Because they want to stick it to Apple. Whereas Netflix opted to eat the 30%, Google would rather recoup it. Additionally, whoever wrote the article is being a little disingenuous, since Google takes the same 30% on app and IAP sales. They can just ignore that for Red as it's their store, their service.
Uhm, the OS doesn't crash when the rendering engine sees that. The app, if it's using the system libraries to render it, may. App-level crash, no obvious vector to leverage the issue to do anything further. It's really more in the realm of annoyance, since apps crash for plenty of other reasons too.
RIR allocations to ISPs are premised on users getting entire networks versus a single address. That by itself should ensure end-users get larger than a single IPv6 address. Whether it's static or not is irrelevant for cases like this, just that it's a public IP and therefore directly accessible (barring the non-packet mangling stateful firewall).
Now, if the ISP will charge for a static IPv6 prefix, versus whatever their provisioning system hands out, who knows? For many services, they won't care, since with all the NAT we've had to deal with over the years, those services have central registries they update when they come online, or can be handled via some DDNS updates.
Hmm, I guess that "Buying from Apple" "Unlocked iPhones" section on their store support (http://store.apple.com/us/questions/iphone) was put there by hackers.
It's the carriers that want the lock. Apple couldn't care less, long as they see the revenue for the device from someone.
In any case, the problem here is in regards to the handshake, to handle NAT or other end-to-end traversal issues. Pretty much every protocol that wants to be peer-to-peer in a world with NAT has that issue, especially SIP (ergo, STUN. Nevermind how many SIP devices have no clue about IPv6, which is going to be another problem here soon). The VirnetX patent apparently covers some of how to handle that, and since their implementation apparently tripped over something in the claims, now FaceTime has to skip the direct attempts, and go via a relay.
Uhm... http://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ If you're in the XBL, it'll tell you which list comprising the XBL you're in. Usually that means the CBL, which has a fairly instant delist process for listings, unless the problem keeps coming back.
Actually, transit providers are one of the groups that can't reliably apply BCP38 or RPF. BCP38 and RPF is very easily applied at the edge, where you know specifically the IPs involved, since they're either connected or statically routed. Now, when you get into things over BGP, it gets dicey. You may see traffic over a BGP-managed link from an IP that isn't involved in the received prefixes, but yet still belong to the specific peer. Is this an error? No. Is dropping the bits on the floor because you're not seeing that prefix an error? Most definitely. Not announcing a prefix over a link is a common traffic engineering practice, so this isn't an uncommon scenario. Another option to work around that would be to have a prefix-list with all of that peer's possible prefixes and build an ACL off that, but that's also not always tenable when you're potentially dealing with 1,000s or 10s of 1,000s of prefixes for the larger networks. Nice thing is, at this level, usually you can bust out the sFlow/NetFlow-fu and find out where the spoof is coming in from, and then whack it at that point.
But looking at the OpenResolver project list, when broken out by ASN, it really looks like a huge amount of those open recursors are CPE gear with WAN-facing DNS services, just based on the ASNs. China Telecom (AS4134), Uninet (AS8151) and Turk Telecom (AS9121) accounted for 3.5 million (15%) of the recursors alone.
Same here. There's even USB drive enclosures which let you select an ISO from the disk, and then present themselves as a CD/DVD drive as though that disk image were directly inserted. Far, far easier to load up a 2.5" drive with a ton of disk images, and just carry the enclosure around for system repairs, instead of a slew of optical media.
Unfortunately when I was there, we didn't have a chance to get out to Dachau, but did go through the Documentation Center in Nuremburg. Exact same thing. No punches pulled, just straight up "Here's what happened, why it happened, and why it should never be allowed to occur again." I was kind of surprised, and very glad to see it just laid out like that. A dark period of human history, and the best way to deal with it is to let it stand on its own.
But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.
Great example would be German museums dealing with the events surrounding their involvement in the World Wars and the Holocaust. You go into any of those, and while they talk a lot about the Nazi Party, National Socialism, Hitler and the rest, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone would think any of it is an endorsement. Everything I saw really had a tone of: "My God, we screwed the pooch BIGTIME. Let's put this all out here, so maybe people won't let it happen again"
Granted, the atomic bomb isn't quite as clear of a moral area, since while it did kill many, many people, it also ended the war much earlier than was likely without it, and therefore all the casualties that would have entailed didn't occur. Instead of glorifying a WMD, it can help foster discussion about them, and past them.
A patent troll is usually called that because they didn't produce anything using the patent in question aside from a lawsuit. Apple here is using patents they are actively using, and believe that are being infringed by Android. Considering Motorola is going for 2.5% of sale price of iPhones for use of standards patents covered by FRAND, this is at least a more reasonable figure. It's also quite possibly a means of leveraging a cross-licensing deal so neither side winds up paying the other a dime.
Ultimately, they're doing what most sane businesses would do. If you had a design you felt was innovative enough to patent and you spent a ton of R&D on, and you saw a company producing something that you believe is infringing on your ideas, would you just sit back and let them run with it? Or do you like doing free R&D for your competition?
Which also happen to generally be items associated with how tablets looked like prior to the iPad.
Funny enough, those also line up with a bunch of other tablets, which sell rather well, and for companies Apple isn't suing. Like: The Nook, the Kindle, the Kindle Fire, etc., etc.
So write an app for that. Apps can happily download data to the device independent of the App Store, within their own filesystem space. You just can't add anything to the system media libraries. Or play it streaming from something like Plex running on a local network media computer.
Sandboxing applications is a common security model on Unix systems, so why is this a bad thing on desktop apps as well? The App Store apps already had restrictions on where you could put your executable. This just codifies other accesses into a model where the developer sets up the privileges the app requires instead of leaving it at the free-for-all it is now.
Google has been collecting this data for at least a year (probably longer), and also has voicemail transcription data as well, so accuracy is not an issue.
I guess you've had different Google voicemail messages than I've had. Certain spots they're dead on, but all too often they're simply hilarious. Accuracy isn't a word I would tend to associate with their transcription.
Re:Strangely inspirational
on
The RMS Tour Rider
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Alas, it's also suitable to modify his moral code when it's convenient.
Big Brother has no right to know where I travel, or where you travel, or where anyone travels. If they arbitrarily demand a name, give a name that does not belong to any person you know of. If they will check my ID before I board the bus or train, then let's look for another way for me to travel. (In the US I never use long-distance trains because of their ID policy.)
I'd be surprised if North Dakota doesn't take in more federal funds than it pays out. California, I'd be surprised if it didn't pay out more than it took in. As such, odds are, the better statement would be: why should California pay for tornado warnings for North Dakota?
Seriously, however, this is a single nation. The larger, richer states help buoy up the smaller ones, which have their own contributions back, as those smaller ones also tend to be where the food is. Putting up fences between groups that are supposed to be on the same overall team is just continuing the crap Congress is doing.
So suggest it to the state of New York and/or New Jersey, as Mr. Ritchie was born and died there, respectively. NJ may be more amenable to it as Bell Labs was there as well, where much of his work was done. This sort of '____ Day' isn't unusual since it costs the state nothing more than printing a proclamation and it lets them toot their horn for doing nothing more than being where the person so honored lived/died.
Last time I checked they weren't even a majority of either the desktop, laptop or smartphone markets. MP3 player, sure, but you don't have to buy from iTunes to get your music there.
I might understand it if G+ on the web had any use for sms or telephony... but it doesn't. It'd be a pretty easy check to not enable certain functionality and then it's no diff from the website. And if they're doing an iPod/iPad version anyway, they won't have those features available either.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they want to stick it to Apple. Whereas Netflix opted to eat the 30%, Google would rather recoup it. Additionally, whoever wrote the article is being a little disingenuous, since Google takes the same 30% on app and IAP sales. They can just ignore that for Red as it's their store, their service.
Alas, Google takes the exact same 30% on apps and IAPs. They're just willing to eat it on their own platform for their own service.
https://support.google.com/goo...
"For applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price."
Everything loves jumping on Apple for the 30%, but misses that it's the norm.
Uhm, the OS doesn't crash when the rendering engine sees that. The app, if it's using the system libraries to render it, may. App-level crash, no obvious vector to leverage the issue to do anything further. It's really more in the realm of annoyance, since apps crash for plenty of other reasons too.
Here's everything fixed up in the 10.8.5 update release last week: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5880
RIR allocations to ISPs are premised on users getting entire networks versus a single address. That by itself should ensure end-users get larger than a single IPv6 address. Whether it's static or not is irrelevant for cases like this, just that it's a public IP and therefore directly accessible (barring the non-packet mangling stateful firewall).
Now, if the ISP will charge for a static IPv6 prefix, versus whatever their provisioning system hands out, who knows? For many services, they won't care, since with all the NAT we've had to deal with over the years, those services have central registries they update when they come online, or can be handled via some DDNS updates.
Same reason they don't offer unlocked phones.
Hmm, I guess that "Buying from Apple" "Unlocked iPhones" section on their store support (http://store.apple.com/us/questions/iphone) was put there by hackers.
It's the carriers that want the lock. Apple couldn't care less, long as they see the revenue for the device from someone.
In any case, the problem here is in regards to the handshake, to handle NAT or other end-to-end traversal issues. Pretty much every protocol that wants to be peer-to-peer in a world with NAT has that issue, especially SIP (ergo, STUN. Nevermind how many SIP devices have no clue about IPv6, which is going to be another problem here soon). The VirnetX patent apparently covers some of how to handle that, and since their implementation apparently tripped over something in the claims, now FaceTime has to skip the direct attempts, and go via a relay.
Uhm... http://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ If you're in the XBL, it'll tell you which list comprising the XBL you're in. Usually that means the CBL, which has a fairly instant delist process for listings, unless the problem keeps coming back.
Actually, transit providers are one of the groups that can't reliably apply BCP38 or RPF. BCP38 and RPF is very easily applied at the edge, where you know specifically the IPs involved, since they're either connected or statically routed. Now, when you get into things over BGP, it gets dicey. You may see traffic over a BGP-managed link from an IP that isn't involved in the received prefixes, but yet still belong to the specific peer. Is this an error? No. Is dropping the bits on the floor because you're not seeing that prefix an error? Most definitely. Not announcing a prefix over a link is a common traffic engineering practice, so this isn't an uncommon scenario. Another option to work around that would be to have a prefix-list with all of that peer's possible prefixes and build an ACL off that, but that's also not always tenable when you're potentially dealing with 1,000s or 10s of 1,000s of prefixes for the larger networks. Nice thing is, at this level, usually you can bust out the sFlow/NetFlow-fu and find out where the spoof is coming in from, and then whack it at that point.
But looking at the OpenResolver project list, when broken out by ASN, it really looks like a huge amount of those open recursors are CPE gear with WAN-facing DNS services, just based on the ASNs. China Telecom (AS4134), Uninet (AS8151) and Turk Telecom (AS9121) accounted for 3.5 million (15%) of the recursors alone.
Same here. There's even USB drive enclosures which let you select an ISO from the disk, and then present themselves as a CD/DVD drive as though that disk image were directly inserted. Far, far easier to load up a 2.5" drive with a ton of disk images, and just carry the enclosure around for system repairs, instead of a slew of optical media.
But Microsoft trademarked their store design too, and had it granted in 2011. This looks much like return fire, and not an opening shot.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85194406&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Unfortunately when I was there, we didn't have a chance to get out to Dachau, but did go through the Documentation Center in Nuremburg. Exact same thing. No punches pulled, just straight up "Here's what happened, why it happened, and why it should never be allowed to occur again." I was kind of surprised, and very glad to see it just laid out like that. A dark period of human history, and the best way to deal with it is to let it stand on its own.
But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.
Great example would be German museums dealing with the events surrounding their involvement in the World Wars and the Holocaust. You go into any of those, and while they talk a lot about the Nazi Party, National Socialism, Hitler and the rest, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone would think any of it is an endorsement. Everything I saw really had a tone of: "My God, we screwed the pooch BIGTIME. Let's put this all out here, so maybe people won't let it happen again"
Granted, the atomic bomb isn't quite as clear of a moral area, since while it did kill many, many people, it also ended the war much earlier than was likely without it, and therefore all the casualties that would have entailed didn't occur. Instead of glorifying a WMD, it can help foster discussion about them, and past them.
In iOS6 all of those requests now throw up a confirmation dialog. IMEI requires use of a private API, which would keep the app out of the store.
Now, when did Google purchase Motorola Mobility? No, try again. No, no, the correct answer is they haven't yet.
*BZZT* Thank you for playing. The answer we were looking for was: "What is May 22, 2012?" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/weve-acquired-motorola-mobility.html
A patent troll is usually called that because they didn't produce anything using the patent in question aside from a lawsuit. Apple here is using patents they are actively using, and believe that are being infringed by Android. Considering Motorola is going for 2.5% of sale price of iPhones for use of standards patents covered by FRAND, this is at least a more reasonable figure. It's also quite possibly a means of leveraging a cross-licensing deal so neither side winds up paying the other a dime.
Ultimately, they're doing what most sane businesses would do. If you had a design you felt was innovative enough to patent and you spent a ton of R&D on, and you saw a company producing something that you believe is infringing on your ideas, would you just sit back and let them run with it? Or do you like doing free R&D for your competition?
Which also happen to generally be items associated with how tablets looked like prior to the iPad.
Funny enough, those also line up with a bunch of other tablets, which sell rather well, and for companies Apple isn't suing. Like: The Nook, the Kindle, the Kindle Fire, etc., etc.
So write an app for that. Apps can happily download data to the device independent of the App Store, within their own filesystem space. You just can't add anything to the system media libraries. Or play it streaming from something like Plex running on a local network media computer.
iOS5 detaches the computer requirement entirely. You setup/activate without iTunes and can sync with iCloud.
OpenSource for other projects, but not in the development of any of their products. Not if they could help it anyway.
Let's see...
- Darwin Streaming Server
- mDNSResponder
- ALAC
- Calendar and Contacts Server
- libdispatch / Grand Central Dispatch
- etc.
http://www.macosforge.org/ is where the more generally useful items outside of OSX wind up. FreeBSD picked up the libdispatch items and ran with it.
Sandboxing applications is a common security model on Unix systems, so why is this a bad thing on desktop apps as well? The App Store apps already had restrictions on where you could put your executable. This just codifies other accesses into a model where the developer sets up the privileges the app requires instead of leaving it at the free-for-all it is now.
Google has been collecting this data for at least a year (probably longer), and also has voicemail transcription data as well, so accuracy is not an issue.
I guess you've had different Google voicemail messages than I've had. Certain spots they're dead on, but all too often they're simply hilarious. Accuracy isn't a word I would tend to associate with their transcription.
Alas, it's also suitable to modify his moral code when it's convenient.
Big Brother has no right to know where I travel, or where you travel, or where anyone travels. If they arbitrarily demand a name, give a name that does not belong to any person you know of. If they will check my ID before I board the bus or train, then let's look for another way for me to travel. (In the US I never use long-distance trains because of their ID policy.)
And yet he's fine with planes...
I'd be surprised if North Dakota doesn't take in more federal funds than it pays out. California, I'd be surprised if it didn't pay out more than it took in. As such, odds are, the better statement would be: why should California pay for tornado warnings for North Dakota?
Seriously, however, this is a single nation. The larger, richer states help buoy up the smaller ones, which have their own contributions back, as those smaller ones also tend to be where the food is. Putting up fences between groups that are supposed to be on the same overall team is just continuing the crap Congress is doing.
So suggest it to the state of New York and/or New Jersey, as Mr. Ritchie was born and died there, respectively. NJ may be more amenable to it as Bell Labs was there as well, where much of his work was done. This sort of '____ Day' isn't unusual since it costs the state nothing more than printing a proclamation and it lets them toot their horn for doing nothing more than being where the person so honored lived/died.
Apple would also need to be a monopoly.
Last time I checked they weren't even a majority of either the desktop, laptop or smartphone markets. MP3 player, sure, but you don't have to buy from iTunes to get your music there.
I might understand it if G+ on the web had any use for sms or telephony... but it doesn't. It'd be a pretty easy check to not enable certain functionality and then it's no diff from the website. And if they're doing an iPod/iPad version anyway, they won't have those features available either.