Slashdot Mirror

According to this Q/A session, a little larger than normal picture files. What that actually means, I don't know (could be mostly marketing).

Thank you for living proof that FOSSies are batshit. you still think that I'm a guy that I can't even get along with and to this very day we don't agree on anything OTHER than the fact you're batshit? delusional much? but if its a pimp slapping of your craptastic OS you want, enjoy! See that's the nice thing about reality, while all you have is insults I have facts! Where are YOUR facts? oh right, they don't exist :-(

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

Would you like some more reality? well here it comes! Isn't it sad, how like a frightened child afraid to look under the bed, you cower at the truth? if your driver model isn't shit then why does Dell have to run their own repos even though we are talking a teeny tiny subset of hardware? Oh right because Linux shits itself and dies if you use the default repos! Man that is some excellent product you got there! you think I can get better QA than the third largest OEM on the planet? What, you expect me to tell paying customers "Go to the forum, kiss some loser ass, and maybe, just maybe, in a few days someone will have mercy and give you a big pile of bullshit that may or may not make your sound work again"?

Bleeding yet douchey? want some more? nice thing about having the truth on your side, you can keep throwing punches all day! How about how a decade old Windows beat the shit out of Linux on netbooks or how ASUS has given up on your bullshit or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can? You got the crazy koolaid drunk enough to say they ALL are paid shills because they won't do your forum dance or CLI horseshit? Meanwhile your "hero" Torvalds the great says Plans? We don't need no steenkin plans!. Why don't you tell them that at work next week, see how quick you get a pink slip? More? How about you actually have the balls to celebrate getting a whole 1% market share while you are actually lower than JavaME and there is a whole website dedicated To your bullshit and excuses .

You see you whiny little delusional mama's boy, I'm your worst fucking nightmare...a retaile

Here's what the ACLU was actually saying in this particular case.

"The law is overly broad, criminalizing not only commercial SPAM but also anonymous non-commercial bulk emails containing political and religious messages"

http://www.acluva.org/docket/jaynes.html

So the complaint here is Virginia's own anti-SPAM legislation was written to also penalize anonymous non-commercial free speech which is a violation of the first amendment. This is different from the federal CAN-SPAM law that specifically mentions that emails need to be commercial in nature to apply.

I also find it very funny that you pick this particular case because the Virginia supreme court eventually sided with the ACLU that the Virgina law was overly broad. Like most people that criticize the ACLU, I feel like you don't understand the issue they were trying to address.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151014/court_overturns_virginia_spam_law_conviction.html

In all fairness, Microsoft never figured anyone would still be using this service by the time a leap year rolled around.

Ah, that explains why Zunes went dark on New-Years 2009...

Think about this. You're a software dev, and you use a MS C++ compiler. They wrote their standard libs, including the "time.h" / &ltctime&gt code... you use their time libraries.
Now two things:
0. MS employs some real nut-jobs that can't even use the standard time functions and instead write their own for each project...
or
1. MS doesn't even trust their own compiler / libraries to do the right thing?

It scares me to think that MS makes operating systems... IMHO, they should get back to BASICs.

Yep, as soon as they fire the guy at Apple who was responsible for the iPhone daylight saving bug in November 2010. And again in March 2011.

Also Flickr, with their own leap year bug. And Sony.

Not saying this isn't a black eye for MS - and yes, testing for leap year should be thought out ahead of time - but in fairness they're not the only people to have ever been caught out by something like this.

Yep, as soon as they fire the guy at Apple who was responsible for the iPhone daylight saving bug in November 2010. And again in March 2011.

Also Flickr, with their own leap year bug. And Sony.

Not saying this isn't a black eye for MS - and yes, testing for leap year should be thought out ahead of time - but in fairness they're not the only people to have ever been caught out by something like this.

Didn't this happen last leap year to the Zunes... oh yeah...

Microsoft has had leap year related problems before. Like last leap year. You'd think they'd have learned.

Use the MCSE mantra:
1. Perform virus scan.
2. If that doesn't work, find a different program that will display a reassuring green graphic.
3. If that doesn't work, reboot.
4. If that doesn't work, reformat, reinstall.
5. If that doesn't work, GOTO 1.

Microsoft wouldn't know anything about data center running if it were chase aftering them at full speedo.

Google this: "Microsoft Sidekick / Danger"

http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/10/t-mobile-sidekick-disaster-microsofts-servers-crashed-and-they-dont-have-a-backup/

https://www.pcworld.com/article/173470/microsoft_redfaced_after_massive_sidekick_data_loss.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/11/microsofts_danger_sidekick_data_loss_casts_dark_on_cloud_computing.html

quadcores CAN'T work with US cellular networks- presently
http://www.pcworld.com/article/250769/atandts_htc_one_x_flashy_smartphone_quadcore_everywhere_but_the_us.html

" Nvidia's processor won't be compatible with LTE radio chipsets for at least a few months and ,with the One X due to launch stateside within 60 days, AT&T wants a version of the phone that supports 4G LTE."

now the above url is about a quadcore android phone planned for US release only as a two core, but the same datum likely applies- the quadcore is not compatible.

there was a technical limitation of existing 4cores and US mobile tech. They dolled the argument to fit, " the fact that quad-core processors don't really have a use case in mobile devices is one reason" sounds like marketing speak in this circumstance.

Actually - those are prototype Galaxy IV's - which incorporate all of Apple's suggestions as to how not to violate their (trivial/obvious) patents and copyrighted look and feel.

> Honestly, that's all just hyperbole. There's nothing wrong with Facebook.

It's not what Facebook does with your data, it's that Facebook gives employers excuses to fire you, universities to expel you, etc, etc.

Ever gone to a pub *WHILE ON VACATION OVRSEAS* and bought some alcoholic beverages? A teacher has been fired for that http://www.gadailynews.com/news/61845-teacher-ashley-payne-fired-for-posting-picture-of-herself-holding-beer-on-facebook.html

For a whole lot more horror stories, do a Google search
http://www.google.com/search?q=g+fired+facebook+post
"About 53,100,000 results (0.10 seconds) ".

And it's not just about angry rants and compromising photos
Ever indicated support for a politically liberal position? If your boss is a political conservative, they'll look for reasons to fire you. Ever indicated support for a politically conservative position? If your boss is a political liberal, they'll look for reasons to fire you. Your religion and sexual orientation are obvious targets. What about idiot "friends" who post racist remarks on your wall?

Ever reached for your mouse and accidentally clicked "like" on a porn site... oops... that now shows up on your wall.

Ever applied for a loan, mortgage, or credit card? Your Facebook friends can screw up your credit rating. See http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_your_credit_rating.html
and
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing-around-facebook-and-twitter-the-wrong-friends-might-just-sink-your-credit/?show=all

Simple risk-management... don't touch Fecesbook with a 10-foot pole.

He needs to setup each machine so it can be controlled via a webserver. People could log in and sign-on to a specific machine and operate it for a period of time, say an hour if others are in line for it, if not, they have it as long as they want. He could run it only when he's there so keep the mischief to a minimum.

There's already kits for it ... http://www.pcworld.com/article/131237/build_your_own_internetcontrolled_robots.html

101 Bible Contradictions http://www.pcworld.com/appguide/app.html?id=530862&expand=false

Who knows what company they are buying these refurbs from

My money is on Northrop Grumman. They are notorious for surplussing used drives with customer data intact.

And like McIntosh Laboratory, Cisco's iPhone, and the way the Mighty Mouse turned into the Magic Mouse. It's hard to feel sorry for Apple when they keep making the same class of mistake.

Yeah, cause those CA's verrry trustworthy.

Except when they aren't:

VeriSign Admits Multiple Hacks in 2010, Keeps Details Under Wraps

Verisign the company responsible for guiding most of the world's Internet users to the correct websites and once the largest encryption certificate issuing authority, has acknowledged that it was successfully hacked several times in 2010.

The admission was disclosed last fall in a VeriSign filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but did not come to light until today when Reuters reported on its investigation of new SEC guidelines on such disclosures.

"In 2010, the Company faced several successful attacks against its corporate network in which access was gained to information on a small portion of our computers and servers," said VeriSign in the quarterly report it filed with the SEC in October 2011.

VeriSign Hacked: What We Don't Know Might Hurt Us

Let’s start with what (little) we know. The disclosure did not happen as a result of VeriSign discovering the breach and taking responsible, proactive action to alert customers and address the situation. No, VeriSign buried the information in a quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing as if it was just another mundane tidbit.

IT staff at VeriSign allegedly discovered the compromise in 2010, but hid the incident from upper management until sometime in 2011. VeriSign itself may not be at fault for the initial delay in disclosure, but it appears that a significant amount of time has passed since VeriSign executives learned of the breach, and yet the company still tried to sneak the information covertly in an SEC filing.

I used to have both options enabled in Firefox to validate certs with a OSCP server and if there's a problem to automatically treat certificate as invalid. I disabled both options after reading about Versign's despicable coverup. What's the point? Based on this episode and past behaviour, its clear CA's would rather put every internet user at risk, rather than taking responsible steps to alert users and their own customers. They only disclose compromises to their systems when some outside source forces them to. They're completely untrustworthy.

Yeah, cause those CA's verrry trustworthy.

Except when they aren't:

VeriSign Admits Multiple Hacks in 2010, Keeps Details Under Wraps

Verisign the company responsible for guiding most of the world's Internet users to the correct websites and once the largest encryption certificate issuing authority, has acknowledged that it was successfully hacked several times in 2010.

The admission was disclosed last fall in a VeriSign filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but did not come to light until today when Reuters reported on its investigation of new SEC guidelines on such disclosures.

"In 2010, the Company faced several successful attacks against its corporate network in which access was gained to information on a small portion of our computers and servers," said VeriSign in the quarterly report it filed with the SEC in October 2011.

VeriSign Hacked: What We Don't Know Might Hurt Us

Let’s start with what (little) we know. The disclosure did not happen as a result of VeriSign discovering the breach and taking responsible, proactive action to alert customers and address the situation. No, VeriSign buried the information in a quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing as if it was just another mundane tidbit.

IT staff at VeriSign allegedly discovered the compromise in 2010, but hid the incident from upper management until sometime in 2011. VeriSign itself may not be at fault for the initial delay in disclosure, but it appears that a significant amount of time has passed since VeriSign executives learned of the breach, and yet the company still tried to sneak the information covertly in an SEC filing.

I used to have both options enabled in Firefox to validate certs with a OSCP server and if there's a problem to automatically treat certificate as invalid. I disabled both options after reading about Versign's despicable coverup. What's the point? Based on this episode and past behaviour, its clear CA's would rather put every internet user at risk, rather than taking responsible steps to alert users and their own customers. They only disclose compromises to their systems when some outside source forces them to. They're completely untrustworthy.

Intel on Sunday acknowledged that a bug could cause its SSD 320 solid-state drives to fail, and said a firmware upgrade is on its way to address the problem.

In some instances, a power loss may cause Intel's SSD 320 drives to crash and lose data. On rebooting the system, the system BIOS could report the SSD as having only 8MB of storage capacity. Intel two weeks ago said the error was possibly a bug, and that the issue was being investigated.

"Intel has reproduced 'Bad Context 13x Error' utilizing strenuous testing methods. This 'Bad Context 13x Error' can be addressed via a firmware update and Intel is in the process of validating the firmware update. A future update will define the schedule to deliver the firmware fix," an Intel spokeswoman said in an e-mail statement.

It's ironic that a power failure triggers this problem, since Intel had marketed the 320 as especially resilient to them:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4244/intel-ssd-320-review

Intel always prided itself on not storing any user data in its DRAM cache. The external DRAM is only used to cache mapping tables and serve as the controller's scratchpad. In the event of a sudden loss of power, Intel only has to commit whatever data it has in its SRAM to NAND. To minimize the amount of data loss in the event of a sudden power failure, Intel outfitted the SSD 320 with an array of six 470F capacitors in parallel.

Some posters say it can happen without a power failure:

http://communities.intel.com/message/133499

Intel said they found the cause and released a firmware update, but applying it seems to have actually triggered the bug in previously problem-free drives for many posters:

http://communities.intel.com/thread/24121?start=0&tstart=0

Intel has not acknowledged any problems with the fix, nor told anyone which serial numbers were affected. Nobody has reported on the bug since Intel said they fixed it, including Anand.

This issue was enough to convince me to buy something else (even though the 320 series would otherwise have been my first choice) when I had to shop for an SSD last month. I found a used "like new" (according to the SMART data, at least) X25-M G2 on amazon instead.

Interestingly, X25-M G2 prices have held steady ($2/GB or so) and only gone up over the last year. Yeah it's probably because of dwindling supply, but I can't help but suspect that lack of confidence in the 320 series may have contributed to an increase in demand for the G2.

more than once. their business model is to steal other's creative work, make many millions then settled out of court for millions of dollars.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/238331/zynga_sued_for_alleged_patent_infringement.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/zynga-and-vostu-settle-lawsuit-over-social-games.html
http://gamepolitics.com/2011/02/23/zynga-settles-digital-chocolate-mafia-wars-lawsuit
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/zynga-is-hit-with-countersuit-over-game-designs/
among others...

So no different than what we had over a dozen years ago with pointcast then?

for the uninformed and/or the youngsters wondering about the M

I think it's obvious to all that these guys just want the power to kill any website they wish with little oversight...

Arguing ridiculous ideas like this demonstrates that they are pretty much the last people we should hand over the power to do so.

No, the statement from Apple with the list "suggestions" for not infringing their design patents was in California. The statement makes the argument, further, that elements such as thinness and rounded corners in a portable device are not "functional" and hence patentable.

Apple also tried to ban the 10.1N, so they clearly thought that was not enough.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248941/iphone_app_sneaks_in_tethering_act_fast.html

"malware" gets thru apple's scanning process more than people think.

Could a Slashdot editor please add to the summary info about teh Koch brothers payola for organizations relased at the same time, and the new built-in government tracking software? Even a link too a website with coverage about the Apple iPad vs. Google Android would do.

Fixed your post to meet slashdot editorial standards.

Could a Slashdot editor please add to the summary info about the Extended Support Release for organizations released at the same time, and the new built-in web developer tools? Even a link to a website with coverage about the new changes to Firefox would do.

No, not really. It's almost ready, the native client that is. But until then, no corporate mail support in the Playbook. You have to tether a Blackberry phone to it. Don't have a Blackberry? Too bad. Battery on your phone dead? Too bad.

Like I said, I would wait for them to ship an email client first. Even HP shipped one for their tablet.

No, not really. It's almost ready, the native client that is. But until then, no corporate mail support in the Playbook. You have to tether a Blackberry phone to it. Don't have a Blackberry? Too bad. Battery on your phone dead? Too bad.

Like I said, I would wait for them to ship an email client first. Even HP shipped one for their tablet.

Back of the envelope calculations:

The iPhone 4 battery is 5.25 Whr at 3.7V. The Raspberry Pi draws 300mA peak. Let's be pessimistic and assume that's the constant draw for XBMC video decoding. At 5V, that's 1.5W, which will give about 3.5 hrs of battery life. I'd bet you'd actually see closer to 4 hours in real-life tests. SD or 720p video would probably see even lower power consumption.

So, how does the iPhone do? Real-world examinations of Apple's claim of "up to 10 hours" for playing video are hard to find. Apple's tests were done with a video from iTunes: 640×480 resolution, so this is hardly a fair comparison. PCWorld found the life to be about 6 hours for 720p video, but that includes the power from the display (at full brightness) and wifi. (The iPhone has had battery life issues because of an OS problem, just to complicate things a bit).

So, the Raspberry Pi compares pretty well. I would love to see someone make a fair test here: play an HD video over HDMI for both devices and measure the power consumption. The Raspberry Pi will draw more current, probably, but not nearly as much as you might think.

Right, when Samsung is coming out with products as unique as this: (http://inspiredbyapple.tumblr.com/tagged/Samsung), why would anyone doubt this is all about Jobs's tantrum?

Besides, before the iPad tablets looked almost exactly the same as and functioned just like Apple's products: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113375/tablet_pc_turns_one.html

Not as fast as LTE, but certainly faster than 3G. Even AT&T's 3G data speeds are about twice what Sprint's are, and their HSPA+ "4G" speeds are about twice as fast as their own 3G speeds, though not as fast as their LTE speeds (which should be more like 10x their own 3G), so AT&T's HSPA+ "4G" network should have roughly 4x the throughput of Sprint's 3G network. Sprint's WiMAX "4G" speeds are roughly on par with AT&T's HSPA+ "4G" speeds, but again nowhere near LTE. I'm not discounting your anecdotal "feels the same" experience - sheer data speeds aren't always the only important factor in practice, and AT&T's network can suffer from high latency at times - but speed tests do show a real difference between the two. As far as just on AT&T, my girlfriend's Focus S (HSPA+ "4G") is noticeably quicker in side-by-side downloads than my first-gen Focus (3G), but I can still usually get to what I want faster, just by virtue of typing faster, using better search queries, etc.- so the difference doesn't amount to all that much in practice. It's not that it's not measurable, just that it's not all that important, since their 3G speeds are "fast enough" to keep up with a lot of people's actual usage.

3G Comparison

"4G" Comparison

Not as fast as LTE, but certainly faster than 3G. Even AT&T's 3G data speeds are about twice what Sprint's are, and their HSPA+ "4G" speeds are about twice as fast as their own 3G speeds, though not as fast as their LTE speeds (which should be more like 10x their own 3G), so AT&T's HSPA+ "4G" network should have roughly 4x the throughput of Sprint's 3G network. Sprint's WiMAX "4G" speeds are roughly on par with AT&T's HSPA+ "4G" speeds, but again nowhere near LTE. I'm not discounting your anecdotal "feels the same" experience - sheer data speeds aren't always the only important factor in practice, and AT&T's network can suffer from high latency at times - but speed tests do show a real difference between the two. As far as just on AT&T, my girlfriend's Focus S (HSPA+ "4G") is noticeably quicker in side-by-side downloads than my first-gen Focus (3G), but I can still usually get to what I want faster, just by virtue of typing faster, using better search queries, etc.- so the difference doesn't amount to all that much in practice. It's not that it's not measurable, just that it's not all that important, since their 3G speeds are "fast enough" to keep up with a lot of people's actual usage.

3G Comparison

"4G" Comparison

A quick google search turning up this sexy product. I have a feeling this will become a standard soon enough among the slashdot crowd.

>On a typical plane, there is no internet at all.

Amtrak would respectfully disagree.

>On a typical train, there is no internet at all.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/169201/highspeed_internet_on_a_plane_where_to_find_it.html

Open mouth. Insert foot. Echo internationally.

--
BMO

iPhone 4S users do use the most data.

Your refrigerator is probably not a general purpose computer, neither is your watch (unless you own this watch). Linux on the iPad runs, but is currently pretty limited.

The vast majority of consumers aren't going to run alternative operating systems, but it should not be banned. It's bad when Apple does it. It's bad when Motorola does it. It's bad when Microsoft does it.

Back in the late 1990s when Microsoft strong-armed PC OEMs into not selling BeOS, Microsoft would have loved to have made this requirement on PCs. They could have killed Linux before it was a serious competitor. Android never would have been developed. Maybe iOS never would have been either (Apple uses a fair amount of open source software).

And before someone makes the argument that they can make a website poof, if you actually read the legislation, that is a last measure when there has been no cooperation with the people involved in the matter. The decisions can be challenged in court just fine, there is nothing that says you cannot do that, just like with the DMCA.

You get 5 days to contest it before payment processors are barred from doing business with you and search engines must stop acknowledging your existence. That alone is alarming to me.

Even worse, however, is the provision that gives immunity to those who take that action with just reasonable belief of infringement, i.e. the same requirement placed on DMCA takedowns. Know of anyone who's ever gotten even a slap on the wrist for sending out abusive takedowns? Yeah, me neither.

DMCA is already abusive as hell in that fraudulent claims can be made and the only recourse the attacked individual has is a counter-claim that might not even get the content reinstated. There is no mechanism for holding those who abuse the system accountable. These bills would give this already broken system even more teeth. In the face of all that, what about the response seems hyperbolic to you?

You say *MOST* android devices?

I read recently that Samsung account for more than 50% of android devices sold (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/243861/samsung_becomes_biggest_smartphone_vendor_as_androids_market_share_grows.html), that would qualify as "most" on its own... I also read that Samsung don't lock their bootloaders.
Then you have HTC, who provide either unlocked phones or the ability to unlock them...
Sony/Ericsson also provide unlocked phones...
Motorola only lock some of their devices...

Most android devices either ship unlocked, or with an easy and supported (ie not via an exploit) way of unlocking.

Most of the locked arm based devices out there are specific purpose embedded devices.

I'd argue its because Microsoft has access to their own source-code

I doubt that's the real reason, because both Norton and McAfee used to be good. Then they started to be bigger resource hogs than most viruses they were protecting you against (yes there's other evil stuff that viruses do but keep reading...).

I definitely recall Norton/Symantec making systems more unstable or causing problems:
1) Years ago someone had problems fetching email, turns out Norton/Symantec was intercepting the POP3 connections to scan for viruses (ok fine), but some email was causing it to _crash_ (extremely not fine- especially if it turns out to be an exploitable code-injection bug).

2) In 2007: http://www.pcworld.com/article/132050/millions_of_chinese_hit_by_symantec_foulup.html

A virus-signature update delivered automatically to users on Friday about 1:00 a.m. Beijing time to Symantec's antivirus scanning engine mistook two critical system files of the Simplified Chinese edition of Windows XP Service Pack 2 for a Trojan horse. The two files -- netapi32.dll and lsasrv.dll -- were falsely quarantined, which in turn crippled Windows. If an affected PC was rebooted, Windows failed on start-up and showed only a blue screen.

3) On 28 January 2010, Symantec's antivirus software marked Spotify as a Trojan horse, disabling the software across millions of computers

Nowadays depending on the situation I use Avira, MSE or "no antivirus". My personal home machine has no AV installed. My browser runs as a different user process. If I have something that I think is suspicious, I check it with VirusTotal ( https://www.virustotal.com/ ). So far I have had no problems doing things this way, so I don't see the point of constantly incurring the extra CPU/resource costs by installing a real-time virus scanner on my machine. For the past few decades my personal machines have never been infected by a virus. I may have downloaded viruses or malware, but I have not been infected by them. And yes I do know how to check.

A dedicated attacker might be able to put malware on my machine, but they'd know how to use virustotal or similar too, and still be able to plant malware on my machine even if I was running AV software (and wasting resources).

The machine my parents use on the other hand has AV software installed (not Symantec, nor McAfee).

AV software is not needed everywhere and in some cases if installed, it indicates someone is doing something wrong: http://xkcd.com/463/

Given my track record vs Symantec's track record, I would prefer to take the bet that Symantec is more likely to screw up my system than a virus. There have been other antivirus vendors with similar screw ups too.

On a related note, Trend screwed up notoriously - albeit with its antispam product, blocking the letter "p".

For these reasons production servers and other important machines that are well secured and managed should NOT have antivirus software installed.

If they are so poorly managed that the operators are much more likely to screw up than the AV vendors, then sure, install AV, but that means you are doing something wrong.

You, sir, should read this.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/217283/top_15_kinect_hacks_so_far.html

The rubber has to hit the road somewhere. Maybe you can contribute to your Senator's re-election campaign and get legislation that gives you visas for ten million programmers who will all work for 25 bucks an hour 12 hours a day 6 days a week, live 6 to an apartment and when their six year contract is up, all go home exchange rate adjusted millionaires.

But somewhere on some machine, ultimately, code has to run without errors.

Rubber, meet road. Road, meet rubber.

I love it when fast buck, coke snorting, prostitute screwing, sexual harassing, hard drinking, low IQ, high ambition, hand pumping, bribe giving, sales men dirtbags come face to face with something the rest of us know as non-negotiable reality.

It doesn't make up for the career swath of career destruction they've cut through the industry, but still.

"Hey ! Does anyone here know how to program? "

One thing is, companies learn their lessons. My spouse's company outsourced everything and after a years time brought it all back and now everyone's job is VERY secure. They'll never do THAT again.

Same thing here. Bet you anything the FBI is hiring programmers right now after having seen the advantages of developing and maintaining their own supply of stable, competent craftsman -programmers.

IBM Lockheed SAP Deloitte SAIC Technodyne and all the rest are in the business of billing bodies by the hour. Full stop. The more hours they bill, hey man, the better the business is. These are of course the same companies who lobby Congress to import as much programming labor as possible to undercut the domestic market.

I bless anyone anywhere who wants to be a programmer or make money for themselves and their families. That doesn't stop me from observing that Mega Corporations cynically exploit those same people and systematically undermine the quality of the work product of the entire industry by first staffing with masses of unqualified programmers, then paying substandard wages, then systematically overworking them all of which has the effect of causing people who wanted to make a real lifelong career of their craft to be forced out of their careers and also having the effect of making an IT career seem like a route to a short lived, overworked and underpaid job to people who are considering it as a major.

As far as these projects go, in the end, none of it works. Like making the WRONG choice for your prom date, you as a project manager only have to hook up with any of these sleazy companies and wait nine months to turn yourself into the sorriest motherfucker on your block.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/12/20/indianas-gov-daniels-assailed-by-ibm

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218515/county_alleges_sap_deloitte_engaged_in_racketeering.html

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/237939/epicor_sued_over_alleged_erp_project_failure.html

http://www.cio.com/article/678553/Auditors_ERP_Software_Woes_Could_Cost_Idaho_Millions

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3302164/lawson-embroiled-in-erp-lawsuit-with-customers/

The rubber has to hit the road somewhere. Maybe you can contribute to your Senator's re-election campaign and get legislation that gives you visas for ten million programmers who will all work for 25 bucks an hour 12 hours a day 6 days a week, live 6 to an apartment and when their six year contract is up, all go home exchange rate adjusted millionaires.

But somewhere on some machine, ultimately, code has to run without errors.

Rubber, meet road. Road, meet rubber.

I love it when fast buck, coke snorting, prostitute screwing, sexual harassing, hard drinking, low IQ, high ambition, hand pumping, bribe giving, sales men dirtbags come face to face with something the rest of us know as non-negotiable reality.

It doesn't make up for the career swath of career destruction they've cut through the industry, but still.

"Hey ! Does anyone here know how to program? "

One thing is, companies learn their lessons. My spouse's company outsourced everything and after a years time brought it all back and now everyone's job is VERY secure. They'll never do THAT again.

Same thing here. Bet you anything the FBI is hiring programmers right now after having seen the advantages of developing and maintaining their own supply of stable, competent craftsman -programmers.

IBM Lockheed SAP Deloitte SAIC Technodyne and all the rest are in the business of billing bodies by the hour. Full stop. The more hours they bill, hey man, the better the business is. These are of course the same companies who lobby Congress to import as much programming labor as possible to undercut the domestic market.

I bless anyone anywhere who wants to be a programmer or make money for themselves and their families. That doesn't stop me from observing that Mega Corporations cynically exploit those same people and systematically undermine the quality of the work product of the entire industry by first staffing with masses of unqualified programmers, then paying substandard wages, then systematically overworking them all of which has the effect of causing people who wanted to make a real lifelong career of their craft to be forced out of their careers and also having the effect of making an IT career seem like a route to a short lived, overworked and underpaid job to people who are considering it as a major.

As far as these projects go, in the end, none of it works. Like making the WRONG choice for your prom date, you as a project manager only have to hook up with any of these sleazy companies and wait nine months to turn yourself into the sorriest motherfucker on your block.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/12/20/indianas-gov-daniels-assailed-by-ibm

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218515/county_alleges_sap_deloitte_engaged_in_racketeering.html

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/237939/epicor_sued_over_alleged_erp_project_failure.html

http://www.cio.com/article/678553/Auditors_ERP_Software_Woes_Could_Cost_Idaho_Millions

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3302164/lawson-embroiled-in-erp-lawsuit-with-customers/

It's pretty simple - Japan doesn't really design robots to do jobs that humans can't do. Japan designs robots so that they don't have to let foreigners into the country. Therefore, most of the robotics research has been to deal with problems introduced by an aging closed society - things like taking care of the elderly, farming or teaching English to students (though the last one is actually South Korea).

Japanese don't want any non-Japanese in their country doing these jobs (I speak from experience) but they're fine blowing billions of dollars to try and solve the problem with robots. Nuclear power plant meltdown isn't this sort of problem so there was no research funding for it.

Published Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011 6:40PM EST

In the morning, Suneet and the remaining three bidders return to the same room. At the front, a 12-person committee shows off the submitted tenders, time-stamped and sealed with wax, before reading off each companyâ(TM)s bidâ"including the lowest estimate of what it would cost to make the Indian governmentâ(TM)s dream: the cheapest tablet in the world.

When the presentation is finished, Datawindâ(TM)s price tagâ"$52â"is the lowest. The next cheapest bid is for $64. âoeI went white,â Suneet says now. âoeI thought, âWeâ(TM)ve missed something.â(TM)â

Feeling nauseous, he staggers out into the antechamber, where rival bidders lob wisecracks in his direction. âoeAt that price, weâ(TM)ll buy some,â one businessman says, laughing. Frantic, Suneet calls Montreal, where it is nearly 3 a.m., knowing heâ(TM)ll wake up Raja. But his elder brother, who at times forgets how many patents he has to his name (more than 50) but never forgets product specs, reassures him that the final price accounts for every single component in the device. Thatâ(TM)s when it sinks in: Theyâ(TM)ve nailed this.

So far, Datawind has manufactured about 10,000 of its ultracheap devices, and has subcontracted more factories in India to gradually churn out a volume of tablets that still seems unbelievable to the founders. The Indian state plans to subsidize the tablets down to between $20 and $35 (U.S.), to be sold to college and university students, and wants to roll the devices out to around 12 million users over the next 12 months. After that, the goal is to place one of these tablets in the hands of each of the countryâ(TM)s 80 to 100 million high school students. The process, despite the hype, is still in a nascent stage, unfolding slowly.

But things got stranger. Shortly after the announcement, Suneet was invited to meet with Thailandâ(TM)s Minister for Information Communications Technology (who was so interested in purchasing 10 million tablets that he attended their meeting even as flood waters descended on Bangkok). Calls arrived from Turkey (which wants 15 million tablets), Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Panama and Egypt. At one point, the Swedish embassy in Canada called: Would Suneet possibly have time to meet the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt? And would it be possible to send out a press release to announce that the meeting was happening?

Another story: from pcworld

And for an extra $10, you get a much better cpu, a better touch screen, more battery life, etc.

So, forget Canonicals' secret plans to unveil a cheap tablet running linux next week - these run both linux and android, and they're already being sold.

I don't think it was an OS attack vector, but a web browser attack vector. Not quite the same thing.

Safari was hacked in five seconds.

What about Apple doing everything in its power to slow down the standardization process at W3C (more about that) to ensure that Webkit stays in its dominant position?

HTML5 and co. would of been out of draft and adopted if it wasn't for Apple slowing them down at every turn.

That isn't how fraudulent donations are handled. Are you an FBI psyops agent deliberately spreading misinformation or are you just ill-informed?

Anonymous' Robin Hood Credit Card Fraud Campaign Could Hurt More Than Just Banks

For example, if p0isAnon members use the stolen credit card information to buy blankets for Occupy Wall Street protesters, the affected banks could initiate chargebacks to recover the money from merchants, who could be left to cover their losses if they didn't follow all the procedures correctly.

Kornbluth confirmed that chargebacks can also be initiated for fraudulent donations. There are multiple online reports from organizations and independent software developers who received fraudulent donations and were later forced to pay chargeback fees in addition to returning the donated amounts.

PayPal offers a donation service for nonprofits, but its user agreement states that sellers don't benefit from protection if the sold item is not a physical, tangible good that can be shipped. Since a donation doesn't meet this criteria, a successful chargeback for a fraudulent transaction could end up costing a nonprofit a fee of US$20 in addition to the donated amount.

Hmmmm.... maybe there is something else going on instead of what they claim.....

Fraudulent Donations Used To Test Stolen Credit Cards

It’s not always clear whether stolen credit card information will work so hackers have to find ways to “test” the data they steal. Thieves have found new way to accomplish this task. They have been using the Brighton, MI library’s online donation feature to see which cards will work.

Toshiba have demonstrated fuel cells for laptops since at least 2006. They may not be pretty, but the principle should not be patentable (at least by Apple). http://www.pcworld.com/article/157606/toshibas_fuel_cell_laptop.html

Apple's patent claims require a bidirectional communication link between the portable computing device and a controller on the fuel cell, and that doesn't appear to be there for the Toshiba implementation. It's prior art (because it's in the art, and it's prior), but it's not anticipatory prior art (a single publication or device that discloses each and every element of the claims). Now, combine that with smart batteries, and you might be getting somewhere...

Toshiba have demonstrated fuel cells for laptops since at least 2006. They may not be pretty, but the principle should not be patentable (at least by Apple).

http://www.pcworld.com/article/157606/toshibas_fuel_cell_laptop.html

From an extremely quick glance, Apples patent seems to be for a failry specific implementation of a hydrogen driven system, not Toshiba's methanol driven system. Also the patent diagrams illustrates a number of elements required in their design, so I would guess that it is their complete implementation that they're patenting not the general principle.