The picture you linked to is not stock Android, it's HTC Sense that was tailored for Verizon. With so many different permutations of the same code base over different hardware/carrier customizations, it's really easy to find Android examples that will support your argument.
And android does still have Blackberry-like phones, it's just that they're not very popular. Just take a look at these more recent examples. http://www.androiddudes.com/2010/06/07/android-powered-acer-betouch-e130-betouch-e120/ And also, do note what the stock android interface looks like in the picture below the first one. Stock Android 1.6 is not nearly as pretty, or iPhone-like, as HTC's or Samsung's implementations.
If you want to blame anyone for making iPhone-like UIs, blame HTC or blame Samsung. Not that Apple is going to block HTC from importing phones anymore, HTC recently purchased some patents (that have already won against Apple in US courts) and so HTC could easily block Apple from importing iPhones/iPads into the US (long before Apple could even try to do the same back to HTC).
Users KNOW they should have strong passwords, but consistently, in my security audits of big companies without technical controls in place to prevent it, 30% or more of passwords are crap like "master" and "cookie" and "god".
I'm not kidding. People DONT see value. Even if they do, they think... "well, everyone needs to do that, but I am special". It's human nature.
Actually, you can to an extent.
The way I've educated my mom about secure passwords was to teach her how easy it was to crack her own passwords. And when I say teach, I don't mean to say that I broke her passwords for her. No, I showed her the script, explained it a little, and then I made sure she filled out some of the paths and that she ran the script herself.
That was half of the education process. The other half was to teach her how to make a password out of a long sentence of her choice.
Just explaining something doesn't always work. For some things, I believe there must be several layers of understanding before it has an effect. And even then, there will always be people who really don't care, like you say, but I believe that percentage to be far lower than 30%. By the way, now my mom's passwords are so freaking complicated and god-awful-long, I think she's over doing them -- but that's for another story.
Of course, it makes sense that a security consultant would want to centralize security even more. He would profit from such centralization, but he wouldn't profit from ensuring that we get better security.
In my opinion, computer security should be approached just like a public health issue. We should teach people good computer hygiene, just like we teach people about proper personal hygiene. Granted, this approach is not going to solve every problem, and this educational effort would have to be never ending, but I don't think there is any way around that.
We need to start teaching good computer hygiene courses in schools. And for the generations that are already out of school, we need to create ways to get them to catch up to the kids we educate on this subject. For this to really work, everyone needs to learn about proper computer hygiene. Not just the office worker, or IT personnel, but the janitor, the big-shot CEO, the stay-at-home wife, the unemployed, and even grandpa/grandma. The burden of good computer hygiene simply can not be pawned off unto someone else anymore.
And this goes for the people that are going to teach our kids (or teach us) about good computer hygiene, we can't let security firms, manufacturers, ISPs, software vendors, or even content providers, teach our kids about proper security. We need to start taking responsibility for this ourselves. The industry does not teach, it obfuscates. That's a big part of how it makes money. And letting them teach our kids about good computer hygiene would only lead to too many conflicts of interests. That's why we need to do this ourselves.
And I say "computer hygiene", but we should probably call it something else. The term "computer" is not enough these days to convey every type of security problems we should be teaching our kids (or ourselves) about. There is social engineering, which can be very low tech. And there are many more types of powerful computing devices, that can still have problems, but that we do not specifically call computers anymore.
The summary implies that the developers didn't know that they would get no money. The article makes it clear that they not only were told they would get nothing, but they confirmed in subsequent emails with Amazon that they would get nothing. Knowing this, they still decided to go ahead with the deal.
To be fair, everything told them that they would get 20% -- even their admin control panel, then once they made the decision to go ahead, that's when Amazon decided to pull this switch on them, and then asked them if they still wanted to go ahead with it.
So yes, you're right, they got told about it before they made the final decision, and they did go ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that Amazon pulled a bait and switch on them (and then included in the email wording to the effect that they were not allowed to discuss this offer with others).
A better metaphor would be the Bazaar and the Street Mardis Gras/Carnival in New Orleans, the Bazaar being Google+, and facebook being the Carnaval with its own virtual bid currency where everybody pokes you.
In a Bazaar, you can actually do business with people and have normal relationships with them, because you can actually see their faces, and so their identities are somewhat tied to the physical realm.
But if people are wearing masks, then some identities are only tied to the mask, and two polar extremes can emerge from that. On one side, you get the corporate identity which remains always bland, dull, fake, and very often not helpful at all. Take a look at any Corporate blog/facebook page to see what I'm talking about. And on the other side, you get anonymous personas that get to pretend they're anything they can think up, the latest examples being that they're young, pretty, and lesbian, when in fact they're none of those things, not even females in the first place.
May be because your PS3 doesn't really need to be that secure, so it doesn't do encryption (have you ever heard of a PS3 logger yet? on the other hand, key loggers, even wireless key loggers are common enough), and perhaps because it doesn't need to skimp on power since at least the console part of your PS3 is plugged into the wall outlet (instead of being fed power through a usb port, which has its own power output limitation).
NFC does support cryptography. It just doesn't support a back and forth handshake.
Bluetooth has a higher bitrate. Bluetooth has longer range. The power consumption is similar... in fact, the only thing NFC seems to do better is that it takes less time to setup because (ta-da!) it has no security built into it.
I've got news for you. Less time to set up, and a smaller range it can transmit on, does mean that it's going to use less energy overall.
Besides, you're giving us a false dichotomy. It's not whether Bluetooth is a better choice over NFC. In many cases, it is a better choice. It is really whether NFC combined with Bluetooth is a better choice than using Bluetooth alone. And in that sense, the combined solution can become even more secure and less energy intensive, in at least some use cases, because at least with NFC, you don't need to broadcast your Bluetooth id to the world, and you don't even need to power on your Bluetooth antenna until it's turned on through the NFC connection.
You are 100% incorrect about HDMI mirroring on the iPad 2.
You're right. I just did some research, and I stand corrected. I had no idea this had changed.
Apparently, Steve Jobs credits teachers for pushing Apple to backtrack on the previous hdmi-drm scheme.
But really? Do you really think it's the teachers that changed his mind? Or was it the fact that some Android phones were coming out with no DRM on their hdmi connection?
And yes, that last statement is another "theoretical claim" on my part. I actually have no way to know what was in Steve Jobs mind at the time. For all I know, Steve Jobs doesn't consider the android tablet a strong contender either
You are 100% incorrect about HDMI mirroring on the iPad 2.
You're right. I just did some research, and I stand corrected. I had no idea this had changed.
Apparently, Steve Jobs credits teachers for pushing Apple to backtrack on the previous hdmi-drm scheme.
But really? Do you really think it's the teachers that changed his mind? Or was it the fact that some Android phones were coming out with no DRM on their hdmi connection?
And yes, that last statement is another "theoretical claim" on my part. I actually have no way to know what was in Steve Jobs mind at the time. For all I know, Steve Jobs doesn't consider the android tablet a strong contender either
Isn't this what I said? "(not just on an application basis, but on the entire device, this is useful when you're using it while laying in bed)." I already knew that the iPad could let you lock the screen on an application basis. Do you think this goes far enough? Don't you switch task/applications once in a while?
Also, are you saying that you can only lock it in landscape mode, not in portrait mode? If true, that's got to be super annoying too. I don't think I'd ever be able to read most of my manga collection in bed if I could never lock it in portrait mode.
What are you implying? That the Samsung Tab 10.1 is all bad?
You may not seem to like this, but the Samsung Tab 10.1 is a strong contender (to the big iPhone lookalike). For some people with expensive existing music collections/movie collections (that predate iTunes or that were not gotten through iTunes), an Android tablet is really the only option they have. To a consumer, it's not a question of freedom, they rarely care about that, it's really a question of being able to play the stuff they already paid for.
Not only that, but the Samsung Tab is lighter and feels better in your hands than the iPad 2, and has the ability to turn off the auto-screen rotation (not just on an application basis, but on the entire device, this is useful when you're using it while laying in bed). And unlike the iPad 2, the Honeycomb version of Android was designed with the size of the larger screen in mind. Haven't you noticed that the screen icons of the iPad 2 are far too spread apart than they really need to be? And don't get me started on multi-tasking which the iOS still hasn't gotten right (despite their claims to the contrary).
And if you happen to own an hdmi-enabled television/flat screen, the next best choice is probably the Xoom, not the iPad2 (which tries to control everything you try to video-out). With a Xoom, you can mirror anything you have on your screen, you can play games on the big screen, you can play your music collection/movie collection through it. You can do anything through it. This is a huge plus for my friends. With the iPad 2, the only way it will allow you to play a movie through to a bigger screen is only if you purchase the movie through iTunes (it won't even allow your netflix streaming to go through to a bigger screen unless you're willing to purchase that same movie a second time).
So like I said, the Samsung Tab is a strong contender, and even the Xoom (in some areas). And unless Apple loosens up the control it holds over everything you do on your iPad, it's leaving huge openings for Android-based tablets to sweep in and take over some of the Market.
Still, according to articles on the BSA, that's irrelevant and they'll end up suing us anyway.
First off, do not despair. That's not going to do you any good.
Don't be afraid to tell the lawyer that you don't have any money during your free initial 30 minutes consultation (assuming you're in the US, call your local State bar association for a referral). I'm sure that you'll be able to work something out with him or her.
For now, read the article quoted below. The point of that article is that you can do a lot of this work yourself, but that you should still hire a lawyer to at least "supervise" the self-audit process and act as a go-between.
Now the article doesn't mention it, but if I were you I'd check that any old computer laying around the closet has current valid licenses. Whatever happens, make sure you do not get penalized for super old hardware that you're not even using anymore. Also, start inspecting any computer the disgruntled employee has had access to. You never know what he may have installed on there without your knowledge. It's good to go in this with your eyes wide-open.
And then, try contacting the same types of companies in the same niche industry as yours, chances are that they're not just targeting you -- since they recently increased their volume of enforcement letters. So if you can find others within the same jurisdiction as yours, with a similar predicament, you may be able to band together and pool resources.
Let's face it, software asset management (SAM) might be a best practice, but there are still plenty of organizations out there who haven't instituted SAM due to a lack of resources or initiative. If your organization is one of them and the Business Software Alliance (BSA) hasn't come calling yet, there's still time to get your house in order. But once that BSA threat letter hits the mailbox, the ballgame changes. The BSA is known to be a persistent enforcement agency which rarely grants clemency to organizations once it begins settlement proceedings. The following eight tips are offered by two attorneys who specialize in BSA defense cases; they give advice on what to do once your business receives a letter requesting a BSA audit.
1. Retain a lawyer. The BSA is an efficient organization when it comes to extracting punitive damages from companies found to be in a non-compliant licensing situation—its experts and lawyers know copyright laws inside and out because that is all that they do. For that reason, Scott recommends seeking legal counsel as soon as an audit request is received from the BSA.
"Whether the attorney is working in-house or outside the firm, don't go it alone," you have an audit," said Rob Scott, partner at Houston-based Scott and Scott. Scott said. "The BSA has very experienced attorneys working for it and this is a very complicated process. It involves not only the legal issues related to copyright law, but also it subsumes with it all of the software licensing rules because the copyright claim that lies underneath the BSA audit matter is related to the software licensing rules."
2. Cooperate—carefully. As much as a business person would love to screw up their eyes and wish the BSA away, the trouble will only multiply through inaction. Though the BSA is not a law enforcement agency it is acting on the behalf of the software companies and it will take matters to civil court if a business does not cooperate with the self-audit process and settlement negotiations.
"When you get a letter from the BSA do not throw it away," said Steve Helland, partner at the Minneapolis-based law firm of Fredrikson and Byron. "That is a serious tip, because some people think that 'Oh if I ignore this it will just go away, but the cases where the BSA is most likely to file in court are where they think there has been infringement and they don't get any response
Not for me, I have the Netflix one DVD + streaming service, I don't have cable, and between Netflix and Hulu I almost only watch streaming movies.
It's no the resolution that's important to me, it's the selection of movies that are, and as long as Netflix keeps expanding its selection of streaming content, I'm happy. And as to the data caps, where I live, I can still get (true) unlimited data for way less than what cable would cost me anyway even I add the additional cost of Netflix that new customers have to pay.
1. The iPad is made in China (the paranoids could say there could be a backdoor in there, just like we've made backdoors within Intel products and Xerox Machines in the past, we're fearful that a large enough foreign power would try doing the same back to us at some point. It wouldn't have to be an obvious backdoor. Introducing a vulnerability or two into iPhones/iPads at a low enough level could still allow China access to our devices and yet still provide some plausibility of denial that this was just a vulnerability, not a purposeful backdoor). 2. The iPad needs iTunes connectivity. The iPad/iPhone is a consumer device first and foremost. 3. Android can be encrypted all the way down to the hardware level, there are custom ROMs and chips made by researchers and defense contractors for that purpose. I also believe RIM, Nokia, and Windows Phone 6.5 had that too. The iPhone received some kind of encryption capability only recently, and then, I'm not even sure if it goes all the way down to the hardware (and even if it did, then the paranoids would complain that we shouldn't trust hardware-level encryption that's manufactured in China). 4. The iPhone/iPad often needs custom proprietary parts. With Android, MS/Nokia, RIM/BlackBerry, they allow you to use something as trivial as OEM batteries, or OEM extended batteries. The military has a long history of requiring a second source for all the hardware it commissions, hence the only way that Intel could get government contracts was to teach its arch nemesis AMD how to manufacture some of the same exact parts the military commissioned. And right now, Apple just doesn't seem interested in sharing its technology or licensing its technology to a competitor just so it could win big government contracts (the company is making plenty of money as it is, it certainly doesn't need to blow its IP in order to pander to the needs of the military). 5. The learning curve for doing iPad/iPhone development is still much higher than doing stuff on Android (although with better HTML5 mobile support, that may change soon enough I suppose). 6. Steve Jobs is a damn controlling hippy. There I said it. See my snippet of the quote from the iPhone/iPad/iTunes Terms of Services below. This is not to say that the military is interested in making weapons with iPads, I seriously doubt anyone wants to do that, but this clause just seems to be completely unnecessary in my opinion and would cause enough of a pause from military procurement to consider that Apple products really haven't been designed with the military in mind in the first place and that it may be hard to extract extra concessions from Apple in case the military needs anything else from Apple.
"Licensee also agrees that Licensee will not use the Apple Software for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
How can we know? The patents are only disclosed under NDA. In order for Google to officially know about those patents, it would need to throw one of its OEMs under the bus (since Google wouldn't be fined for violating an NDA it's not a party to, an NDA is only a civil procedure, but the OEM itself would be heavily fined for having broken the NDA it signed with Microsoft).
They already offer these connection options, and they won't be showing any targeted ads to folks that don't use webmail anyway, so why waste cycles scanning that mail?
Is there a way to turn off webmail? The answer is no. Can you guarantee Google that you will never check your email through webmail (for an emergency or something)? The answer again is no (also, most people love the convenience of having access to webmail even if they never use it).
It's not like Google scans your email at the last possible second every time you check it, that would be too intense. It probably scans emails just like it scans web pages, in batches, and then it build indexes of keywords, so it can just retrieve its results (instead of computing them on the fly each time).
There was a lot of complaining about this when GMail was launched. Some people (myself included) refuse to use it to this day because of that reason.
You could use the paid version. Those versions do not have ads, thought as administrator, it does allow me to serve my own "web clips" for all my domain users and scan/backup all their emails as well, so you would have to make sure you're the one paying the bill and not let some other person or family member pay it for you (otherwise, you'd just be handing over your privacy to them instead).
They already offer these connection options, and they won't be showing any targeted ads to folks that don't use webmail anyway, so why waste cycles scanning that mail?
Doesn't Yahoo insert ads everywhere, even inside the emails themselves? At least, that's what Yahoo Groups does, and I wouldn't be surprised if the free version of Yahoo POP mail did the same too.
Technically, the trustees of the museum should be the ones suing. If the curator was in on it, and even if he was not, it's their obligation as Trustees to be the final line of defense (both against this guy **and** against NASA). If they don't sue, they could be sued themselves for negligence (depending on which State they're in).
Now if the Trust was dissolved, then that's where things would get complicated, but hopefully that's not the case. Once the moon rock is safely back in the hands of its original owner, the Trust, then it could then negotiate a fair exchange with NASA (or NASA could try suing them I suppose), but god knows, NASA has plenty of stuff it could trade a museum with, and that may be the fastest way (instead of invoking some weird law that NASA thinks it owns everything that was recovered from the moon, which itself is ludicrous)
we should just go get a bunch more rocks so that they are not valuable.
That would make them less valuable may be, but that would not completely eradicate their value. There is still the cost of going to the moon and back (which isn't completely free yet). It would just be cheaper to make the guy an offer he can't refuse, let's say give him one billion dollars, and then continue to defund NASA. The sooner we can get rid of NASA, which tries to block all private ventures that try to get into space, the sooner we'll be able to conquer and colonize space.
...I can't see trying to slander the guy for wanting to keep what he found.
Slander? Are you saying the judge is lying? The guy himself is saying that he found the rock in a container of debris after the fire.
Also, it doesn't sound like he's trying to cash in on it (at least not yet), but is rather fond of his "good luck charm".
If he wants to take that argument off the table, then he should promise never to sell the rock, never to rent it, and to have it returned to NASA once he's dead.
The quote should be "We will no longer need to carry a wallet" and NOT "no one will be carrying a wallet anymore".
And this, I can actually believe, I've already seen cops have DMV digital pictures of us on their laptops in their patrol cars. Now, this doesn't mean that they'll ban people from carrying their own id/driver license, that's probably never going to happen, but as long as your car is not reported stolen, and you're not black or something, I can envision it not being a big deal of not having your own driver license on you during a traffic stop.
Slashdot Mirror
The picture you linked to is not stock Android, it's HTC Sense that was tailored for Verizon. With so many different permutations of the same code base over different hardware/carrier customizations, it's really easy to find Android examples that will support your argument.
And android does still have Blackberry-like phones, it's just that they're not very popular. Just take a look at these more recent examples.
http://www.androiddudes.com/2010/06/07/android-powered-acer-betouch-e130-betouch-e120/
And also, do note what the stock android interface looks like in the picture below the first one. Stock Android 1.6 is not nearly as pretty, or iPhone-like, as HTC's or Samsung's implementations.
If you want to blame anyone for making iPhone-like UIs, blame HTC or blame Samsung. Not that Apple is going to block HTC from importing phones anymore, HTC recently purchased some patents (that have already won against Apple in US courts) and so HTC could easily block Apple from importing iPhones/iPads into the US (long before Apple could even try to do the same back to HTC).
You can't educate willful indifference.
Users KNOW they should have strong passwords, but consistently, in my security audits of big companies without technical controls in place to prevent it, 30% or more of passwords are crap like "master" and "cookie" and "god".
I'm not kidding. People DONT see value. Even if they do, they think... "well, everyone needs to do that, but I am special". It's human nature.
Actually, you can to an extent.
The way I've educated my mom about secure passwords was to teach her how easy it was to crack her own passwords. And when I say teach, I don't mean to say that I broke her passwords for her. No, I showed her the script, explained it a little, and then I made sure she filled out some of the paths and that she ran the script herself.
That was half of the education process. The other half was to teach her how to make a password out of a long sentence of her choice.
Just explaining something doesn't always work. For some things, I believe there must be several layers of understanding before it has an effect. And even then, there will always be people who really don't care, like you say, but I believe that percentage to be far lower than 30%. By the way, now my mom's passwords are so freaking complicated and god-awful-long, I think she's over doing them -- but that's for another story.
Of course, it makes sense that a security consultant would want to centralize security even more. He would profit from such centralization, but he wouldn't profit from ensuring that we get better security.
In my opinion, computer security should be approached just like a public health issue. We should teach people good computer hygiene, just like we teach people about proper personal hygiene. Granted, this approach is not going to solve every problem, and this educational effort would have to be never ending, but I don't think there is any way around that.
We need to start teaching good computer hygiene courses in schools. And for the generations that are already out of school, we need to create ways to get them to catch up to the kids we educate on this subject. For this to really work, everyone needs to learn about proper computer hygiene. Not just the office worker, or IT personnel, but the janitor, the big-shot CEO, the stay-at-home wife, the unemployed, and even grandpa/grandma. The burden of good computer hygiene simply can not be pawned off unto someone else anymore.
And this goes for the people that are going to teach our kids (or teach us) about good computer hygiene, we can't let security firms, manufacturers, ISPs, software vendors, or even content providers, teach our kids about proper security. We need to start taking responsibility for this ourselves. The industry does not teach, it obfuscates. That's a big part of how it makes money. And letting them teach our kids about good computer hygiene would only lead to too many conflicts of interests. That's why we need to do this ourselves.
And I say "computer hygiene", but we should probably call it something else. The term "computer" is not enough these days to convey every type of security problems we should be teaching our kids (or ourselves) about. There is social engineering, which can be very low tech. And there are many more types of powerful computing devices, that can still have problems, but that we do not specifically call computers anymore.
The summary implies that the developers didn't know that they would get no money. The article makes it clear that they not only were told they would get nothing, but they confirmed in subsequent emails with Amazon that they would get nothing. Knowing this, they still decided to go ahead with the deal.
To be fair, everything told them that they would get 20% -- even their admin control panel, then once they made the decision to go ahead, that's when Amazon decided to pull this switch on them, and then asked them if they still wanted to go ahead with it.
So yes, you're right, they got told about it before they made the final decision, and they did go ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that Amazon pulled a bait and switch on them (and then included in the email wording to the effect that they were not allowed to discuss this offer with others).
Ooops, I should have written "bead currency", not "bid currency".
A better metaphor would be the Bazaar and the Street Mardis Gras/Carnival in New Orleans, the Bazaar being Google+, and facebook being the Carnaval with its own virtual bid currency where everybody pokes you.
In a Bazaar, you can actually do business with people and have normal relationships with them, because you can actually see their faces, and so their identities are somewhat tied to the physical realm.
But if people are wearing masks, then some identities are only tied to the mask, and two polar extremes can emerge from that. On one side, you get the corporate identity which remains always bland, dull, fake, and very often not helpful at all. Take a look at any Corporate blog/facebook page to see what I'm talking about. And on the other side, you get anonymous personas that get to pretend they're anything they can think up, the latest examples being that they're young, pretty, and lesbian, when in fact they're none of those things, not even females in the first place.
Do you know what was said? I followed all the links, but I didn't see what was said.
May be because your PS3 doesn't really need to be that secure, so it doesn't do encryption (have you ever heard of a PS3 logger yet? on the other hand, key loggers, even wireless key loggers are common enough), and perhaps because it doesn't need to skimp on power since at least the console part of your PS3 is plugged into the wall outlet (instead of being fed power through a usb port, which has its own power output limitation).
Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.
NFC does support cryptography. It just doesn't support a back and forth handshake.
Bluetooth has a higher bitrate. ... in fact, the only thing NFC seems to do better is that it takes less time to setup because (ta-da!) it has no security built into it.
Bluetooth has longer range.
The power consumption is similar
I've got news for you. Less time to set up, and a smaller range it can transmit on, does mean that it's going to use less energy overall.
Besides, you're giving us a false dichotomy. It's not whether Bluetooth is a better choice over NFC. In many cases, it is a better choice. It is really whether NFC combined with Bluetooth is a better choice than using Bluetooth alone. And in that sense, the combined solution can become even more secure and less energy intensive, in at least some use cases, because at least with NFC, you don't need to broadcast your Bluetooth id to the world, and you don't even need to power on your Bluetooth antenna until it's turned on through the NFC connection.
You are 100% incorrect about HDMI mirroring on the iPad 2.
You're right. I just did some research, and I stand corrected. I had no idea this had changed.
Apparently, Steve Jobs credits teachers for pushing Apple to backtrack on the previous hdmi-drm scheme.
But really? Do you really think it's the teachers that changed his mind? Or was it the fact that some Android phones were coming out with no DRM on their hdmi connection?
And yes, that last statement is another "theoretical claim" on my part. I actually have no way to know what was in Steve Jobs mind at the time. For all I know, Steve Jobs doesn't consider the android tablet a strong contender either
You are 100% incorrect about HDMI mirroring on the iPad 2.
You're right. I just did some research, and I stand corrected. I had no idea this had changed.
Apparently, Steve Jobs credits teachers for pushing Apple to backtrack on the previous hdmi-drm scheme.
But really? Do you really think it's the teachers that changed his mind? Or was it the fact that some Android phones were coming out with no DRM on their hdmi connection?
And yes, that last statement is another "theoretical claim" on my part. I actually have no way to know what was in Steve Jobs mind at the time. For all I know, Steve Jobs doesn't consider the android tablet a strong contender either
Isn't this what I said? "(not just on an application basis, but on the entire device, this is useful when you're using it while laying in bed)." I already knew that the iPad could let you lock the screen on an application basis. Do you think this goes far enough? Don't you switch task/applications once in a while?
Also, are you saying that you can only lock it in landscape mode, not in portrait mode? If true, that's got to be super annoying too. I don't think I'd ever be able to read most of my manga collection in bed if I could never lock it in portrait mode.
What are you implying? That the Samsung Tab 10.1 is all bad?
You may not seem to like this, but the Samsung Tab 10.1 is a strong contender (to the big iPhone lookalike). For some people with expensive existing music collections/movie collections (that predate iTunes or that were not gotten through iTunes), an Android tablet is really the only option they have. To a consumer, it's not a question of freedom, they rarely care about that, it's really a question of being able to play the stuff they already paid for.
Not only that, but the Samsung Tab is lighter and feels better in your hands than the iPad 2, and has the ability to turn off the auto-screen rotation (not just on an application basis, but on the entire device, this is useful when you're using it while laying in bed). And unlike the iPad 2, the Honeycomb version of Android was designed with the size of the larger screen in mind. Haven't you noticed that the screen icons of the iPad 2 are far too spread apart than they really need to be? And don't get me started on multi-tasking which the iOS still hasn't gotten right (despite their claims to the contrary).
And if you happen to own an hdmi-enabled television/flat screen, the next best choice is probably the Xoom, not the iPad2 (which tries to control everything you try to video-out). With a Xoom, you can mirror anything you have on your screen, you can play games on the big screen, you can play your music collection/movie collection through it. You can do anything through it. This is a huge plus for my friends. With the iPad 2, the only way it will allow you to play a movie through to a bigger screen is only if you purchase the movie through iTunes (it won't even allow your netflix streaming to go through to a bigger screen unless you're willing to purchase that same movie a second time).
So like I said, the Samsung Tab is a strong contender, and even the Xoom (in some areas). And unless Apple loosens up the control it holds over everything you do on your iPad, it's leaving huge openings for Android-based tablets to sweep in and take over some of the Market.
Still, according to articles on the BSA, that's irrelevant and they'll end up suing us anyway.
First off, do not despair. That's not going to do you any good.
Don't be afraid to tell the lawyer that you don't have any money during your free initial 30 minutes consultation (assuming you're in the US, call your local State bar association for a referral). I'm sure that you'll be able to work something out with him or her.
For now, read the article quoted below. The point of that article is that you can do a lot of this work yourself, but that you should still hire a lawyer to at least "supervise" the self-audit process and act as a go-between.
Now the article doesn't mention it, but if I were you I'd check that any old computer laying around the closet has current valid licenses. Whatever happens, make sure you do not get penalized for super old hardware that you're not even using anymore. Also, start inspecting any computer the disgruntled employee has had access to. You never know what he may have installed on there without your knowledge. It's good to go in this with your eyes wide-open.
And then, try contacting the same types of companies in the same niche industry as yours, chances are that they're not just targeting you -- since they recently increased their volume of enforcement letters. So if you can find others within the same jurisdiction as yours, with a similar predicament, you may be able to band together and pool resources.
http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Projects-Management/What-to-Do-When-You-Receive-a-BSA-Audit-Letter/
Let's face it, software asset management (SAM) might be a best practice, but there are still plenty of organizations out there who haven't instituted SAM due to a lack of resources or initiative. If your organization is one of them and the Business Software Alliance (BSA) hasn't come calling yet, there's still time to get your house in order. But once that BSA threat letter hits the mailbox, the ballgame changes.
The BSA is known to be a persistent enforcement agency which rarely grants clemency to organizations once it begins settlement proceedings. The following eight tips are offered by two attorneys who specialize in BSA defense cases; they give advice on what to do once your business receives a letter requesting a BSA audit.
1. Retain a lawyer.
The BSA is an efficient organization when it comes to extracting punitive damages from companies found to be in a non-compliant licensing situation—its experts and lawyers know copyright laws inside and out because that is all that they do. For that reason, Scott recommends seeking legal counsel as soon as an audit request is received from the BSA.
"Whether the attorney is working in-house or outside the firm, don't go it alone," you have an audit," said Rob Scott, partner at Houston-based Scott and Scott. Scott said. "The BSA has very experienced attorneys working for it and this is a very complicated process. It involves not only the legal issues related to copyright law, but also it subsumes with it all of the software licensing rules because the copyright claim that lies underneath the BSA audit matter is related to the software licensing rules."
2. Cooperate—carefully.
As much as a business person would love to screw up their eyes and wish the BSA away, the trouble will only multiply through inaction. Though the BSA is not a law enforcement agency it is acting on the behalf of the software companies and it will take matters to civil court if a business does not cooperate with the self-audit process and settlement negotiations.
"When you get a letter from the BSA do not throw it away," said Steve Helland, partner at the Minneapolis-based law firm of Fredrikson and Byron. "That is a serious tip, because some people think that 'Oh if I ignore this it will just go away, but the cases where the BSA is most likely to file in court are where they think there has been infringement and they don't get any response
Not for me, I have the Netflix one DVD + streaming service, I don't have cable, and between Netflix and Hulu I almost only watch streaming movies.
It's no the resolution that's important to me, it's the selection of movies that are, and as long as Netflix keeps expanding its selection of streaming content, I'm happy. And as to the data caps, where I live, I can still get (true) unlimited data for way less than what cable would cost me anyway even I add the additional cost of Netflix that new customers have to pay.
1. The iPad is made in China (the paranoids could say there could be a backdoor in there, just like we've made backdoors within Intel products and Xerox Machines in the past, we're fearful that a large enough foreign power would try doing the same back to us at some point. It wouldn't have to be an obvious backdoor. Introducing a vulnerability or two into iPhones/iPads at a low enough level could still allow China access to our devices and yet still provide some plausibility of denial that this was just a vulnerability, not a purposeful backdoor).
2. The iPad needs iTunes connectivity. The iPad/iPhone is a consumer device first and foremost.
3. Android can be encrypted all the way down to the hardware level, there are custom ROMs and chips made by researchers and defense contractors for that purpose. I also believe RIM, Nokia, and Windows Phone 6.5 had that too. The iPhone received some kind of encryption capability only recently, and then, I'm not even sure if it goes all the way down to the hardware (and even if it did, then the paranoids would complain that we shouldn't trust hardware-level encryption that's manufactured in China).
4. The iPhone/iPad often needs custom proprietary parts. With Android, MS/Nokia, RIM/BlackBerry, they allow you to use something as trivial as OEM batteries, or OEM extended batteries. The military has a long history of requiring a second source for all the hardware it commissions, hence the only way that Intel could get government contracts was to teach its arch nemesis AMD how to manufacture some of the same exact parts the military commissioned. And right now, Apple just doesn't seem interested in sharing its technology or licensing its technology to a competitor just so it could win big government contracts (the company is making plenty of money as it is, it certainly doesn't need to blow its IP in order to pander to the needs of the military).
5. The learning curve for doing iPad/iPhone development is still much higher than doing stuff on Android (although with better HTML5 mobile support, that may change soon enough I suppose).
6. Steve Jobs is a damn controlling hippy. There I said it. See my snippet of the quote from the iPhone/iPad/iTunes Terms of Services below. This is not to say that the military is interested in making weapons with iPads, I seriously doubt anyone wants to do that, but this clause just seems to be completely unnecessary in my opinion and would cause enough of a pause from military procurement to consider that Apple products really haven't been designed with the military in mind in the first place and that it may be hard to extract extra concessions from Apple in case the military needs anything else from Apple.
"Licensee also agrees that Licensee will not use the Apple Software for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
On an Android tablet, that feature can be turned off (I assume it's the same on an iPad).
Forget their name, just take a look their company uniforms, they look more like inmates -- not security guards.
How can we know? The patents are only disclosed under NDA. In order for Google to officially know about those patents, it would need to throw one of its OEMs under the bus (since Google wouldn't be fined for violating an NDA it's not a party to, an NDA is only a civil procedure, but the OEM itself would be heavily fined for having broken the NDA it signed with Microsoft).
They already offer these connection options, and they won't be showing any targeted ads to folks that don't use webmail anyway, so why waste cycles scanning that mail?
Is there a way to turn off webmail? The answer is no. Can you guarantee Google that you will never check your email through webmail (for an emergency or something)? The answer again is no (also, most people love the convenience of having access to webmail even if they never use it).
It's not like Google scans your email at the last possible second every time you check it, that would be too intense. It probably scans emails just like it scans web pages, in batches, and then it build indexes of keywords, so it can just retrieve its results (instead of computing them on the fly each time).
There was a lot of complaining about this when GMail was launched. Some people (myself included) refuse to use it to this day because of that reason.
You could use the paid version. Those versions do not have ads, thought as administrator, it does allow me to serve my own "web clips" for all my domain users and scan/backup all their emails as well, so you would have to make sure you're the one paying the bill and not let some other person or family member pay it for you (otherwise, you'd just be handing over your privacy to them instead).
They already offer these connection options, and they won't be showing any targeted ads to folks that don't use webmail anyway, so why waste cycles scanning that mail?
Doesn't Yahoo insert ads everywhere, even inside the emails themselves? At least, that's what Yahoo Groups does, and I wouldn't be surprised if the free version of Yahoo POP mail did the same too.
Technically, the trustees of the museum should be the ones suing. If the curator was in on it, and even if he was not, it's their obligation as Trustees to be the final line of defense (both against this guy **and** against NASA). If they don't sue, they could be sued themselves for negligence (depending on which State they're in).
Now if the Trust was dissolved, then that's where things would get complicated, but hopefully that's not the case. Once the moon rock is safely back in the hands of its original owner, the Trust, then it could then negotiate a fair exchange with NASA (or NASA could try suing them I suppose), but god knows, NASA has plenty of stuff it could trade a museum with, and that may be the fastest way (instead of invoking some weird law that NASA thinks it owns everything that was recovered from the moon, which itself is ludicrous)
we should just go get a bunch more rocks so that they are not valuable.
That would make them less valuable may be, but that would not completely eradicate their value. There is still the cost of going to the moon and back (which isn't completely free yet). It would just be cheaper to make the guy an offer he can't refuse, let's say give him one billion dollars, and then continue to defund NASA. The sooner we can get rid of NASA, which tries to block all private ventures that try to get into space, the sooner we'll be able to conquer and colonize space.
...I can't see trying to slander the guy for wanting to keep what he found.
Slander? Are you saying the judge is lying? The guy himself is saying that he found the rock in a container of debris after the fire.
Also, it doesn't sound like he's trying to cash in on it (at least not yet), but is rather fond of his "good luck charm".
If he wants to take that argument off the table, then he should promise never to sell the rock, never to rent it, and to have it returned to NASA once he's dead.
The quote should be "We will no longer need to carry a wallet" and NOT "no one will be carrying a wallet anymore".
And this, I can actually believe, I've already seen cops have DMV digital pictures of us on their laptops in their patrol cars. Now, this doesn't mean that they'll ban people from carrying their own id/driver license, that's probably never going to happen, but as long as your car is not reported stolen, and you're not black or something, I can envision it not being a big deal of not having your own driver license on you during a traffic stop.