Perhaps Twitter needs to give corporate customers the option of additional security tools, like one of those changing-numbers keychain thingies or at least an 'allow login from this IP only' setting.
Physically, yes. And that gets you access to a huge pile of data. Actually finding what you want in there takes more work - things like emails or IM you can simply pull out with a filter, but a facebook conversation would require someone familiar with the facebook architecture and possibly a lot of work. The FBI is going to get very annoyed if they submit the warrant to a company and are told that they've put a man to work on the task, but it'll take a few hours to pull the information needed from seven different databases.
Yes, the legitimate holder would indeed have to sue. Just as they have to sue under existing law. The procedure might have changed a bit, but the process isn't fundamentally different.
Almost true, but there is a narrow exception: Even non-creative reproductions can qualify as a new work, in the right circumstances. So, for example, if you have a a long-expired piece of artwork hanging up, you can take a photo of it and copyright that - then you have effective copyright to the work, so long as you can keep the original securely locked away so no-one else can get a photo too. Similar situation with classical music: The composer might have been dead for a few centuries, but any performance and recording is a new work.
Because Android has: - Mass-market status already, in the smartphone and tablet areas, so buyers get something they know how to use. - A post-market revenue stream for Google. The play store. Content sales there can subsidise hardware.
"Yes you could probably just simply re-compile any Android app and add Atom support. But who is going to realistically do that?"
Google.
Android software is almost entirely java-based. Adaptation to an Intel architecture will be easy, and Google is sure to provide plenty of support to make sure it happens.
Useless specs for Windows, but Android was made for phones. It'll run quite happily in that space. The price is the only real advantage over just getting a tablet with a dock, though.
Except that selling tablets isn't about just selling hardware. It's about selling an ecosystem. Google doesn't make their Android money by selling licenses to the OS: They make it off the Play store, and off of the other services (Advertising, maps, search) that Android strongly encourages users to use.
Microsoft wants to copy the success of Apple and Google in mobile, but that business model depends upon maintaining control of the device post-sale. If people buy a Windows tablet but don't actually run Windows RT/8 on it, then Microsoft loses all the post-sale revenue - the main source of income from the devices.
It's much the same situation as with games consoles: The consoles themselves are sold often at a loss, and the money made back by charging publishers a per-game fee to release games for the console. This can only work if there is some way to lock down the consoles not to run unsigned code, otherwise the publishers would simply release their games and not pay the console manufacturers a cut.
On a very minor technicality. The alteration wouldn't have altered the outcome of the trial. The IFPI weren't falsifying evidence. They just wanted to hide a piece of information that might compromise other ongoing investigations. The only thing they did wrong was not properly document the redaction.
It's not that hard. Think of the 'wireframe' depiction of a cube in two dimensions. The cube-with-in-a-cube is the exact same thing.
It's actually eight cubes, but perspective distortion means at least six don't look like cuboids. If you know they are there, you can pick them out easily enough. Depending on perspective, the two obvious cubes may even only partially intersect - the same way that the two obvious square in a 2d wireframe cube may either partially overlap, or one may be contained within the other.
My favorite moments: - Running a successful career in L4 missions with a ship that can't really tank them, warping away every time the damage gets too much, and then one day discovering the hard way that CCP just introduced scramblers in mission targets. - Seeing a bunch of obscure tags on contract for $200k each, with a market buy order for $10M each, and buying them - then realising the market order was for 100 units, and just canceled, put by the the same person who you just purchased them from. Followed by successfully tricking some other sucker into buying them for $1M each. - Strolling through a gate camp in a transport ship with a covert ops cloak, while singing 'I'm the gingerbread man and you can't catch me' in local.
The problem with smartphones is that you still need to get them from your pocket, so you can't film someone without their knowledge. That makes them of limited use in revealing corruption or abuse of power: Either the subject acts on best behavior while the phone is out, or he simply confiscates it, by threat or by force.
This can be solved by wearable computing and immediate uploading to a remote server*. Even if all you get is a continuous audio recording, that's still plenty of evidence to catch anyone trying to threaten or blackmail you. You don't need video for that.
I think that in twenty years, television shows will have to use 'my goggle battery was flat' as a cliche to explain why characters can't just report every threat to the police in the same way horror movies now need to use the 'no signal' excuse to explain why characters can't just call for rescue.
*I refuse to call it the C word. A server doesn't magically become wet and fluffy just because someone in marketing said so.
From what I've read, the Russian police are corrupt to the point that even if you managed to reveal one to be corrupt, his friends would just arrest you on false charges for something else. The court system is little more than a rubber 'guilty' stamp.
Any police officer halfway competent at abusing his power would use a similar trick to get rid of any 'official' recording. He'd forget to turn the camera on, or damage the memory card at the end of the shift. He could also get past any victim's recording quite easily, by either confiscating the camera or using threats and intimidation to get them to hand over the memory card, and his boss's would (and are) lobby for laws banning recording on-duty officers to avoid scandal.
To use camera to fight corruption, I think two things are required: 1. The victim must be able to record events without the knowledge of the police officer. That means no whipping out the mobile phone or camera, or even wearing glasses with an obvious camera function. 2. There must be a means to use this video against the officer, allowing for the fact that he may be backed up by the rest of his department and by court officials and politicians reluctant to cast their system in doubt. The only means I see for this would be going public: If the video of the officer clearly breaking the law is put on youtube and sent to every media outlet, the public outrage would be so great that those above the officer would have no choice but to fire him to save their own skin.
Even then you still have to deal with possible retaliation: Reveal one officer abusing his power, and his co-workers will avenge him by trashing your house in an aggressive search following an 'anonymous' tip-off about a drug dealer operating from that address.
Those are the good reasons. Here are the bad reasons: - Aliens evolved from a species many times more tribal even than humans, and as such are instinctively and intensely xenophobic. We are not like them, and thus must die. The Dalek scenario. - Aliens follow a religion which demands they spread the word to unbelievers throughout the universe. Painful death for heretics optional. - The alien zoo needs some new attractions. - Some common practice on earth is seen as such an intolerable evil by their culture, they will invade to put an end to it. - Exotic pets are fashionable status symbols.
Slashdot Mirror
Followed by "If only there were a way to add musical accompaniment."
Perhaps Twitter needs to give corporate customers the option of additional security tools, like one of those changing-numbers keychain thingies or at least an 'allow login from this IP only' setting.
Because Facebook.
Do not underestimate Facebook. It's huge.
Physically, yes. And that gets you access to a huge pile of data. Actually finding what you want in there takes more work - things like emails or IM you can simply pull out with a filter, but a facebook conversation would require someone familiar with the facebook architecture and possibly a lot of work. The FBI is going to get very annoyed if they submit the warrant to a company and are told that they've put a man to work on the task, but it'll take a few hours to pull the information needed from seven different databases.
Yes, the legitimate holder would indeed have to sue. Just as they have to sue under existing law. The procedure might have changed a bit, but the process isn't fundamentally different.
Almost true, but there is a narrow exception: Even non-creative reproductions can qualify as a new work, in the right circumstances. So, for example, if you have a a long-expired piece of artwork hanging up, you can take a photo of it and copyright that - then you have effective copyright to the work, so long as you can keep the original securely locked away so no-one else can get a photo too. Similar situation with classical music: The composer might have been dead for a few centuries, but any performance and recording is a new work.
It did. But even that use is now vague - if you do it by phone, it's now 'sexting.' Or does sexting mean sending images? I've seen it used both ways.
People who actually do sexual roleplay online never refer to it as 'cybering' - they consider the term very vulgar and low-class.
He just forgot to put 'on a computer.'
That word is so overused, it's lost all meaning - and I don't even know what the meaning was in the first place any more.
Because Android has:
- Mass-market status already, in the smartphone and tablet areas, so buyers get something they know how to use.
- A post-market revenue stream for Google. The play store. Content sales there can subsidise hardware.
"Yes you could probably just simply re-compile any Android app and add Atom support. But who is going to realistically do that?"
Google.
Android software is almost entirely java-based. Adaptation to an Intel architecture will be easy, and Google is sure to provide plenty of support to make sure it happens.
Useless specs for Windows, but Android was made for phones. It'll run quite happily in that space. The price is the only real advantage over just getting a tablet with a dock, though.
Android is a great OS for what it is made to do.
It is not made to do serious work on.
It is made for content consumption: Web browsing, multimedia playing, games.
Except that selling tablets isn't about just selling hardware. It's about selling an ecosystem. Google doesn't make their Android money by selling licenses to the OS: They make it off the Play store, and off of the other services (Advertising, maps, search) that Android strongly encourages users to use.
Microsoft wants to copy the success of Apple and Google in mobile, but that business model depends upon maintaining control of the device post-sale. If people buy a Windows tablet but don't actually run Windows RT/8 on it, then Microsoft loses all the post-sale revenue - the main source of income from the devices.
It's much the same situation as with games consoles: The consoles themselves are sold often at a loss, and the money made back by charging publishers a per-game fee to release games for the console. This can only work if there is some way to lock down the consoles not to run unsigned code, otherwise the publishers would simply release their games and not pay the console manufacturers a cut.
On a very minor technicality. The alteration wouldn't have altered the outcome of the trial. The IFPI weren't falsifying evidence. They just wanted to hide a piece of information that might compromise other ongoing investigations. The only thing they did wrong was not properly document the redaction.
There's a simple explanation: The greed of the police varies greatly by country, or even by district.
It's not that hard. Think of the 'wireframe' depiction of a cube in two dimensions. The cube-with-in-a-cube is the exact same thing.
It's actually eight cubes, but perspective distortion means at least six don't look like cuboids. If you know they are there, you can pick them out easily enough. Depending on perspective, the two obvious cubes may even only partially intersect - the same way that the two obvious square in a 2d wireframe cube may either partially overlap, or one may be contained within the other.
My favorite moments:
- Running a successful career in L4 missions with a ship that can't really tank them, warping away every time the damage gets too much, and then one day discovering the hard way that CCP just introduced scramblers in mission targets.
- Seeing a bunch of obscure tags on contract for $200k each, with a market buy order for $10M each, and buying them - then realising the market order was for 100 units, and just canceled, put by the the same person who you just purchased them from. Followed by successfully tricking some other sucker into buying them for $1M each.
- Strolling through a gate camp in a transport ship with a covert ops cloak, while singing 'I'm the gingerbread man and you can't catch me' in local.
The problem with smartphones is that you still need to get them from your pocket, so you can't film someone without their knowledge. That makes them of limited use in revealing corruption or abuse of power: Either the subject acts on best behavior while the phone is out, or he simply confiscates it, by threat or by force.
This can be solved by wearable computing and immediate uploading to a remote server*. Even if all you get is a continuous audio recording, that's still plenty of evidence to catch anyone trying to threaten or blackmail you. You don't need video for that.
I think that in twenty years, television shows will have to use 'my goggle battery was flat' as a cliche to explain why characters can't just report every threat to the police in the same way horror movies now need to use the 'no signal' excuse to explain why characters can't just call for rescue.
*I refuse to call it the C word. A server doesn't magically become wet and fluffy just because someone in marketing said so.
From what I've read, the Russian police are corrupt to the point that even if you managed to reveal one to be corrupt, his friends would just arrest you on false charges for something else. The court system is little more than a rubber 'guilty' stamp.
Any police officer halfway competent at abusing his power would use a similar trick to get rid of any 'official' recording. He'd forget to turn the camera on, or damage the memory card at the end of the shift. He could also get past any victim's recording quite easily, by either confiscating the camera or using threats and intimidation to get them to hand over the memory card, and his boss's would (and are) lobby for laws banning recording on-duty officers to avoid scandal.
To use camera to fight corruption, I think two things are required:
1. The victim must be able to record events without the knowledge of the police officer. That means no whipping out the mobile phone or camera, or even wearing glasses with an obvious camera function.
2. There must be a means to use this video against the officer, allowing for the fact that he may be backed up by the rest of his department and by court officials and politicians reluctant to cast their system in doubt. The only means I see for this would be going public: If the video of the officer clearly breaking the law is put on youtube and sent to every media outlet, the public outrage would be so great that those above the officer would have no choice but to fire him to save their own skin.
Even then you still have to deal with possible retaliation: Reveal one officer abusing his power, and his co-workers will avenge him by trashing your house in an aggressive search following an 'anonymous' tip-off about a drug dealer operating from that address.
I want to know if the folding increases their intelligence in any measurable way.
Those are the good reasons. Here are the bad reasons:
- Aliens evolved from a species many times more tribal even than humans, and as such are instinctively and intensely xenophobic. We are not like them, and thus must die. The Dalek scenario.
- Aliens follow a religion which demands they spread the word to unbelievers throughout the universe. Painful death for heretics optional.
- The alien zoo needs some new attractions.
- Some common practice on earth is seen as such an intolerable evil by their culture, they will invade to put an end to it.
- Exotic pets are fashionable status symbols.
We need a beacon.
Aliens may visit the earth in the same way humans visit the zoo.