and tear.

This is just stupid. For many reasons.

Banning VPN's? Sure they encrypt traffic, but they also serve a very useful purpose. They bridge networks.

Uhm..., One can bridge networks without that encryption layer, dude. Never bothered to do it across the public Internet, for obvious reasons, but just sayin'.
Then again, with the way the idiots in Congress (I'm looking at you, Tea Baggers) are going, I might need to make plans for that. Apparently, some in our own government feel that they too should know everything that their subjets..., er..., citizens are doing.

This has already been discussed.... cc cnet see last two comments. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20025250-1.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Google: I caused a screwup.

Microsoft: That's not a screwup. THIS is a screwup!

According to the article, Google and Skyhook were doing exactly this screwup as recently as last month, when CNET published an article about them doing it.

... how come i never run into it?

I run across everything on the internet.

Pirated software, music, games.

We got government leaks, banks emails, etc.

We got dogs fucking chicks, dudes fucking ducks, 2girls1cup, and we even had a black hole of an anus.

I'm offered a done of spam, but none of them ever has been related to child porn.

so I ask, where is this child porn that is so bad on the internet, that we need laws made using it as an excuse?

oh, here we can find them, on the peeps in charge:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20011494-38.html
http://www.uaff.us/pentagon_workers_tied_to_child_porn.htm
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/child-pornography-found-on-assistant-u-s-attorney%E2%80%99s-computer/

I think the only problem with child porn is in the government.

The DOJ wants to collect data, too. And some Republicans like Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin oppose data retention.

Basically, people need to get off their duffs and agitate to prevent these bills from becoming law. This is so typical of law enforcement, going after the lowest hanging fruit which is the privacy of innocent civilians rather than doing the difficult detective work of hunting down that tiny fraction of criminals.

As for child porn, I don't see how we can possibly prevent its use. It's out there, the internet is huge and uncontrollable, and it's going to continue to be passed around. All we can really do is try to limit its spread and impact on society. There have always been sick individuals and there has always been sexual abuse of minors. We should be focusing on better education and moral training from an early age.

Obviously, just blanket sweeping the usage statistics of every user out there is a huge step toward a totalitarian control over information and that's not acceptable in a free society. China tries to do it in a bumbling, paranoid manner and mainly they're shooting themselves in the foot. We should be better than that.

Sorry, when i made the submission thursday morning that page was freely available, i didn't realize it was going to get moved behind a paywall less than 24 hours later.

However here's an alternate source from Bloomberg with most of the same details. And one from cnet.

I know it's amazing they may not be used. But at least they are not the only one that has problems like this http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10137032-83.html Circuit City and Wal-Mart and who knows who else has had problems.

If you're looking at AR, NAD, and Mordaunt-Short, I think you're already out of the realm of what the article is talking about. The article talks about "Denon, Harman Kardon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, or Yamaha" available at big box stores. Cheap crap has always been out there, available for the buying. Remember the '80's all-in-one stereo, that came with some big monkey-coffin speakers, and maybe a cheap stereo-rack (with a glass door, held shut by a magnet), and had one big unit with the faceplate designed to make it look like separate components? Quality has always been there for those who seek it, and crap has always been there for those who don't. The article (link to the actual article, not the gizmodo stub - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20082026-47/how-can-30-year-old-receivers-sound-better-than-new-ones/?tag=mncol;txt) simply mistakes today's crap for yesterday's quality. As if 1980 dollars were the same as 2010 dollars...

What the heck, Slashdot? Can't you link to the actual blog rather to a summary of the blog post? I know no one actually RTFAs, but still!

Link

Well, the article does ... unfortunately, we have Slashdot linking to Gizmodo linking to CNet, where the actual article was:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20082026-47/how-can-30-year-old-receivers-sound-better-than-new-ones/?tag=mncol;txt

Since apparently linking to the pages with the actual content in the summary is a no-no, here they are:

First, the Cnet article talking about the test that someone else did.

Next, the actual source article.

Let's give credit where it's due. That gizmodo article is just quoting the original article on CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20082026-47/how-can-30-year-old-receivers-sound-better-than-new-ones/?tag=mncol;txt

Interesting http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9920665-7.html was about the P2P illegal file hunt.
They hinted at "software captures "unique serial numbers" from the person's computer".

When you need to resort to copying search results from Google, you pretty much lose my support. I'm not a Google shareholder, but I do recognize the current king. Certainly, when something better comes along I will use it. Bing isn't it.

What incentive does Microsoft have to ceding search (and search related ads) to Google? It has nearly 30% US marketshare and it's growing (combined with Yahoo, which uses Bing for its backend).

When Bing first launched, Bing scared Google and forced them to start innovating again. Competition is good after all. Even if Bing dies off, I see no advantage, as a consumer, to have Bing disappear. I also see no advantage, for (not as) an investor to cede that entire domain to one of their two biggest competitors. Throw away the entire investment that has signs of paying off in the future, and give a major investor even more money to play with to cut into your market? That's really the best idea?

Having some competition certainly helps spur production and innovation. After all, Windows Vista took so long because they had no serious competition until OS X started seriously stealing the spotlight. Apple gave them a good reason to produce faster, and at a higher quality (Windows 7).

And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.

First of all the estimates are just that, estimates. Apple does not release the profit numbers from their store only the revenue. Munster has estimated they made $189 million; he also estimated only 1% for storage and delivery. He did even take into account other operating costs and did not take into account capital costs. If you read another report which delved more deeply into the numbers, Munster concedes that he did not factor capital costs.

This does not factor in the roughly $81 million Apple has spent since launch to store and deliver the 4 billion free apps that have been downloaded.

I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.

Earlier in the year, Apple released a new version of it's popular professional video editing software, Final Cut Pro X. There was much belly aching by the user community and in the media about missing features. Indeed, the comments from professional users are eerily similar to those comments of IT admins about Lion Server -- basically that it's being dumbed down for the consumer market.

Just a few weeks ago, Apple updated the FAQ for this software, with CNet quoting the following:

"Final Cut Pro X is a breakthrough in nonlinear video editing. The application has impressed many pro editors, and it has also generated a lot of discussion in the pro video community," the FAQ reads. "We know people have questions about the new features in Final Cut Pro X and how it compares with previous versions of Final Cut Pro. Here are the answers to the most common questions we've heard."

In the FAQ, which details specifics about importing, editing, media management, export and purchase, Apple's tried to make one thing clear: some of the missing features will return with future software updates.

Indeed, Apple may be as inclined due to this backlash to reverse itself with OSX Lion as it was with Final Cut Pro. It's entirely reasonable to project that missing server features may make their return to the Sever Admin panel or as stand-alone add-ons.

After all, I doubt that Apple is trying to get rid of the userbase of corporate departments that use OSX Server and technologies like the group print spooler and the Quicktime streaming server are already developed, coded, and released -- so why not roll them back in?

No, Sun made upwards of $100 million per year licensing Java to the mobile phone industry.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20013549-264.html

Java was free on the desktop, but not on mobile.

Since Android was going to to be a unifying OS for all manufacturers, dropping J2ME, $100 million is an eminently reasonable figure for licensing Java to Google.

>I am inclined to think that if Oracle wins this, then there are going to be a lot of other places that are going to end being afraid of utilizing Java in the future

And which ones would those be? Mobile and embedded apps? The licensing scheme for Java was always that the desktop is free, embedded/mobile is not.

What that means is your average 2-man programming shop can come up with nifty Java CRUD apps for free. Your average multinational corp that wants to produce 100,000 phones has to pay a fee.

Read the license, also see here.

I'm sick of people proffering this and only this as a reason to Google+ growth. There is something more to it,

Probably not. What you are objecting to is really just shorthand for "Google has a good reputation and everybody hates facebook."

There are lots of them - and have been for good long time. I have one of these, that I got when a local hospital was selling off the old generation of computers and upgrading to these. These things are freaking amazing - usable in full sunlgiht, nearly indestructible, great battery life (plus hot-swappable batteries), but they do cost $2000+, which is why you never see them, except in hospitals or government contracted job-sites, or on sci-fi tv shows.

Fujitsu, Acer, HP, Dell, or Lenovo all have Windows tablet offerings. They just tend to be full-fledged computers, rather than toys, and so carry a higher price. Windows 7 with gestures / flicks works quite well as a tablet OS, but it is helpful to have the active digitizer with stylus, regardless of whether you also have a iPad style touchscreen.

There are lots of them - and have been for good long time. I have one of these, that I got when a local hospital was selling off the old generation of computers and upgrading to these. These things are freaking amazing - usable in full sunlgiht, nearly indestructible, great battery life (plus hot-swappable batteries), but they do cost $2000+, which is why you never see them, except in hospitals or government contracted job-sites, or on sci-fi tv shows.

Fujitsu, Acer, HP, Dell, or Lenovo all have Windows tablet offerings. They just tend to be full-fledged computers, rather than toys, and so carry a higher price. Windows 7 with gestures / flicks works quite well as a tablet OS, but it is helpful to have the active digitizer with stylus, regardless of whether you also have a iPad style touchscreen.

That's why OS X Lion will be available on USB thumb drive for $69 next month.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20080981-17/mac-os-x-lion-pounces/

I hope it does not compromise the criminal investigations that are to follow

You mean, these investigations?

Yea there was another story like this its here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20046845-1.html

A quick google reveals...
drug-dealers: http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/seattle_drug_bust.shtm/
money-launderers: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110605/22322814558/senator-schumer-says-bitcoin-is-money-laundering.shtml/
terrorists: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/new-tsa-pat-down-procedures.html/
pedophiles: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20078653-281/police-internet-providers-must-keep-user-logs/

These are all from this decade. It may be an old meme but it is still relevant.

... I welcome our itch-scratching robot overlords.

In a survey of more than 100,000 people in more than 50,000 households across the U.S., 40 percent reported no broadband or high-speed access to the Internet, while 30 percent said they have no Internet access at all.

Sponsored by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and conducted by the Census Bureau, the survey found that most of those interviewed said they either don't need broadband or find it too expensive. Some said they have no computer, but many of those in rural areas reported that broadband is simply not available.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10454133-94.html

Incandescent bulbs can't meet the standard? I guess that's news to these guys.

• http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6162567-7.html
• http://www.verilux.com/full-spectrum-lightbulbs/incandescent-bulbs
• http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/energy-efficient-light-bulbs/

There was an outcry when google first launched GMail. A senator form CA even proposed a bill to curb GMail's scanning abilities.

Do they have to show cause first or is this a new tool in the arsenal of the TSA?

You guys need to get your government departments straight. This is NOT the TSA. The TSA are the ones at Fargo International Airport who x-ray your flip-flops and make sure you're not taking nail clippers onto an airplane. They're not tasked with searching your laptop - They're only tasked with X-raying your laptop and your kid's teddy to make sure there isn't a bomb inside. If they suspect criminal activity they have to call the police.

The US CBP (Customs and Border Protection) *do* have the right to search the contents (i.e. files) of your laptop when you are entering the USA. They can search your laptop, search your luggage and search your person. In the same way they can require you to open a locked box that you might be travelling with, they are require you to open your 'locked' laptop. The courts have backed them up - See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html

So don't get TSA and CBP mixed up - They're different.

[Insert dozens of obligatory Slashdot posts here about TrueCrypt "Plausible Deniability" here.]

Finally, note that this article has nothing to do with airport or border security - It's about a court case.

IBM for starters...
"IBM names Firefox its default browser | Deep Tech - CNET News"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20009387-264.html

Was Julian Assange correct, when he warned that Facebook was a giant, 'appalling spy machine'?"

Yes.
Facebook has the potential for such uses, and we've learned that any such potential will be exploited.

relevant?

The cnet editors randomly make up stuff to post as articles all the time. They even admit it here: "So far, neither Microsoft nor its licensees have said what the software company charges for its patents, but Mary Jo Foley of CNET sister site ZDNet believes that the $15-per-Android-handset fee" Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20077173-17/report-microsoft-wants-$15-per-android-handset/#ixzz1RLZoJk9b That is hilarious. That's right, their logic is "Another blogger said it so it must be true!" Hilarious and sad too, because they do it all the time. Most of their articles are written by bloggers who posit no link to an original journalism piece, cementing the fact that they just write whatever they feel like/are payed for and go on with their day trying to censor comments. Even the Reuters article they link to does not have a official sentence from Microsoft, only another non-official non-verifyable likely-fabricated sentence that allegedly says that Samsung might conceivably possibly pay $10 per device if the benefits worked out. Oh yeah, grade A professional bullshit from one of the nations leading online bullshit factories. Fox News Online 2.0! Get it now!