Slashdot Mirror

You are 100% wrong in your assumptions about me. If anything I empathize with the girls more. I hate being embarrassed. I wouldn't want a nude photo of me posted anywhere on the internet. Although of course he didn't actually do that. He just threatened to.

Not to get involved in the whole conversation, but that doesn't appear to be true. I saw this in another comment referencing http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/30/internet-criminals.

In retaliation for not complying within 10 seconds, the unknown person, without authorisation, logged into [a friend of both girls'] Facebook account and added the [topless] photo of [victim 2] to [the friend's] Facebook wall. The unknown person then instant messaged [the victim] on Skype and sent the link to Facebook with the compromising photo attached. The link was [sic] the photos he had just put on their Facebook walls since they did not comply to his demands.

350 is a large number. How many has he done that sort of thing to? I know nothing of the man, but if he shows no remorse and is ready to do more, I'd be glad to have him out of circulation. If it's some dumb kid who's feeling his hormones and went way too far, maybe he just needs some time to grow up and learn why that's not socially acceptable. I don't know. He's done damage that cannot be undone.

"The unknown persons then demanded that [victim 1] and [her sister, victim 2, who was actually in the picture] take their tops off and show their breasts on the Skype camera or he would post the photos on their Facebook walls for all of their friends to see. The unknown person told [the sisters] they had 10 seconds to do this. The girls attempted to stall the unknown person. In retaliation for not complying within 10 seconds, the unknown person, without authorisation, logged into [a friend of both girls'] Facebook account and added the [topless] photo of [victim 2] to [the friend's] Facebook wall. The unknown person then instant messaged [the victim] on Skype and sent the link to Facebook with the compromising photo attached. The link was [sic] the photos he had just put on their Facebook walls since they did not comply to his demands." http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/30/internet-criminals

Don't forget the inevitable clash of IP law, and the coming panic when manufacturers realize You really CAN download a car.

how is Apple misleading customers?

Probably the same way they were in the UK and Italy. Apple was using false and misleading advertising to sell unnecessary "AppleCare" coverage when EU law required a 2-year warranty built into the price of the product.

Guys, I am disappoint .I know you can do better. I've seen articles that are years old posted as news on Slashdot over the years http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/30/smart-highway-glows-in-the-dark

Don't forget, this is the Chinese with a history of faking scientific discoveries and other things.

I'm curious what scientific discoveries the Chinese have faked. Care to elaborate and explain how such "fakes" differ from the many faked studies and doctored results that have been documented in western science (start here for some examples)?

The GP isn't wrong.....

I was at an event in London recently about Iranian Internet censorship run by small media: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/27/403-forbidden-iranian-internet http://smallmediafoundation.com/ They said that watching which Iranian blogs get censored was a good way of seeing how power struggles were playing out in the Iranian government, and that at the moment right-wing nationalist blogs that were pro-Ahmadinejad were being censored showing that he was increasingly out of favour with the clerics...

The real solution are LFTR reactors.

Unless, of course, they get scooped by LENR reactors.

(Hey, a guy can dream)

Apple's goal is not to make money, but to make good products, said Jonathan Ive, senior vice president of industrial design at Apple, speaking at the British Embassy's Creative Summit.

"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money. It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money," he said.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/30/jonathan-ive-revenue-good-design

You can't print glass, are you sure about that?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/24/solar-sinter

Shapeways also prints in glass and Stainless Steel.

try http://cvdazzle.com/ for face-detection thwarting ideas. http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/01/how-to/how-to-use-camouflage-to-thwart-facial-recognition

Without ownership, you're giving someone else the ability to take away your access. Once that happens a couple times, I think people will start moving back to an ownership model.

This is the major issue I have with streaming services. You have no guarantee that content available today will still be available tomorrow. Like this.... 200+ labels withdraw their music from Spotify

I know I'll be able to play my CD rips tomorrow, next week, next year....

What's you're definition of true entrepreneurship?

Specifically, high-tech Internet/software/IT entrepeneurship, since we have been talking about CS/IT degrees, pay attention here. I know Germany does very well in traditional manufacturing, but that's not what we were talking about and I said nothing about the German economy.

Apple: copied Xerox. Microsoft: copied CP/M, then copied Apple, and somewhere along the way copied umpteen others as well.

Yes, Apple and Microsoft's true success has come almost entirely from copying a few vague ideas 30 years ago. I mean, I can practically see the connection between a mouse and a $400B business with 75,000 employees! Thanks for parroting the usual /. bull, it's so relevant to the discussion.

Page, Brin, Yang, Filo - what they did is decide that their idea was worth dropping out of their PhD program, and their early investors and employees agreed with them rather than judging them for not getting a graduate degree. Semantics are aren't helpful here, either.

And bigot my ass. I work with 2 very intelligent and motivated German engineers, and we have discussed this very topic at length. Both of them are in the US because they wanted to work at innovative, fast moving Internet/software companies and they felt the opportunities for that in the US were (and still are) much better. In fact, both have co-founded and/or worked at several startups of various success; but that has been plenty enough success they own homes, have families, and have no plans to move back (and one even recently naturalized). In fact, a couple months ago he was saying he thought the traditional German educational and banking/venture capital/etc systems would have to undergo significant reform before you start seeing changes in that department...

But, if you don't want to to take the word of a second-hand conversation at face value, don't. Spend a couple minutes researching the topic yourself for the similar opinions.

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15126087,00.html
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~jmueller/its/conf/amsterdam06/downloads/papers/Weber.pdf
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/19/european-startups-lack-ambition

Yes, I am a real bigot for pointing out a fact that many analysts, academics, and business executives (many of who are German, as in the above links) think there is a lack of entrepeneurship and development in Internet services in Germany, and the most likely causes are aversion to risk and too much adherence to traditional university educational system ("can't blame me for hiring him, he had a PhD!)" I just thought it was interesting that the GP demonstrated this attitude fairly well (and, yes, I think was a bit overly insulting to him as I was responding directly to his insulting comment on my post. Oh well).

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/04/mogees

With some type of triangulation you should be able to determine location too I would think.

If you CBA reading the article (shame on you), here are the addresses you're being pointed at:

parliamentaryteam@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Ministers.HO@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
mayt@parliament.uk
sharkeyj@parliament.uk
office@maidenheadconservatives.com
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

on all your email. In particular, don't use this list of addresses. OK?

Because I had to look http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/24/pissky?p=2

No, this is typical US attitude. They think they own the world.

If the rest of the world would tell the US to piss off, maybe things could get better. Instead, the US throws their totalitarian weight around and we get bought-off British judges trying to extradite British citizens to the US for conduct that occurred in Britain, between British citizens, that was 100% legal under British law because the US MafiAA wants to try to have the British citizen prosecuted under US fascist law.

why we need cash

"No, someone said 'we're going to do that'

And someone else pointed out that it hasn't been legal to do that in sweden at any point in history"

Is there some reason you made all that up? Parliamentary immunity still holds and would be perfectly valid as suggested. The plan was announced in anticipation of the pirate party winning seats and the pirate party just didn't win the seats.

http://torrentfreak.com/swedish-pirate-party-fails-to-enter-parliament-100919/
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/5/pirate-bay-swedish-parliament

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/5/pirate-bay-swedish-parliament

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-05/31/scotland-gets-first-file-sharing-conviction

and the article also alludes to "This is the fifth conviction in the UK for filesharing. Four of the five man team behind the BitTorrent tracker OiNK pleaded guilty to filesharing in early 2010. "

Got a lot of flack from people for the quality of the article and arguments over the nuances of the words of the article that are completely throwing the discussion off-track.

Here is a much more recent, much more professional article on the subject of Angry Birds revenue:
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/04/features/how-rovio-made-angry-birds-a-winner?page=all

Let's discuss this one instead:

Rovio has had 20 million paid downloads for the iPhone and iPod Touch, and 20 million ad-supported downloads on Android. Ville Heijari, Rovio's spokesperson (the "bird whisperer") says both generate similar revenues.

One of the top-selling apps ever on the iPhone generates similar revenues on Android. Here, the wording is vaguer so maybe the iPhone is making slightly more, maybe Android is making slightly more, but with regards to my conclusions these tiny ticky-tack details doesn't matter.

I maintain my original conclusion, which is that while Battleheart's developer could not make their business model work on Android, some people are making tons of money by switching to different business models in a changed environment. In light of this, I state again, it's not Android that's unsustainable, it's their business model on Android that appears to be unsustainable.

You may have a point in a roundabout way. This is similar to sheets of graphene that have also been discovered. Now, imagine that the graphene or C60 is contaminated with trace amounts of N, O, P and H - the carbon is going to form a substrate on which random combinations of the containments are brought together, and if it's constantly being broken up and reforming due to, for example, UV then you have a plausible mechanism for biogenesis.

Already, NH has prompted much more thorough scrutiny of Pluto, resulting in the discovery of a new (fourth) moon;

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/20jul_p4/

And hey, the program is trying to select a member of the Kuiper Belt to visit beyond Pluto, and they're crowdsourcing the search;

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/22/crowd-source-new-horizons-next-destination

Also, there's a New Horizons app in the iPhone App store (don't know if there's an Android version).

Not as unusual as you might think: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/16/tvshack-guy-can-be-extradited

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.

When you can site 2001: A Space Oddessy as prior art, that gives Samsung license to tell Apple to go eat a bowl of dicks. Apple? innovators? My ass. They sell marked-up shiny.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/24/samsung-2001-prior-art

According to Samsung, director Stanley Kubrick had the idea for tablet computers about four decades ago, in the 1968 sci-fi epic, 2001: A Space Odyssey. A clip from the film (available on YouTube, Samsung hastens to add), shows astronauts eating while watching a TV show on flat, personal computers.

The Galaxy Tab maker argues that Kubrick's forward-thinking tablet has, "an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up

A few excerpts from Kodak develops: A film giant's self-reinvention (Feb 2010) seem to suggest they just couldn't transition fast enough rather than became irrelevant.

... every Oscar winner for Best Motion Picture in the past 81 years has used Kodak film... 65 percent of Kodak's business now comes from business-to-business products and 70 percent of them are digital. Hayzlett's message is simple: every aspect of Kodak's business has been reinvigorated by winds of change.

The usual explanation is that Kodak failed to see the approach of digital.

In fact, Kodak was more than ahead of its competitors: it invented the digital camera -- even though it lacked the foresight to exploit it.

One of the neater things I've read about is how Lockheed Martin went back to Tesla's technology to make a communication system for miners:

A magnetic-wave generator developed by Nikola Tesla over 100 years ago as a wireless communication device has been updated by engineers at Lockheed Martin to save lives after mining disasters.

Magnetic waves -- unlike radio waves -- can penetrate hundreds of metres of solid rock. MagneLink, the fridge-sized device developed by Lockheed Martin, allows for phone calls and text messaging. It was tested this year at a mine in Virginia, and production is expected before 2011.

-Nikola Tesla’s patent redux (very short)

Heres another link: Tapping Tesla to Save Trapped Miners

If Tesla was 100 years ahead of everyone else, that means we should be plugging our devices into the Aether ("The wheelwork of nature") soon.

Google's business model is collecting and selling information.

Not true. Google's business model is collecting users and selling some advertising. They do not sell personal information, and there is no way for advertisers to get access to your anonymised profile. Wired said:

"For most of its existence, Google has largely decided that what you do on its properties -- such as search and Gmail -- will not be used for its ad program, which shows banner ads on third-party websites. That program uses tracking cookies on more than a million sites to create an anonymous profile of you in order to show you more targeted ads (click here to see your profile). By contrast, the ads you see in Gmail and in Google Search are targeted by the search terms you use, or the words in recent e-mails.

To date, the only Google site that feeds into the marketing profile is YouTube. Google has long emphasised that it won't use your search history to create targeted ads and that they use different cookies so the marketing cookie can't be matched with your Google user profile cookie -- despite the temptation of untold advertising riches for the taking by combining and mining such a rich vein of data."

Good question. Just found this: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

Unsurprisingly... still unclear what the situation is.

... there is only one choice: the Pip-Boy 3000! This is now a real thing, being developed by LG Display, Universal Display and L-3 Display Systems UDC, and tested in the field: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-10/15/wrist-mounted-computers How cool is that?

As the unlimited power is at our disposal (CO2 free), the Cold Fusion test wildly discussed yesterday is declared "success" (by Rossi), it has made Wired frontpage in the UK already. Scam artist or a messiah?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

interesting video about the subject by CBS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OabYImeDSc

Scam artist. Unfortunately.

Citation?

asshole

As the unlimited power is at our disposal (CO2 free), the Cold Fusion test wildly discussed yesterday is declared "success" (by Rossi), it has made Wired frontpage in the UK already. Scam artist or a messiah?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

interesting video about the subject by CBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OabYImeDSc

I have been following this lightly for a while. On the one hand Rossi's history does not give confidence to this being real. On the other hand he doesn't seem to approach it like I would expect a scammer to approach it - he does get in touch with universities and professors, and he does not ask for money, even apparently financing the contruction of this 1 MW plant himself. Also holding a large-scale demonstration with big-name media present does not seem usual. If it is a hoax, I am not sure what he would get out of it besides publicity (being in the news).

There are 3 options: (1) it is a hoax/fraud, (2) he really believes it is true and cannot manage to do measurements correctly or is in some kind of denial and interprets the results incorrectly so they fit his beliefs, (3) it is true.

It is not clear whether this demonstration will make it clear. There have already been 11 other smaller-scale demonstrations and apparently there has never been conclusive evidence throughout all these. It also depends on who is vetting the test. There is someone from PESwiki there tweeting updates, tweeted "Q&A just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously during self-sustain; customer satisfied; sale made; more later." and expects to post an article on the wiki/blog in the next hour or so. PESwiki historically has followed/reported on hundreds of bogus technologies. But the customer is satisfied? Who is the customer! Also an AP writer from NY is apparently attending the demo. However, a link to the likely writer says that he covers "telecommunications, consumer electronics, etc" for the AP, so it's not likely he is knowledgeable about energy technologies.

It will be very interesting to see the reports.

Here are the various semi-high-profile news articles about this technology that have recently been published, to collect them all in once place:
Forbes blog, Oct 28th
Wired, Oct 28th
Forbes blog, Oct 17th
Wired, Oct 6th
And then plenty of other sites like blogs and physorg since January of this year.

I have been following this lightly for a while. On the one hand Rossi's history does not give confidence to this being real. On the other hand he doesn't seem to approach it like I would expect a scammer to approach it - he does get in touch with universities and professors, and he does not ask for money, even apparently financing the contruction of this 1 MW plant himself. Also holding a large-scale demonstration with big-name media present does not seem usual. If it is a hoax, I am not sure what he would get out of it besides publicity (being in the news).

There are 3 options: (1) it is a hoax/fraud, (2) he really believes it is true and cannot manage to do measurements correctly or is in some kind of denial and interprets the results incorrectly so they fit his beliefs, (3) it is true.

It is not clear whether this demonstration will make it clear. There have already been 11 other smaller-scale demonstrations and apparently there has never been conclusive evidence throughout all these. It also depends on who is vetting the test. There is someone from PESwiki there tweeting updates, tweeted "Q&A just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously during self-sustain; customer satisfied; sale made; more later." and expects to post an article on the wiki/blog in the next hour or so. PESwiki historically has followed/reported on hundreds of bogus technologies. But the customer is satisfied? Who is the customer! Also an AP writer from NY is apparently attending the demo. However, a link to the likely writer says that he covers "telecommunications, consumer electronics, etc" for the AP, so it's not likely he is knowledgeable about energy technologies.

It will be very interesting to see the reports.

Here are the various semi-high-profile news articles about this technology that have recently been published, to collect them all in once place:
Forbes blog, Oct 28th
Wired, Oct 28th
Forbes blog, Oct 17th
Wired, Oct 6th
And then plenty of other sites like blogs and physorg since January of this year.

So why is NASA spending $2.5B on the next Mars Rover and planning to spend over $6B more on a Mars sample return when it can't find the money for much cheaper missions to Europa or Enceladus?"

This summary doesn't accurately describe the situation at all. The Mars missions are so more expensive largely because they are doing more. The next Mars Rover is going to be larger, heavier, and more capable than the two previous--wildly successful--rovers in pretty much every way. That $6B mission is a sample return mission, lifting off and bringing a research payload from Mars back to Earth is an enormous technical challenge. It's never been done before and that will drive most of the cost.

Also the linked missions aren't quite as cheap as the summary implies. The proposed mission to Europa has an estimated cost of $2.5 billion (and $4.7 billion is the given estimate in the last paragraph of the first link in the summary), exactly the same price as the first "overly expensive" Mars mission mentioned. The Enceladus trip is much cheaper, estimated at a little over half of a billion, so that at least is a reasonable alternative, though I still want to point out that that mission is much earlier in the planning stages, and missions that diverge a lot from previous missions are more likely to have ballooning costs as new found kinks are worked out.

Another issue is that not only are the Mars missions promising more, but there is a much greater chance that they will be able to live up to those promises. Every single Mars mission we've done so far has added to our body of knowledge on the planet, and our ability to better plan a mission and engineer a craft that can get more and better data on the next run. From Viking and on we have answered many, many questions about Mars, and learned about even more questions (meaning that we know the sort of doodad that needs to be on the next mission to answer that new question). Starting a new series of missions to a new celestial body means that in a lot of ways you have to start back at the drawing board again. This is another reason to start small on a new body, better to have 3-4 partially successful $200 million missions leading up to that big $2.5 billion dollar rover mission rather than trying plan a $2.5 billion mission right of the bat.

I should clarify that I don't think that investigating these moons is a bad idea. I think it's a wonderful one. However I don't think that we should investigate these moons in place of Mars, when we have already accumulated so much experience on how to investigate Mars. It's also worthwhile to note that this was the viewpoint of every scientist interviewed in the article. Nobody said that they didn't want to go to Mars, they all said that they wanted this moons visited in addition to Mars, not instead of.

"one of the requirements is GPS data over 100k. Even with four separate GPS systems, we were not able to get a high altitude fix." With no tangible record of the rocket's soaring ascent, it's unlikely that Deville and his friends will score the cash. Amateur Qu8k Rocket...

One of the significant hurdles for Carmack's prize is the ITAR speed/altitude restrictions on most GPS receivers. It will be interesting to see what sort of receiver they used; hopefully at least one of the four was an unrestricted receiver.

You said one problem. Yet I had linked to an article which described multiple problems on that day, and linked back to the stabbing of two weeks before. That isn't "one".

Nine people... in one location... in Hyde Park... and you're getting your information from The Sun 'newspaper'.

There were hundreds of these across the country every year! You've picked one place that had trouble THREE YEARS AGO, in arguably the second worst newspaper in the country?

I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.

I think you need to calm down. There's no evidence of "hacking"

TLDR; keep yourself up to date: MI5 joins social messaging trawl for riot organisers, Riot inquiry to go ahead as MI5 helps investigations and Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that the government would investigate shutting down social networking platforms like BlackBerry Messenger and Twitter if they were helping to "plot" crime. The police recently called on MI5 to crack encrypted messages sent through BBM..

No evidence of hacking, eh? Why are MI5 involved?

This is a annual water fight, it's meant to be a bit of fun, ffs!!

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.
 

Like, for instance, water fights, amirite? That story's probably giving the Chinese a total oppression boner.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/11/david-cameron-social-media "Prime Minister David Cameron has told parliament that he is investigating whether to stop people communicating via social networking sites ****if they are known to be planning criminal activity****."

Not sure if he can, but I can: here. Took about 5 secs of Google. From the article:

To play Diablo 3, you'll need a constant internet connection -- it cannot be played offline.

Amusing part: they're trying to spin this as "good" for players: "no longer will you have to worry about leveling up to 30-40, then having to restart from scratch on Battle.net! Everyone who wants to level to 30-40 and never play on battle.net: you can just go fuck yourself." Thats a paraphrase, but you get the idea. BTW, that would be people like me. No interest in online play, would love LAN/ singleplayer. It's OK: I most likely won't have to worry about either the DRM or playing online. Either through not buying the game or... well, use your imagination.

Oh yeah, and rich players can buy more power through this auction house. Next step: items that Blizzard is selling that can only be bought on the auction house. They might not do that: depends if Activision (aka Bobby Kotick) is really letting Blizzard be free to do their thing or not. Blizzard would realize that would ruin the game. Activision just sees the $$$$$$$ they could make, and screw the gamers (more).

Oh yeah, and no modding either, according to that same article.

Well, just to give you an idea, there are already over 10M G+ users. While I wouldn't put them at the level of FaceBook or Twitter, that is quite the userbase, built in a matter of weeks. There have already been predictions of 20M by next weekend, 100M+ by years end. I wouldn't call the user base small at all, based on these figures and predictions. Hell, my parents are already on Google+, while joining FB just this year.

it was already covered...a bit over a month ago on engadget and wired

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/10/japanese-ball-drone-knows-how-to-make-an-entrance-video/

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/10/japan-drone

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2011/06/09/jsdf-spherical-drone-we-bought-most-of-the-parts-in-akiba/

Although the original video that Wired and Engadget used is gone...there are others on youtube such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQa4K-tstTg

or just use this search:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E7%90%83%E5%BD%A2%E9%A3%9B%E8%A1%8C%E4%BD%93&aq=f

either way...reminds me of those hovering/flying razor blades from Half-life 2

Recently the navy "disabled" (i.e. caught on fire) a small ship using a high-power solid-state laser (video here)

So in other words... it's a dog emulator.

Even kinda looks like Snoopy:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-05/4/finger-nose-stylus/viewgallery#!image-number=2

During the Nijmeegse 4daagse a team of researches attempted to grab internal temperatures by means of a pill and send the data to a phone. I believe it succeded, but I can't find it now.
For long term monitoring the problem is the power supply: batteries are way to big. Now people are solving that by developing blood powered fuel cells, but I have a clue some people may not like the ideas of teaching machines to use our blood for their fuel.