Slashdot Mirror

According to this article;

The anti-counterfeiting system doubles as a way to distinguish between carafe-size pods and regular ones. If the sensor detects the green dot that marks carafe cups, it brews a large pot. If it detects the ring of black symbols on the standard pod, it brews a smaller cup. If it doesn’t detect a Keurig-approved marking at all, it tells you "oops!"

That and a conduit for malware.

In effect, the site is trying a social contract, i give you free stuff and you look at ads. Whether that can be an enforceable legal contract is interesting.

In the link above, we reference Zedo. I worked there early on. The initial design was that ads were a think to be both chosen and voted on, a primitive ad Like/Dislike button set if you can think it that way. We were steamrolled by Google/Doubleclick early on and abandoned that model early on, but it would be interesting (in a theoretical vacuum) to see if the ad choice model would catch on. I particularly liked the Lego Mindstorms ad, which actually had you program a sequence to get a robot to move to a goal around obstacles. When was the last time you actually interacted with an ad? What would the world look like if ads were competing on likeability and not on how much info someone knows about you?

Link to the Verge's coverage of this story... http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7... And BB also made similar deals with many other countries.

Even the National Highway Traffic Administration says measured active THC levels can't be correlated with impairment:

"It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects ... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone." - http://www.businessinsider.com...

Also, given the difference in absorption rates between edibles and smoking, it's possible for someone who ate it to be more impaired but give a lower reading than someone who smoked it. - http://www.theverge.com/2012/1...

"politicians are desperate to find a solution to the long-running anti-competitive dispute with Google."

And we all know who's really behind this 'dispute'.

link

link

... and it wants to be the Facebook of transportation. "We're collecting all this data to help us make your user experience better. Don't like it - use someone else. Oh wait - we actively sabotage the competition 'cuz we got $1.5 billion thrown at us by crazy investors."

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1... would certainly be an attempt to take away from his accomplishments. Fuck off

If it wasn't, it could have mentioned also the Samsung Beyond camera project or the Panocam 3D or 360heros.

Oh well...

If that was the case, why did Comcast and Verizon fight putting the OpenConnect Netflix system directly on their network avoiding the peering entirely?

It would of gotten rid of any of the peering issues and allowed faster service for everyone. Netflix offered to pay for the entire install and support as well so it would of cost Comcast and Verizon nothing, other than the right to shake down Netflix and the other peering services.

Also L3 offered to pay for the peering upgrades as needed, but both of them would rather try to shake down Netflix then you know actually solve the problem.

From TheVerge ...

Microsoft doesn't plan on making the same mistake twice: the company has made a public pledge that all of Nokia's Lumia Windows Phone 8 devices will be upgraded to the mobile version of Windows 10 when it's released. Responding to a customer's question on the topic, Microsoft tweeted, "We plan to upgrade all Windows Phone 8 devices to Windows 10 in the future." Microsoft's next big operating system remains in early development, so the company obviously isn't revealing details as to when that update will arrive.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

We know net neutrality is something that could be enforced, there is enough bandwidth available now over fiber to give everyone a standard amount of bandwidth. Fast lanes are probably inevitable; if that is the price for getting standardized internet access then fine, do it. It's a reason for companies to roll out the upgrades.

Let's face it, business will not upgrade the networks to the speed required without being told that they will get to charge for premium access. It's a fact, you can't get around it. It's better for everyone to just accept what can't be changed, live with it, deal with it, and let's get IPTV to everybody nationwide so we get more channels, more content, etc, etc.

Just imagine a future time when you don't have to watch football on the weekend, where you can watch whatever minority sport you prefer, be it surfing or chess or mountaineering or whatever. Imagine having the freedom to choose what shows you watch when. It's not going to happen if we don't get the networks upgraded and that is not going to happen without fast lanes, I don't believe.

I don't think we'll ever get net neutrality, but by the trickle-down theory, we should be able to get serviceable internet to everyone which is sufficiently neutral for it not to matter. Let's shift the cost onto content rather than the medium, and we'll need fast networks to do that, and that requires fast lanes for now, I think.

That's a steaming load of grade A bullshit. Do you work for the CTIA? Or just one of its members?

We know net neutrality is something that could be enforced, there is enough bandwidth available now over fiber to give everyone a standard amount of bandwidth. Fast lanes are probably inevitable; if that is the price for getting standardized internet access then fine, do it. It's a reason for companies to roll out the upgrades.

Let's face it, business will not upgrade the networks to the speed required without being told that they will get to charge for premium access. It's a fact, you can't get around it. It's better for everyone to just accept what can't be changed, live with it, deal with it, and let's get IPTV to everybody nationwide so we get more channels, more content, etc, etc.

Just imagine a future time when you don't have to watch football on the weekend, where you can watch whatever minority sport you prefer, be it surfing or chess or mountaineering or whatever. Imagine having the freedom to choose what shows you watch when. It's not going to happen if we don't get the networks upgraded and that is not going to happen without fast lanes, I don't believe.

I don't think we'll ever get net neutrality, but by the trickle-down theory, we should be able to get serviceable internet to everyone which is sufficiently neutral for it not to matter. Let's shift the cost onto content rather than the medium, and we'll need fast networks to do that, and that requires fast lanes for now, I think.

That's a steaming load of grade A bullshit. Do you work for the CTIA? Or just one of its members?

STFU Ted Cruise! http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

Or you can run actual Excel... on an Android tablet!

So I guess that establishes the pecking order, doesn't it? Just when all eyes are on the military-industrial complex, Wall Street takes over. And then as they are in the spotlight, in sneaks the new corporate Stasi.

Everyone should just be glad that it doesn't require Google+ integration. Seems like just about everything they do now is getting tied to that millstone in one way or another.

Apparently you missed the memo... Google+ is being deemphasized, and the guy behind it is no longer with the company.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...

1. OpenBSD supports laptops, specifically Thinkpads, better than any other operating system not called Windows. Suspend/resume works, instantly.

That's less of a good thing considering how nasty Lenovo is to work with. Not only did they continue locking their mini pcie port against "unauthorized" wifi cards, they have double downed on their customer hating behaviour by refusing to charge third party batteries. Since that was written, they seem to have moved the enforcement into the firmware.

You know what they say: "The plural of Anecdote is not Data". Windows Phone sales decline as share shrinks to just 2.5 percent

Mobile data plans are cheap as chips in most first-world countries

By "most first-world countries", do you include the United States or somewhere else where most able-bodied people born in the United States can easily qualify for a work visa? If so, to which countries are you referring?

Basically all of Western Europe. For instance, here in Denmark my plan is 3GB/month for ~$17, which also includes 5 hours talk time and unlimited SMS and MMS (and we don't pay to receive calls or messages). And there are no limits on tethering. For reference, I work at an ISP/Telco and my subscription is from our basic self-service brand. We've just measured the average data rate of our 4G network to be over 50Mbit/s basically everywhere there's coverage, and peaking at over 100Mbit/s in some areas.

plus odds are you'll have wifi access available in a lot more places than you'd think.

My laptop sees the beacons, but the bus has pulled off before it can finish associating, let alone transferring packets to and from the Internet. And I've found plenty of stores whose public Wi-Fi is limited to 30 minutes, after which the AP's captive portal enforces an hours-long cooldown period before the same MAC can regain an Internet connection. This hurts when I'm waiting for the roommate to finish shopping, eating, or whatever, or if the roommate has run into an old friend from her previous job.

I may be spoiled rotten by our infrastructure, but we actually have APs on the busses and trains, free of charge.

As for the store-provided hotspots blocking access, that's easily circumvented by spoofing your MAC. Not that I would ever engage in such shenanigans ;-)

But really, your use case falls outside of what a Chromebook is meant for.

Which is ultimately my point. Too many laptop makers disappoint me by selling only Chromebooks in the form factor I want, not something that better fits my use case.

There are a handful of Chromebook-targeted Win8.1 laptops out there, and more cheaper versions are on the way: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8...

Personally, I think maybe people are going to be slightly disappointed at their performance, but for $200, you can't really complain, right? A lean Linux distro should perk up the performance nicely.

It's available in Europe and seems to be selling pretty well on Amazon UK right now. I don't know why Sony ignores the US ...

If I was looking for a phone right now I'd be seriously considering the Z3 compact. Seems pretty much the perfect size to me, and the battery life is insane.

The rest of us believe that telecom is, was, and (for the foreseeable future) always will be a *natural* monopoly

Natural monopoly is a myth. A myth very convenient for and thus perpetuated by the government officials of various levels as it gives them undue power, but a myth nonetheless.

You can't have meaningful competition for building roads and sewers and power grids

Yes, you can. Tokyo has competing subway lines — why can't New York City? Your GPS is likely to show you several options for any route of appreciable lengths — why can't those different roads be privately-owned and compete?

For example, to leave New York you have many options (most of them requiring payment on top of the taxes) — why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe, their new owners will consider high traffic a profit opportunity, rather than a burdensome nuisance — and seek to attract more drivers by innovation of both toll-collection and road-maintenance... I dunno, it works for supermarkets... Heck, some private (and disgustingly profit-driven) concern may even undertake building a new tunnel (or a bridge)...

it will always be vastly more efficient for a single entity to install and manage that physical data network, at least at the local level

Really? Why not? In the 20ie we had competing telephone companies — each running its own wires to buildings. Today Google is laying down its own fiber — to much rejoicing on this very site — and AT&T is planning its own alternative, despite your claims of it being "inefficient". Various markets have competing coax-cable providers already. The actual cable-laying is just a (small) part of providing Internet service... Though in theory a monopoly ought to be easier — and thus cheaper — to operate (in any market), in practice any benefit is quickly consumed by the inevitable arrogance of such providers and the concomitant drop of quality and rising end-user prices (any wins in the monopoly provider's costs are compensated for by their fattening up the profit-margins).

We should have made this transition decades ago, but for a variety of reasons didn't

Oh, it is not a "variety" of reasons — but a single one: our government followed that myth of "natural monopolies" and granted cable-TV providers monopoly rights in their respective markets. That law was rescinded in the mid-1990ies, but the damage was done...

liability issues do you want to be a victim and be left to fend for your self?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3...

"Exactly how does that custom ROM get installed??? "

http://www.android.gs/install-...

"Does it require modification of a device? "

Absolutely!

"Hardware modifications are not stock, are they? "

I think you mean software modifications, but no they're not stock. But you can make a stock backup of the original rom.

"There has been no reported successful hack of iOS devices to install malware where the device wasn't jailbroken. "

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...

"Now, what happens on the backend is open to interpretation and subject to debate."

No it's not, because the information is not publicly available.

"Now, what happens on the backend is open to interpretation and subject to debate."

A fanboi of what exactly? If you recall, I'm treating both Apple and Google exactly the same...Using an Android device does not always mean you're a fan of Google.

Show me an Iphone that I can install a custom rom on while avoiding all of their services and I'll buy it.

the problem you see, is ATMs require windows XP software. yes windows XP. http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/20/5326772/windows-xp-powers-95-percent-of-atms-worldwide
So the malware simply connects to a botnet, hops through inadequate satellite networks makes a map and reinfects itself after the system is cleaned. i have seen windows xp machines infected by satellite communications they are after all devices that must obey 'this device must accept any interference received' which is usually a kill switch to make them stop emitting radio waves, but also means viruses that transmit via radio must also be accepted it is the law after all.

Its a PR amove to appease the local population after their recent protests.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6...

He's right: idiot.

Read this before you comment more:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5...

Essentially, these companies claim Title II status whenever they want to build something because under Title II they don't have to pay for right of way to government or private entities, get to use poles and tunnels without having to pay, etc., -- in other words they get a subsidy -- but when it comes to charging customers, they disclaim Title II status.

This is a corollary of "Privatize profits, socialize expenses" -- "Privatize profits, socialize business expenses."

If the FCC doesn't have the authority under current law, what agency should regulate situations like this

The IEEE. They invented the Wifi protocol with the "feature" that AP disjoin messages don't have to be authenticated.

Whether a client can use an AP is a system management feature provided by the Wifi protocol.

The Hotel as property owner is simply using the rules of the protocol to enforce their desired AP containment.

Now... what happens when a Hotel guest brings in a portable device and starts shutting down the official Cameras, Printers, and Wireless APs?

You can read about how Apple is going to revolutionize payments, or you can read some of the user stories here about how people have been using google for payments for a long time with no problems, and you might think about how, even a few months ago, Apple had a major https problem:

http://www.theblaze.com/storie... [theblaze.com]

Well first, you quoted "The Blaze" which makes your entire point suspect. But beyond that, did you actually READ the post you quoted? It's a hypothetical issue from February - can you cite a specific example where it was exploited?

And seriously, I have no loyalty to Apple or Google, but cherry picking is not a good argument, it's easy to do the same with Google, and in this case there is definitely confirmed malware...

Google's Doubleclick ad servers exposed millions of computers to malware

Philips as an example of Japanese tech? Sony and Alpine parent company ALPS are not exactly flourishing

...in for a pound: http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...

I wear a watch every day as well, partly because it's a more convenient and graceful way to tell the time than pulling out my phone and partly, I suppose, as a bit of a quaint affectation.

However, a big part of it is also that a good-looking watch is fashionable and attractive. None of the current crop of smart watches are anything close to fashionable, and I was convinced Apple would be the company to bridge that crucial gap and create a smartwatch that people would wear even if it didn't do anything cool (something like this mock-up). I don't see the Apple Watch as being such a device. Maybe the whole concept is stillborn. Maybe it'll be an awkward stepping stone on the path to more wearable and increasingly intimate tech (like the Newton and Palm Pilot were indirect antecedents of the iPhone). Maybe this thing will defy my expectations and sell like crazy. Who knows? But I don't see myself wearing one (or any of its competitors).

The original article:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8...

Whooshh Innovations

I wonder if this is just a cynical attempt to appear "tough on monopolies" -- right before Tom Wheeler guts Net Neutrality forever.

Reminder: next Wednesday is a "Day of Action" to publicize the need to maintain Net Neutrality.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...

Where do you think the designers of NT came up with that idea? Hmmmmm? Wouldn't have been Unix now would it?

Wrong again, it was designed by someone who quite hated Unix.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
http://www.theverge.com/gaming...
Windows NT's primary inspiration was VMS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Windows NT did not start less secure.

I think its a case of German law makers thinking: If it looks like a taxi, and acts like a taxi, then it should be regulated like a taxi. Can't really fault them on this.

The bigger issue is that Uber, Lyft, etc. are trying to take advantage of the lag between what is available (Hail a taxi via an app), and what the current incumbent do now, by bypassing the current laws. This is admirable from a competition perspective, but not by sacrificing all laws to get there and compete.

Uber is notorious at this point for operating full steam ahead, against regulation, and even court rulings, to get into place. I am not surprised Germany took a dim view of their antics and slapped them.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft

Some regulations are in place to protect drivers, others are in place to protect passengers. To declare yourself immune to them all is lovely, but its as effective as me declaring myself King of the Internet and demanding all my subjects to send me $5.

Adding "with the help of a mobile app" to the end of your business plan, does not suddenly make a brand new industry and to pretend otherwise is delusional (except to shareholders or venture capitalists).

Considering the "competitive" practices Uber has been using in the USA ( http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft ), I feel compelled to partake of another German word: schadenfreude

... the cesspool of the internet?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1...

http://gawker.com/5693962/4cha...

Maybe someone stole 15 million accounts and are trying them out (way less than 1200 million and way more than normal on their website).

you forgot to mention how at least 1 person died while taking ZMapp

An African doctor who received the experimental anti-Ebola drug ZMapp has died

I think maybe "money spent" would be a better metric. If you buy AAA titles, consoles, surround sound systems, projectors, liquid-cooled rigs with dual video cards, gaming headsets, specialized controllers, keyboards, and mice...

The number of people who spend $$$ on the Monster cable equivalent of headsets, mice, keyboards, projectors etc etc is small. Sure, if you hang out on maximumpc, you might think everyone has dual video cards and a liquid cooled setup...but they are a tiny niche in a larger market.

Does it not make economic sense to target the demographic that is spending outrageous amounts of money on this stuff.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7...

I didn't see anyone else post this info, but in the doc displayed in TFA, right there on page 11 of the S4 Quality Program manual under the section titled "Transition to Offer is not Applicable in the Following Scenarios" is the bullet point:
-Customer volunteers a "Do not sell to me" statement

So there're your magic words. Just finish your initial statement with "...and don't sell to me."

"a reported $400 million, five-year deal. That includes interactive content to help sell Xbox home video game consoles."

Yes, that's where the money comes into play. 25 tablets over 32 teams does not a $400M deal make, but throw in broadcasting rights and it starts to make sense. Except that it's not really an Xbox thing - you have to buy ST in order to stream through the Xbox. Kind of like HBO Go, except that the only place you can buy ST is DirecTV, so you're still stuck with the satco payment (unless you're in a select market that allows the direct purchase). And, like HBO Go, you can use a whole range of devices - not just Xbox - to stream.

Unless they're wrong in the article http://www.theverge.com/2014/8... and the deal means a la carte no-sat-req'd subscriptions.

This article from 2013 asks the same question as the submitter but with actual data from a person at Sprint who was also a champion of this form factor.

TLDR version: "People started buying phones they could recognize ... flagship devices which boast fancy designs and giant advertising campaigns."

I found it to be a rather interesting article even though I've never been into this kind of phone.

This article from 2013 asks the same question as the submitter but with actual data from a person at Sprint who was also a champion of this form factor.

TLDR version: "People started buying phones they could recognize ... flagship devices which boast fancy designs and giant advertising campaigns."

I found it to be a rather interesting article even though I've never been into this kind of phone.

I'm working on a Fleshlight attachment and a pillow talk module.

Right, that was when AdBlock sold out to Google.

It's well within Level3's capability to spread the load among all the peers

Of course it is. But how does that help? Most of the smaller players would have to buy more bandwidth themselves to carry any substantial portion of Netflix's traffic. They don't have the capacity to accept most of the traffic at the handoff in Oregon. So Level3 would end up having to shift traffic all over the USA themselves, handoff all over the place and then have those smaller players handoff to Verizon. The performance would be both unpredictable and quite bad for Netflix customers. And in the end, its still going to have to get handed back to Verizon for last mile, so all these small providers are going to be asymmetric.

Do owners of popular venues pay to upgrade the interstate 50 miles out of town?

Our road system is maintained by the government to serve the common good. The internet is much more of a free market. That being said, in areas where there is very little justification for a road and a business that wants one, they often do pay to get their access to the interstate upgraded.

By the way, Netflix HAS ALREADY PAID both Comcast & Verizon - http://www.theverge.com/2014/4... [theverge.com]
That was months ago. So the issue now is between Verizon & Level3.

AFAIK that's two different agreements. Netflix is having Verizon carry some of their traffic directly. Then there isn't peering obviously and Verizon doesn't care if the traffic is asymmetric. In theory if Netflix bought enough Verizon to cover delivery to all Verizon customers that would solve the Level3 / Verizon problem as there wouldn't be any handoff. But they aren't doing it they are only doing it for some of the traffic. Probably places where the Verizon / Level3 handoffs are flooded to get those customers good service. The issue still remains because Level3 still carries most of Netflix's traffic.

Is Netflix going to have to pay extortion money to EVERY major provider in the world if their traffic causes asymmetric bandwidth between peers?

I wouldn't call it extortion, I'd call it paying for services used. And the answer is likely yes. Though the more reasonable thing is that it get wrapped in the Level3 bill. If Netflix wants to generate huge traffic to require expensive traffic upgrades their customers should be the ones to pay for those upgrades.

If it were up to me, I would tell Comcast & Verizon to go fuck themselves and start buying up every multihomed / distributed VPN service I could find and sell that as a premium service with some goodies to sweeten the pot for my customers.

How would that help? If a packet is going to get from Level3 Oregon to say a Verizon home in Philadelphia it at some point is going to have to hit a peering location between Level3 and Verizon. Unless you add a bunch of other 3rd parties in there. In which case it is still going to have to happen indirectly. What is a VPN going to do to fix that?

It's well within Level3's capability to spread the load among all the peers. Netflix is not a ISP, they're a content provider so it's wrong to strongarm them.
Do owners of popular venues pay to upgrade the interstate 50 miles out of town?

By the way, Netflix HAS ALREADY PAID both Comcast & Verizon - http://www.theverge.com/2014/4...
That was months ago. So the issue now is between Verizon & Level3.

Is Netflix going to have to pay extortion money to EVERY major provider in the world if their traffic causes asymmetric bandwidth between peers?

If it were up to me, I would tell Comcast & Verizon to go fuck themselves and start buying up every multihomed / distributed VPN service I could find and sell that as a premium service with some goodies to sweeten the pot for my customers.
I'd start with VyprVPN, which is the one that was used by Colin Nederkoom to figure out that Verizon was throttling his Netflix traffic
http://www.goldenfrog.com/vypr...

Not exactly a surprise
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7...

No way, MS kill a phone off after they just release it? They'd never do that, twice!!!!!