Honestly, because.doc and.docx it is the unofficial standard for documents everywhere. Anything with a bit more formating will look crappy on google docs or openoffice.
On the mac, using MS Office, it is better. I actually prefer the 2008 mac interface (with the photoshop-esque UI) than the ribbon crap they are trying to make us swallow.
Either way, I wish a free program was the standard. Too bad they got here too late.
Even if they do re-construct everything, it has patents. It's not that easy.
Also, skype was thinking of licensing their tech. Maybe Microsoft wants exclusivity on it (by acquiring skype they get the tech for themselves). Maybe they simply want to compete with google voice with a well tested and proven piece of software.
No one will ever know their real motivations... I'd assume it would be "all of the above".
If your proprietary encryption is good, I see no problem with using it.
Yes, the codec is one of the parts that made it work. Enough quality without requiring a lot of bandwidth, skype even worked with 56k modems. The codec is extremely resistant to jitter and network delays.
If Microsoft is trying to get into de VoiP business, they might as well keep aiming at the largest number of platforms possible.
I do believe MS is not trying to get Skype per-se, but their architecture. The common mortal wouldn't know, but Skype has proprietary encryption that still has not been beaten (Russia even wanted to ban Skype), distributed supernodes that make their network really cheap to run (compared to other kinds of architectures) while still working flawlessly over cascading NAT's, for example and a really good VoiP codec (revolutionary, really, it was the first real contender for a PC phone).
With buying skype they'd be getting a whole lot more than business.
But if apple was able to make their OS X over unix awesome, why can't the Linux "flavours" ever get close? You'd imagine that anyone with such a big community full of ideals and talent would be enough.
And that's the problem. Everyone has an opinion on how Ubuntu (or any linux distro) should look and feel, and any departure from the "core" is seen as treason. Say what you will about open source, but your biggest strength seems to be your major limitation - you can't please everyone.
I, for one, would love for Ubuntu and Unity to get to, at least, the place OS X got a few years ago. If people just let them be and support them as they try to move forward, I think they can. Right now I feel that those who could make Ubuntu great are the ones holding it back.
I don't think this is the same company at all. Ericsson was the phone company they bought and I bet they are still the ones doing the phones. I would also say they are the ones with this kind of philosophy, not Sony itself.
Well... Rooting a phone is not just "installing new software". It goes a bit beyond that. If you ruin your motherboard flashing a new ROM, custom or not, it'll still brick it and not many companies will replace it.
Just because you can access the bootloader in some way or another doesn't mean sony is responsible if you decide to fill it up with crap that then bricks your phone.
I'm more of the opinion that every phone should have a backup of it's own kernel somewhere with a one way connection. If it bricked it should just send what it had to the phone. Right now it's a bit idiotic to say you should mod your phone but not having any kind of failsafe for those who do that.
And just on a sidenote, I own a rooted Desire (CM 7 yada yada), But I'm under no illusions that if it ever malfunctions I would get any kind of help from HTC.
Not saying I have mastered, but I did study concurrency in two separate courses, which I actually enjoyed.
Obviously, most applications will not falter if you don't care about it. But then you'll start using semaphores (be it POSIX or simply java's synchronize, for example) and things will halt. They will halt because your very weak cores will be running one at a time and context switching will be needed.
Yes, I know there are many things that don't require any kind of concurrency. I also imagine that this would be ideal for running a highly scalable web service for example (in this case, with 4000 cores, the load could be effectively spread between them - assuming you used 1 thread/process per request).
My initial point was: Concurrency with weak single cores WILL slow you down to a crawl because each core seems to be extremely slow. That's it.
Most cell towers have your location because they need to know what cell tower you should be using at that time.
I never said that it was better to use only GPS, but it's point was that GPS only was not enough. Which is bull****- GPS (only) has been enough for loads of applications for a while now, you have to remember that the first pure GPS's were not your phone. It was those little black boxes that simply used satellites to know where you are. They had no wifi or GSM antennae and still worked.
Obviously that anything that assists you on getting a GPS fix faster is good. But it's not essential.
I'm kind of pointing out the obvious, but did you know GPS existed before your phone had one? And it used satelites.
A latitude/longitude IS enough if you have a map with you. Google maps downloads things on the fly, but many GPS softwares have the maps already downloaded and require no data connection whatsoever.
GPS coordinates is "pretty useless"? Are you mad? It's accurate up to 10m +-, it's used by military services everywhere. It's the most widely available accurate way to measure velocity. It is especially accurate if you are moving
No app needs to send data ANYWHERE. GPS coordinates are calculated based on the strength of a satellite signal. There is no communication with anyone.
But GPS won't work indoors (although I have no idea why someone would need to use them there), for example, and that's why these "location services" exist. But google allows you to opt in to their use. If you want to benefit from it, you'll get help with your location, provided you are willing to share your data.
just imagine the concurrency nightmare of 64 threads/processes working at the same time. The overhead for controlling such a thing would be so large that you'd waste more time synchronizing everything than the one you saved (I bet).
No, but your unwillingness to see all those people that actually FOUND their phones targeting them might just be right does mark you as someone with whom it is impossible to have a conversation. It's not just a defective phone. He might just live in an area with defective coverage or badly configured towers.
But, as I said, you're not worth my time, so, keep at it. I'm sure steve jobs will reward your blind devotion someday:)
But 10% isn't correct actually, it's more like 7%. And you forget that most of those that use Mac OS X will still have Bootcamp / a second PC just so they can open those pesky highly formated word documents (for example) or just play (I know I do).
It's not bullshit. It's a fact and all 3 experts stated it. Developing and exploiting something isn't easy, and if it still possible to target windows users, people will go for the one with 87% market share.
There are ways to calculate distance by signal decay, using approximate values depending on setting ( the decay coeficient goes from 2.0 for an open field to 4.x to an urban jungle - if I remember it right it's an exponential day).
And hell no, it picked up way more than "cell tower data" most of the time. And there are at least 3 kinds of triangulations, the one done on your phone is just one of them, but it can also be done in the cell tower itself (so it can be used to force you from one tower to the other). So "cell tower data" can be exact with enough sources.
To sum it up, in an open field in the middle of nothing, yes, it won't be accurate. In a city you can pinpoint someones location with relative certainty.
PS: I will show you the maths as soon as the lecture slides become available, don't worry.
I can assure you this value is right for the majority of the cases. I actually had a course that covered how it works this week and the values are pretty fresh in my mind. 1 cell tower won't give you much, but if you have access to three you CAN pinpoint your location with relative certainty.
1 cell tower will give your relative direction and approximate distance, 2 cell towers can narrow it down, 3 will pinpoint it with the values I stated. It's a fact.
You say "one person doesn't have them" to "it's not tracking". Maybe that person has a defective phone. Maybe the cell towers were badly configured. I've seen plenty of logs of people that actually were where the phone said it was. Finding one (or two, or three) cases where it was wrong won't invalidate the majority where it was right.
The point is, I don't care if that user's wrong. Seen plenty of data where it was right and it should be (at least) encrypted or not accessible by a simple mac app. That's a fact, no matter how you twist it.
The way it works is by triangulation. If by some reason, sometimes, you are outside the range of 3 cell towers (for triangulation), depending on what antennae they use, all they might be able to guess is a general 60/120 degree direction and a distance that has to account for attenuation, depending on what kind of ground you're in, and reflections / refractions and whatnot (specially bad in mountains / big citties / etc).. That's what produces those artifacts.
On the other hand, on most European cities you rarely find yourself outside the range of 2 or 3 cell towers (no idea on how good the coverage gets in the US).
And just because some points aren't exactly where they should be and there is one trip you say you can't account for, that might be due to a lot of factors, as in:
Bad cell tower configuration; Lousy user memory; More than one person sharing the same phone; (etc).
Any of those can't be an excuse for the lousy security of the whole procedure why generally accurate tracking of the user.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really see this as a competitor for the microsoft surface.
I'd love for someone to enable the back of my phone for touch, leaving the screen clear of my clumsy heads. Something like this might make it possible
Honestly, because .doc and .docx it is the unofficial standard for documents everywhere. Anything with a bit more formating will look crappy on google docs or openoffice.
On the mac, using MS Office, it is better. I actually prefer the 2008 mac interface (with the photoshop-esque UI) than the ribbon crap they are trying to make us swallow.
Either way, I wish a free program was the standard. Too bad they got here too late.
Depending on how much money MS could make on the tech, a settlement could easily go up to those 9 figures.
I don't think this was a bad investment at all. Lots of great lessons to learn from skype.
Even if they do re-construct everything, it has patents. It's not that easy.
Also, skype was thinking of licensing their tech. Maybe Microsoft wants exclusivity on it (by acquiring skype they get the tech for themselves). Maybe they simply want to compete with google voice with a well tested and proven piece of software.
No one will ever know their real motivations... I'd assume it would be "all of the above".
oh god.
was it beaten?
skype lets governments take a peak? Ok.
Why do you assume you only want to hide things from your government?
If your proprietary encryption is good, I see no problem with using it.
Yes, the codec is one of the parts that made it work. Enough quality without requiring a lot of bandwidth, skype even worked with 56k modems. The codec is extremely resistant to jitter and network delays.
quite sure of it
Even MSN has a mac client. So does Office.
If Microsoft is trying to get into de VoiP business, they might as well keep aiming at the largest number of platforms possible.
I do believe MS is not trying to get Skype per-se, but their architecture. The common mortal wouldn't know, but Skype has proprietary encryption that still has not been beaten (Russia even wanted to ban Skype), distributed supernodes that make their network really cheap to run (compared to other kinds of architectures) while still working flawlessly over cascading NAT's, for example and a really good VoiP codec (revolutionary, really, it was the first real contender for a PC phone).
With buying skype they'd be getting a whole lot more than business.
I know I most likely won't get an answer...
But if apple was able to make their OS X over unix awesome, why can't the Linux "flavours" ever get close? You'd imagine that anyone with such a big community full of ideals and talent would be enough.
And that's the problem. Everyone has an opinion on how Ubuntu (or any linux distro) should look and feel, and any departure from the "core" is seen as treason. Say what you will about open source, but your biggest strength seems to be your major limitation - you can't please everyone.
I, for one, would love for Ubuntu and Unity to get to, at least, the place OS X got a few years ago. If people just let them be and support them as they try to move forward, I think they can. Right now I feel that those who could make Ubuntu great are the ones holding it back.
I don't think this is the same company at all. Ericsson was the phone company they bought and I bet they are still the ones doing the phones. I would also say they are the ones with this kind of philosophy, not Sony itself.
Well... Rooting a phone is not just "installing new software". It goes a bit beyond that. If you ruin your motherboard flashing a new ROM, custom or not, it'll still brick it and not many companies will replace it.
Just because you can access the bootloader in some way or another doesn't mean sony is responsible if you decide to fill it up with crap that then bricks your phone.
I'm more of the opinion that every phone should have a backup of it's own kernel somewhere with a one way connection. If it bricked it should just send what it had to the phone. Right now it's a bit idiotic to say you should mod your phone but not having any kind of failsafe for those who do that.
And just on a sidenote, I own a rooted Desire (CM 7 yada yada), But I'm under no illusions that if it ever malfunctions I would get any kind of help from HTC.
Honestly, where did this come from?
Not saying I have mastered, but I did study concurrency in two separate courses, which I actually enjoyed.
Obviously, most applications will not falter if you don't care about it. But then you'll start using semaphores (be it POSIX or simply java's synchronize, for example) and things will halt. They will halt because your very weak cores will be running one at a time and context switching will be needed.
Yes, I know there are many things that don't require any kind of concurrency. I also imagine that this would be ideal for running a highly scalable web service for example (in this case, with 4000 cores, the load could be effectively spread between them - assuming you used 1 thread/process per request).
My initial point was: Concurrency with weak single cores WILL slow you down to a crawl because each core seems to be extremely slow. That's it.
Most cell towers have your location because they need to know what cell tower you should be using at that time.
I never said that it was better to use only GPS, but it's point was that GPS only was not enough. Which is bull****- GPS (only) has been enough for loads of applications for a while now, you have to remember that the first pure GPS's were not your phone. It was those little black boxes that simply used satellites to know where you are. They had no wifi or GSM antennae and still worked.
Obviously that anything that assists you on getting a GPS fix faster is good. But it's not essential.
Oh my god.
I'm kind of pointing out the obvious, but did you know GPS existed before your phone had one? And it used satelites.
A latitude/longitude IS enough if you have a map with you. Google maps downloads things on the fly, but many GPS softwares have the maps already downloaded and require no data connection whatsoever.
GPS coordinates is "pretty useless"? Are you mad? It's accurate up to 10m +-, it's used by military services everywhere. It's the most widely available accurate way to measure velocity. It is especially accurate if you are moving
No app needs to send data ANYWHERE. GPS coordinates are calculated based on the strength of a satellite signal. There is no communication with anyone.
But GPS won't work indoors (although I have no idea why someone would need to use them there), for example, and that's why these "location services" exist. But google allows you to opt in to their use. If you want to benefit from it, you'll get help with your location, provided you are willing to share your data.
just imagine the concurrency nightmare of 64 threads/processes working at the same time. The overhead for controlling such a thing would be so large that you'd waste more time synchronizing everything than the one you saved (I bet).
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
I quit.
Lol, you think it is ok to save all that info, unencrypted and with timestamps.
Good for you! :)
No, but your unwillingness to see all those people that actually FOUND their phones targeting them might just be right does mark you as someone with whom it is impossible to have a conversation. It's not just a defective phone. He might just live in an area with defective coverage or badly configured towers.
But, as I said, you're not worth my time, so, keep at it. I'm sure steve jobs will reward your blind devotion someday :)
http://www.404techsupport.com/2011/03/12/the-results-of-pwn2own-2011/
Hence, the targeting.
But 10% isn't correct actually, it's more like 7%. And you forget that most of those that use Mac OS X will still have Bootcamp / a second PC just so they can open those pesky highly formated word documents (for example) or just play (I know I do).
It's not bullshit. It's a fact and all 3 experts stated it. Developing and exploiting something isn't easy, and if it still possible to target windows users, people will go for the one with 87% market share.
There are ways to calculate distance by signal decay, using approximate values depending on setting ( the decay coeficient goes from 2.0 for an open field to 4.x to an urban jungle - if I remember it right it's an exponential day).
And hell no, it picked up way more than "cell tower data" most of the time. And there are at least 3 kinds of triangulations, the one done on your phone is just one of them, but it can also be done in the cell tower itself (so it can be used to force you from one tower to the other). So "cell tower data" can be exact with enough sources.
To sum it up, in an open field in the middle of nothing, yes, it won't be accurate. In a city you can pinpoint someones location with relative certainty.
PS: I will show you the maths as soon as the lecture slides become available, don't worry.
I can assure you this value is right for the majority of the cases. I actually had a course that covered how it works this week and the values are pretty fresh in my mind. 1 cell tower won't give you much, but if you have access to three you CAN pinpoint your location with relative certainty.
1 cell tower will give your relative direction and approximate distance, 2 cell towers can narrow it down, 3 will pinpoint it with the values I stated. It's a fact.
I won't feed you anymore.
You say "one person doesn't have them" to "it's not tracking". Maybe that person has a defective phone. Maybe the cell towers were badly configured. I've seen plenty of logs of people that actually were where the phone said it was. Finding one (or two, or three) cases where it was wrong won't invalidate the majority where it was right.
The point is, I don't care if that user's wrong. Seen plenty of data where it was right and it should be (at least) encrypted or not accessible by a simple mac app. That's a fact, no matter how you twist it.
The way it works is by triangulation. If by some reason, sometimes, you are outside the range of 3 cell towers (for triangulation), depending on what antennae they use, all they might be able to guess is a general 60/120 degree direction and a distance that has to account for attenuation, depending on what kind of ground you're in, and reflections / refractions and whatnot (specially bad in mountains / big citties / etc).. That's what produces those artifacts.
On the other hand, on most European cities you rarely find yourself outside the range of 2 or 3 cell towers (no idea on how good the coverage gets in the US).
And just because some points aren't exactly where they should be and there is one trip you say you can't account for, that might be due to a lot of factors, as in:
Bad cell tower configuration;
Lousy user memory;
More than one person sharing the same phone;
(etc).
Any of those can't be an excuse for the lousy security of the whole procedure why generally accurate tracking of the user.
Didn't notice this, but I've never installed Java on m Snow Leopard, so I assumed it was still true.
Either way, the point stands. Having a password prompt and file permissions is a start, but not the holy grail of security, not by a long shot.