The Beeb did it because it was the cheapest, easiest, but not best, option.
That said, it was a really stupid move and managed to get everybody from the smallest Linux hacker to the UK government commenting in public about the policy.
Creating an open "player" for all platforms would have taken more resources at first, but from that point on all future platforms would be supported by the people who use the platform.
Sadly, the Beeb needs closed source to implement the no-save and timed delete features forced on them by others.
I wonder why the RIAA is persisting in taking this high risk approach. It may be cheap to not bother actually obtaining and presenting evidence, but when the courts realise that the RIAA is depending on lazy judges to just rubber stamp the case, there will surely be retribution.
What does Google do? Web apps. What single hardware component would Google want everybody to have?
A simple, cheap, thin web client that works anywhere where you can get a wireless signal.
Any voice app would just be a bolt-on goody to the basic device (thanks to skype?)
Google is in the business of delivering data, they really don't want to share any profit with a middleman such as the phone company. Apple had to do a deal with the devil, but Google as enough money to deal direct with the lost souls.
But why didn't the firmware upgrade just return the operation of the phone to the default state? Unless the software only fixes to open up the phone also damaged the firmware upgrade code, they should have just been overwritten or disabled.
There is more to this story than we yet know, but Apple seems to be taking a very strange path with the iPhone. The curious limitation to the appointments applet and the non-existence of a ToDo facility suggest that development was either rushed or halted to get the phone out to the shops.
OK, it's a possibility. But what is the infection signature? Wouldn't it have been a service to the world to include in the article a means to detect and delete such rootkits?
If you can play it, the "security" is already broken. The only difficulty is working through the "security through obscurity".
p.
These companies must really hate their customers.
It's a very clever government if it can tell the difference between well encrypted data and a block of random bytes.
Perhaps they will make having a USB drive full of random numbers illegal.
It's even simpler than that. All you need is sufficient terrorists to ensure that the chance of getting one through security exceeds some limit. For example, if there is a 33% chance of getting caught, all you need is three or four terrorists to almost guarentee that one will get through the security checks.
It seems there is nothing wrong with Vista that removing all the DRM garbage would not fix. So, Microsoft has a simple choice.
1. Strip DRM trash out of Vista (annoying the movie/music industry), restore the old driver model and succeed. 2. Keep the movie/music industry happy, keep DRM and watch Vista wither away.
But where does one direct all this "wonderful" technology? There is a myth that seems to infest these new fangled security organisations, that if only they can gather sufficient data they will be able to identify and prevent bad things happening. They cannot, but are willing to spend huge amounts of money in the attempt.
Cameras are often viewed, by people who should know better, as a _replacement_ for proper policing. Unfortunately, cameras do not act as a long term deterent and so crime at best stays stable. It could go up.
We are pretty sure that the banking system can count so why not just use ATMs to vote? Transfer $1 to the party of your choice. If your party wins, you get your money back. The losing parties get to keep the money to improve their campaigns next time.
So someone gets the job of researching all possible method of making a bomb so searches can be blocked, yet somehow doesn't block anything that happens to mention the keywords in other contexts?
Is stupidity catching?
So, what happens when one of these emails is undelivered and bounces back to the sender. The German government better have _very_ good email filtering.
Slashdot Mirror
"She" is a He.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/executives/ashleyhighfield.shtml
The Beeb did it because it was the cheapest, easiest, but not best, option.
That said, it was a really stupid move and managed to get everybody from the smallest Linux hacker to the UK government commenting in public about the policy.
Creating an open "player" for all platforms would have taken more resources at first, but from that point on all future platforms would be supported by the people who use the platform.
Sadly, the Beeb needs closed source to implement the no-save and timed delete features forced on them by others.
I wonder why the RIAA is persisting in taking this high risk approach. It may be cheap to not bother actually obtaining and presenting evidence, but when the courts realise that the RIAA is depending on lazy judges to just rubber stamp the case, there will surely be retribution.
In what world did FEMA think that the truth would not be almost instantly exposed? Who are they employing in the PR dept.? The Three Stooges?
A simple, cheap, thin web client that works anywhere where you can get a wireless signal.
Any voice app would just be a bolt-on goody to the basic device (thanks to skype?)
Google is in the business of delivering data, they really don't want to share any profit with a middleman such as the phone company. Apple had to do a deal with the devil, but Google as enough money to deal direct with the lost souls.
But why didn't the firmware upgrade just return the operation of the phone to the default state? Unless the software only fixes to open up the phone also damaged the firmware upgrade code, they should have just been overwritten or disabled. There is more to this story than we yet know, but Apple seems to be taking a very strange path with the iPhone. The curious limitation to the appointments applet and the non-existence of a ToDo facility suggest that development was either rushed or halted to get the phone out to the shops.
OK, it's a possibility. But what is the infection signature? Wouldn't it have been a service to the world to include in the article a means to detect and delete such rootkits?
If you can play it, the "security" is already broken. The only difficulty is working through the "security through obscurity". p. These companies must really hate their customers.
It's a very clever government if it can tell the difference between well encrypted data and a block of random bytes. Perhaps they will make having a USB drive full of random numbers illegal.
It's even simpler than that. All you need is sufficient terrorists to ensure that the chance of getting one through security exceeds some limit. For example, if there is a 33% chance of getting caught, all you need is three or four terrorists to almost guarentee that one will get through the security checks.
It seems there is nothing wrong with Vista that removing all the DRM garbage would not fix. So, Microsoft has a simple choice.
1. Strip DRM trash out of Vista (annoying the movie/music industry), restore the old driver model and succeed.
2. Keep the movie/music industry happy, keep DRM and watch Vista wither away.
A no-brainer?
But where does one direct all this "wonderful" technology? There is a myth that seems to infest these new fangled security organisations, that if only they can gather sufficient data they will be able to identify and prevent bad things happening. They cannot, but are willing to spend huge amounts of money in the attempt.
Cameras are often viewed, by people who should know better, as a _replacement_ for proper policing. Unfortunately, cameras do not act as a long term deterent and so crime at best stays stable. It could go up.
We are pretty sure that the banking system can count so why not just use ATMs to vote? Transfer $1 to the party of your choice. If your party wins, you get your money back. The losing parties get to keep the money to improve their campaigns next time.
So someone gets the job of researching all possible method of making a bomb so searches can be blocked, yet somehow doesn't block anything that happens to mention the keywords in other contexts? Is stupidity catching?
Otherwise NetApp is just another SCO wanabe.
Ah, but can they sense peril?
So, what happens when one of these emails is undelivered and bounces back to the sender. The German government better have _very_ good email filtering.