"The voice-activated feature on the new iPhone 4S will let anyone use the phone to send e-mails and text messages and make calls even if it is passcode locked, Macworld has reported."
Yes, and apparently Siri is set up by default so ANYONE can push the button, and tell your phone to email your contacts, and it will happily do so even if the phone is locked. That the sort of functionality you are looking for? Or would you rather the phone made you unlock first, to verify you should be using it?
Sure, you can hold it to your ear and talk into it just as if you were making a call. You can then hold it out so you can see the results on the screen, hold it to your ear again and say something else, look at the screen...
The correct command is "Hey Vlingo, where is the closest locksmith?"
Of course that requires you to actually install Vlingo, which has been free in the Android market for more than a year.
Yes, ICS is out sometime in november. The phone, however, is already out. How exactly were they supposed to put it on the phone before it was available? Oh, and lets not forget, genius, that the carrier adds crap to the software, that has to be worked out. As does the manufacturer. So when Google releases ICS sometime in November, we all get to wait til Motorola and VerizonSprintTMobileATT get done jacking it up with their bloatware first. THEN it can go on the phone.
No, Apple did not "license the GUI concepts from Xerox for cash and shares". What they did was ALLOW Xerox to BUY stock in the company, in exchange for demos. No part of that is "Licensed" or even "Were allowed to copy".
That's probably because the LATEST version of Android, which I assume you think of as Ice Cream Sandwich, hasn't been released yet. It would be very hard to put out a phone with software that wasn't released yet, don't you think? Or did Steve invent that process too?
No, I'm pretty sure he means "Stole". If you were to examine the deal, what Apple traded stock for was a series of demos of the technology, and some 'engineering meetings'. They did not buy the technology, or any patents. They took what they saw, copied it, and went on with making a mint from someone else's work.
I think it might well be helpful to simply stop allowing the assigning of copyrights to someone else. If we really want the authors of artistic works to benefit, and keep predatory corporations from abusing the system, the easiest fix is to make copyright non-transferable. Shorten the term, certainly, to what it was originally, but make sure the artists keep it. If the corporations want in on the action, rather than screwing an artist and taking control of the copyright, it remains with the author at all times, and they can enter a contract with that author to secure some portion of the proceeds.
Under this system, the entirety of the monetary incentive rests with the author, not some third party who wedged themselves in the middle. If they choose to increase the possibility of monetary compensation, they can partner with a corporation to provide publicity, distribution, and whatever else, for some set amount of money, or percentage of the outcome, or even for exclusive license to the content for some period of time.
Under this system, also, there is no incentive for Disney to continue pushing longer extensions to make sure Mickey doesn't become public domain, because their portion of the contract would have long expired, as Walt kept the rights personally, the company did not own it.
Guess what genius? The article says they are aggressively wooing SUCCESSFUL authors. Not a place in there does it say anything about taking on any new writer able to toss a manuscript through their front window. What Amazon wants to do is take writers that publishers already paid marketing for, who have already hit it big, and grab them for a song, reaping the profits from someone else's expense. It has nothing to do with providing a bigger market for new authors, or being less 'risk averse". In fact, quite the opposite. This is nothing but attempting to bank money off a known hot commodity, that someone else already paid to polish and push.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of the 'middlemen' such as record labels and publishing houses. What I don't see, however, is Amazon stepping up to provide any services at all, but merely waiting to bring in the windfall of selling their new hot writer, without having to pay for ads in the NYT, trade publications, on TV, or anywhere else, or having paid an editor to deal with prepping the book. If they aren't providing any of that, how are they any more than new middlemen, that provide even less service than the old ones?
Does this mean they will all turn them off during takeoff and landing, or is an iPad actually sitting in the cockpit next to the radio stack and other sensitive navigation equipment not as worrysome as one at the back of the plane near the restrooms?
And? The fact is, Google Apps for Government may well be FISMA certified now. Conveniently, the Microsoft attorney (and you, apparently) seem to think that time stands still. Back when this was originated, it may not have been FISMA certified, but is now, so their page accurately reflects NOW with FISMA certification.
Not to mention the fact that they may have not claimed Apps for Government was certified, but only Google Apps Premiere was, or just said "Google Apps" was, which is technically true.
Microsoft Chief Council says Google Lied in Court...
Pot, meet kettle...
As usual, the headline is a bit misleading, and certainly leaves out a large part of the story. Google Apps Permier has been FISMA certified by the GSA, so when you go to the Google website and look, and it says "Now FISMA certified", they aren't lying. They really are FISMA certified. However, FISMA is not a blanket certification. The DoI does not have to accept the FISMA certification of the GSA, it can decide to do its own testing if it wishes. This doesn't change the fact that Google Apps Permier has in fact attained FISMA certification.
The second tricky bit is Google Apps for Government, a product that didn't exist at the time the court case started. The law says (and the brief points out) that FISMA certification cannot be attained until after implementation of the product, and thorough testing. So, in that case, Neither Microsoft's offering, nor Google Apps for Government, is FISMA certified, nor could they have been at the time. Now, Google Apps Premiere was certified, and Apps for Government was going to be done under a more restrictive set of security constraints, so it would have likely passed too. What I have to wonder though, is did Google lie, and say Google Apps for Government had the FISMA cert, or did they say "Google Apps is FISMA certified", which is true?
I have to come down on the side of the Microsoft lawyer playing this up for far more than it should be.
Really? So you are telling me now that mom&pop ISP doesn't accept traffic from out of state? They don't allow you to shop on Amazon from the comfort of your home? They don't allow you to subscribe to Netflix streaming? They somehow prevent you from accessing your bank's website if it isn't located next door to you? And lets not forget, mom&pop ISP is hooked up to a backbone provider, able to send packets and conduct commerce from anywhere in the world. Tell me again how they aren't involved in commerce across state lines?
Firstly, there isn't anything about Verizon's infrastructure that is "private". It was originally funded by the government and handed over to them. Since then, the primary upgrades to that infrastructure have come primarily from public money, via things like the Federal Universal Service Fee, which taxes customers and gives the money to the telco to expand their networks. You should also take into consideration the fact that Verizon just accepted government bailout money, and has NOT spent the universal service fee money they have received on their infrastructure, as required. All of their lines run under public land, via an easement lease. They also carry out their business across state lines, and country borders, which means they qualify for regulation under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
Its called the "commerce clause" of the constitution, look into it. It says Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Unless you can show me an ISP that only handles traffic within its own state, then they qualify under this clause. It isn't "federal creep", its been there since day 1.
A study funded by Princeton University, published in the Cognition journal, found that people are better at retaining information written in a less fluent font.
No, you try again, ok? The telcos get far more than most any other industry for this type of thing. Since the telecommuncations act of 1996, up to 2006, they had received 200 BILLION dollars in incentives, grants, and payments to make infrastructure improvements. That's enough to run straight fiber to every home in America, no matter how far out in the wilderness they are. They also have received 1.2 Billion dollars (verizon) and 1.17 Billion (AT&T) to expand their networks to more rural areas, yet the percentage of rural homes serviced has not moved a single bit. Verizon then had the gall to blow crap toward the bailout funds, then accept 1.5 Billion dollars of it themselves.
I'm glad you live in an area where they seem to have actually done something. Most of America doesn't. Around here, I have the choice of the same 768k DSL line I could have chosen 10 years ago, or Comcast. The Comcast service costs me nearly 100$ a month for 10mb/s.
I wonder if your good service has anything to do with being able to afford a vacation home? Since most people can't?
Yes, they have improved infrastructure where they had to, or where they could make the most profit from it, while leaving the majority of people behind, and they only improved that because they received many more times what the improvements cost from taxpayers.
And I will say AGAIN, since you don't seem to be grasping the issue: They continue to get grants, concessions, and outright giveaways to improve that infrastructure, and still are claiming its too expensive to do so. Those rings provided by "local telcos" are often paid for with tax abatements for the telco, including guarantees that for their abatement, they will spend on improving the infrastructure in the future. Except they DON'T.
I work in the field, I know how it works. There is almost no portion of any fiber or cable system in the US that wasn't subsidized heavily by taxpayer money, through abatements or outright giveaways,and in exchange, the costs have continued to rise for the end user, and speed advances lag well behind the rest of the world.
No, my traffic goes over what resulted from the free giveaway of government funded infrastructure, and what resulted from the continual grants and funding given to telcos and backbone providers to upgrade their systems, which they then use to pay higher dividends to their investors rather than pay for said infrastructure improvements. Take a look at the number of bills that have given money to just this purpose, money that was never spent on what it was intended for. Take a look at the Telecommunications act of 1996, which gave serious concessions to telcos, in exchange for what was to have been serious infrastructure investment, that just sorta never happened. So yeah, I think 1 billion in profit extracted from me twice, meant to pay for improvements they now say they don't have money for, is too much profit.
Or,perhaps we should be using that power to make sure others don't take advantage of us too.
The government already has the power to regulate the internet, given to it by the commerce clause of the constitution. We can choose to use that power for good, and monitor it, or we can choose to abdicate it, and let those with money control everything. We just saw a story yesterday of members of the US government speaking out against centralized control of the internet. It is under the same powers the government has always had that the net has flourished as is. It is only now that corporations want to change how the game is played, to tilt the field more in the favor of large providers. We can let them, and accept what comes, or we can put regulations in place to prevent abuse, then continue to monitor those who have the power.
Continuing to frame this as an "either/or" decision is disingenuous and wrong. This is a Neither/nor situation. We need to make sure BOTH sides are limited in the damage they can do. The government already has the power you are so afraid of, and put out as a bogeyman to scare off any who push for neutrality. They always have. The issue currently is, do we let someone else have that power too, and get to pay a premium to be denied content we want?
Slashdot Mirror
"The voice-activated feature on the new iPhone 4S will let anyone use the phone to send e-mails and text messages and make calls even if it is passcode locked, Macworld has reported."
Yes, and apparently Siri is set up by default so ANYONE can push the button, and tell your phone to email your contacts, and it will happily do so even if the phone is locked. That the sort of functionality you are looking for? Or would you rather the phone made you unlock first, to verify you should be using it?
You can say that with a straight face, while they charge developers 30% for all in app purchases? When they went to ad-based apps?
Sure, you can hold it to your ear and talk into it just as if you were making a call. You can then hold it out so you can see the results on the screen, hold it to your ear again and say something else, look at the screen...
The correct command is "Hey Vlingo, where is the closest locksmith?" Of course that requires you to actually install Vlingo, which has been free in the Android market for more than a year.
Yes, ICS is out sometime in november. The phone, however, is already out. How exactly were they supposed to put it on the phone before it was available? Oh, and lets not forget, genius, that the carrier adds crap to the software, that has to be worked out. As does the manufacturer. So when Google releases ICS sometime in November, we all get to wait til Motorola and VerizonSprintTMobileATT get done jacking it up with their bloatware first. THEN it can go on the phone.
No, Apple did not "license the GUI concepts from Xerox for cash and shares". What they did was ALLOW Xerox to BUY stock in the company, in exchange for demos. No part of that is "Licensed" or even "Were allowed to copy".
That's probably because the LATEST version of Android, which I assume you think of as Ice Cream Sandwich, hasn't been released yet. It would be very hard to put out a phone with software that wasn't released yet, don't you think? Or did Steve invent that process too?
No, I'm pretty sure he means "Stole". If you were to examine the deal, what Apple traded stock for was a series of demos of the technology, and some 'engineering meetings'. They did not buy the technology, or any patents. They took what they saw, copied it, and went on with making a mint from someone else's work.
I think it might well be helpful to simply stop allowing the assigning of copyrights to someone else. If we really want the authors of artistic works to benefit, and keep predatory corporations from abusing the system, the easiest fix is to make copyright non-transferable. Shorten the term, certainly, to what it was originally, but make sure the artists keep it. If the corporations want in on the action, rather than screwing an artist and taking control of the copyright, it remains with the author at all times, and they can enter a contract with that author to secure some portion of the proceeds.
Under this system, the entirety of the monetary incentive rests with the author, not some third party who wedged themselves in the middle. If they choose to increase the possibility of monetary compensation, they can partner with a corporation to provide publicity, distribution, and whatever else, for some set amount of money, or percentage of the outcome, or even for exclusive license to the content for some period of time.
Under this system, also, there is no incentive for Disney to continue pushing longer extensions to make sure Mickey doesn't become public domain, because their portion of the contract would have long expired, as Walt kept the rights personally, the company did not own it.
Guess what genius? The article says they are aggressively wooing SUCCESSFUL authors. Not a place in there does it say anything about taking on any new writer able to toss a manuscript through their front window. What Amazon wants to do is take writers that publishers already paid marketing for, who have already hit it big, and grab them for a song, reaping the profits from someone else's expense. It has nothing to do with providing a bigger market for new authors, or being less 'risk averse". In fact, quite the opposite. This is nothing but attempting to bank money off a known hot commodity, that someone else already paid to polish and push.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of the 'middlemen' such as record labels and publishing houses. What I don't see, however, is Amazon stepping up to provide any services at all, but merely waiting to bring in the windfall of selling their new hot writer, without having to pay for ads in the NYT, trade publications, on TV, or anywhere else, or having paid an editor to deal with prepping the book. If they aren't providing any of that, how are they any more than new middlemen, that provide even less service than the old ones?
It is another study put out by a group that runs a competitor ad network to Google's Adsense. This makes me wonder a bit about the objectivity.
Does this mean they will all turn them off during takeoff and landing, or is an iPad actually sitting in the cockpit next to the radio stack and other sensitive navigation equipment not as worrysome as one at the back of the plane near the restrooms?
Oh yeah, and I forgot to add.... Having that on their website does not in any way confirm they "lied in court".
And? The fact is, Google Apps for Government may well be FISMA certified now. Conveniently, the Microsoft attorney (and you, apparently) seem to think that time stands still. Back when this was originated, it may not have been FISMA certified, but is now, so their page accurately reflects NOW with FISMA certification.
Not to mention the fact that they may have not claimed Apps for Government was certified, but only Google Apps Premiere was, or just said "Google Apps" was, which is technically true.
Microsoft Chief Council says Google Lied in Court...
Pot, meet kettle...
As usual, the headline is a bit misleading, and certainly leaves out a large part of the story. Google Apps Permier has been FISMA certified by the GSA, so when you go to the Google website and look, and it says "Now FISMA certified", they aren't lying. They really are FISMA certified. However, FISMA is not a blanket certification. The DoI does not have to accept the FISMA certification of the GSA, it can decide to do its own testing if it wishes. This doesn't change the fact that Google Apps Permier has in fact attained FISMA certification.
The second tricky bit is Google Apps for Government, a product that didn't exist at the time the court case started. The law says (and the brief points out) that FISMA certification cannot be attained until after implementation of the product, and thorough testing. So, in that case, Neither Microsoft's offering, nor Google Apps for Government, is FISMA certified, nor could they have been at the time. Now, Google Apps Premiere was certified, and Apps for Government was going to be done under a more restrictive set of security constraints, so it would have likely passed too. What I have to wonder though, is did Google lie, and say Google Apps for Government had the FISMA cert, or did they say "Google Apps is FISMA certified", which is true?
I have to come down on the side of the Microsoft lawyer playing this up for far more than it should be.
I wonder why then Google now tops Apple in WebKit commits?
WebKit commit numbers
Hint: the green line is Google, the blue is Apple.
Really? So you are telling me now that mom&pop ISP doesn't accept traffic from out of state? They don't allow you to shop on Amazon from the comfort of your home? They don't allow you to subscribe to Netflix streaming? They somehow prevent you from accessing your bank's website if it isn't located next door to you? And lets not forget, mom&pop ISP is hooked up to a backbone provider, able to send packets and conduct commerce from anywhere in the world. Tell me again how they aren't involved in commerce across state lines?
Firstly, there isn't anything about Verizon's infrastructure that is "private". It was originally funded by the government and handed over to them. Since then, the primary upgrades to that infrastructure have come primarily from public money, via things like the Federal Universal Service Fee, which taxes customers and gives the money to the telco to expand their networks. You should also take into consideration the fact that Verizon just accepted government bailout money, and has NOT spent the universal service fee money they have received on their infrastructure, as required. All of their lines run under public land, via an easement lease. They also carry out their business across state lines, and country borders, which means they qualify for regulation under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
Its called the "commerce clause" of the constitution, look into it. It says Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Unless you can show me an ISP that only handles traffic within its own state, then they qualify under this clause. It isn't "federal creep", its been there since day 1.
A study funded by Princeton University, published in the Cognition journal, found that people are better at retaining information written in a less fluent font.
I'm glad you live in an area where they seem to have actually done something. Most of America doesn't. Around here, I have the choice of the same 768k DSL line I could have chosen 10 years ago, or Comcast. The Comcast service costs me nearly 100$ a month for 10mb/s.
I wonder if your good service has anything to do with being able to afford a vacation home? Since most people can't?
Yes, they have improved infrastructure where they had to, or where they could make the most profit from it, while leaving the majority of people behind, and they only improved that because they received many more times what the improvements cost from taxpayers.
I work in the field, I know how it works. There is almost no portion of any fiber or cable system in the US that wasn't subsidized heavily by taxpayer money, through abatements or outright giveaways,and in exchange, the costs have continued to rise for the end user, and speed advances lag well behind the rest of the world.
No, my traffic goes over what resulted from the free giveaway of government funded infrastructure, and what resulted from the continual grants and funding given to telcos and backbone providers to upgrade their systems, which they then use to pay higher dividends to their investors rather than pay for said infrastructure improvements. Take a look at the number of bills that have given money to just this purpose, money that was never spent on what it was intended for. Take a look at the Telecommunications act of 1996, which gave serious concessions to telcos, in exchange for what was to have been serious infrastructure investment, that just sorta never happened. So yeah, I think 1 billion in profit extracted from me twice, meant to pay for improvements they now say they don't have money for, is too much profit.
The government already has the power to regulate the internet, given to it by the commerce clause of the constitution. We can choose to use that power for good, and monitor it, or we can choose to abdicate it, and let those with money control everything. We just saw a story yesterday of members of the US government speaking out against centralized control of the internet. It is under the same powers the government has always had that the net has flourished as is. It is only now that corporations want to change how the game is played, to tilt the field more in the favor of large providers. We can let them, and accept what comes, or we can put regulations in place to prevent abuse, then continue to monitor those who have the power.
Continuing to frame this as an "either/or" decision is disingenuous and wrong. This is a Neither/nor situation. We need to make sure BOTH sides are limited in the damage they can do. The government already has the power you are so afraid of, and put out as a bogeyman to scare off any who push for neutrality. They always have. The issue currently is, do we let someone else have that power too, and get to pay a premium to be denied content we want?