"According to the head of Communication Affairs the draft bill aims to discourage illegal use of internet telephony, not any VoIP calls made PC-to-PC or PC-to-phone. He also indicated that the draft bill prevents illegal use of internet phone as some people are making international calls with domestic charge." "According to the draft bill, anyone who uses internet phone illegally is punishable by up to 15 years in prison."
Lucky for him, most of our SlashdotTV editors are located in Ethiopia.
Competition for qualified talent is difficult at the CEO level.
That's why we should have a H1-B program for CEOs.
I'm sorry, but GM's CEO is not 34 times more talented or more qualified than Toyota's CEO. I say we outsource all our CEO positions to Japan.
If someone can run ICANN they can run a lot of other stuff too.
Yes, they can probably run Fannie Mae.
It must be really difficult to run a government-granted monopoly as if it were your own private domain. With an almost unlimited budget, it must be really difficult to hire consultants who are going to do all the work for you.
Computer games have done that since the dawn of time. *grabs cane*
That makes sense. Most amateurs and internet-generated comics do it that way too. It's way cheaper to reuse the same drawing 50 times by sliding it than having to draw the same object 50 times.
Creating new characters is way cheaper too. Who has the budget to pay a franchise for the rights to an existing character anyhow? Very few publishers do. It's far better to create your own characters, and then pretend that your character will be good enough so that others will be willing to pay outrageous sums of money for it some day.
The organization also pointed out that there are many other similar applications available at the site, 'which can be used to steal content from CBS, which owns Download.com.'
Yeah, CBS is also going to be real happy about this.
Now even less people will download their adware/malware infected wrappers. That can't be good for Download.com's business model.
It's one thing for the RIAA to go after little kids for downloading music, it's another thing entirely to go after its own members (but then again, CBS is probably just a member of MPAA, not RIAA, so may be I just answered my own question).
Professor Tim Wu's speech, in this case, is just New York Times speech. Tim Wu is just telling what the New York Times wants to hear and is willing to print.
And the New York Times has a vested interest in decreasing the influence Google has over its own search results. The more Google and other search engines can be hampered by political machinations and government regulations, the more value and influence the New York Times may be able to regain once they're out of the way.
Or perhaps can anyone name a national bank who has allowed them to get a debit card that doesn't do this?
You must be in Europe. In the US, most cards still don't have this functionality. Right now, this vulnerability seems to be limited to MasterCard nfc cards, not Visa nfc cards (and yes, the Mastercard nfc specs are supposed to be different from the Visa nfc ones, not that I've even seen the Visa ones, so I can't confirm that for a fact).
Your other option could be to use an NFC-phone to pay for things. Contrary to the popular opinion on slashdot, I believe that most nfc phones are actually much more secure than the leather/plastic wallet you might already be carrying.
And if you don't trust either of those options, there are always those faraday cages envelopes you can buy on ebay. Those will work for sure.
Usually, that manufacturer assembles the limited runs of devices they give out to Western governments and the military. The parts still come from China, but the device itself is assembled in Canada for security reasons (not that this guarantees anything of course).
The rest of their devices however, get both manufactured and assembled in China. Only in China and/or Asia can they produce the kind of volumes required, not to mention they don't have to pay the normal Canadian Union wages over there.
It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing...
Perhaps, the case would have been a little bit different if Sun had not open sourced Java in the first place.
Also, it wasn't against Oracle's objections. You've got to remember that Oracle didn't even own Java at the time Google cloned it. Sun owned it and Sun had no problems with Google cloning it. So it's not like Oracle can even claim it was a victim in all of this, it wasn't.
Are you serious? If you actually like Star Trek, you should start with the Start Trek series you still like, and stop with the series where you know they've jumped the shark. And I don't think we need to tell you what those are.
No joke, dead serious---Here in the US, they scan you again if you sneeze....really-- I sneezed, looked up, and all these TSA agents were looking at me like I killed someone...
I believe you.
My dog sneezes when it gets nervous. Personally, I'll yawn almost compulsively before I'm about to go on stage and give a public performance (It's because I'm always afraid that I'll yawn during my performance).
I don't think my dog or myself are typical, but I wouldn't be surprised if TSA agents weren't trained to look these kinds of tell-tale signs of nervousness for the few of us that have these reactions. The sneezing could also be a tell-tale sign for putting pepper all over yourself, in the mistaken belief that the pepper might defeat the drug-sniffing dogs.
Getting groped by private screeners (punny) is totally more liberating than when done by TSA agents.
Hopefully, consensual groping by private screeners will still be legal in Nevada (outside of County lines).
Bonus points if those private screeners still get to impersonate police officers with their uniforms and have ready-access to handcuffs just like our current crop of TSA security guards / police academy dropouts.
The REAL news here is that Jobs was charging 30% and Time said "no" to that. The new Apple arranged for lower rates.
Not quite. The rates are staying the same for the rest of the publishers.
And as far as I'm aware, this new deal only affects Time, Inc. just in time for Apple's WWDC 2012, which has already started and which is ending this Friday. After all, even if Apple's makes zero percent in commission from Time, Inc, the illusion that Time, Inc. is on board with Apple's onerous terms may persuade other publishers to accept those onerous terms themselves.
Does this mean that you can go abroad to buy one (assuming that this monopoly doesn't exist everywhere)? If you can find a device with the same kind of quality abroad for $500, you might as well use the rest of your money for a nice vacation.
can anyone join this, or is it only for patent holders who "throw their patents into the pool"?
Of course, even Microsoft can join with just one patent.
And then, they can give the rest of their patents to a proxy shell corporation, like they have done in the past, and continue to sue everybody that way.
A better analogy would be the airline industry. The airline industry likes to over-book airplane seats it may not have because it's always trying to optimize its profit-margin.
The same will happen with cloud-services. Cloud-services will always try to optimize their own profit-margins, at the risk of triggering significant outages.
And I don't see what this has to do with the financial crisis at all.
If I stood in front of your house taking pics with a camera on a 10 foot monopod, you'd rightfully wonder WTF. But Google, with their 10 foot tall cameras, somehow gets a pass.
You've made a good point, but just to clarify.
The height Google Street View was using for their camera was actually around 8.2 feet, or about 2.5 meters, and those pictures are usually taken from the middle of the road, not just a few inches next to the top of your fence.
And no, I'm not trying to give Google an excuse here. 8.2 feet in some of the smaller streets in Switzerland was too high in my opinion. And I'm glad that the government is making them lower that height. But for many larger streets, wider boulevards, and autoroutes, where larger trucks and buses routinely drive on, 2.5 meters is about the eye level of some of the truck drivers and bus passengers, and in my opinion that makes the expectation of privacy at that height in those areas much different.
For one thing, 2.5 meters was just enough to see above the car roof of most cars, but if you lower that limit across the board, many more street numbers and road signs will start getting obstructed depending on traffic, and that could seriously decrease the continuity and the quality of the resulting product.
Also blanking out prisons and women's shelters, doesn't make much sense to me. The Swiss government obviously didn't learn from the mistakes of other governments or Barbra Streisand. Experience has shown, that hiding information, which would normally be publicly accessible, only helps publicize that information even more and attract it undue attention.
Yes, but it will be more like a little light that wiggles around the screen, or a little bird in a cage, not the actual LSD-inspired cat food commercials that are usually targeted at their human owners.
The cats will also be able to miaow at the TV to trigger a credit card purchase and a delivery of cat food through the mail slot that next day. This functionality should save quite a bit of heart-hake the next time a cat owner dies and its cat has nothing to eat except for its owner's body.
Restricting it to AT&T frequencies seems counter-productive.
No, that's not the problem. Even if they had the same AT&T bands in Australia, they'd still be skating on thin ice.
The real problem is our US consumer watchdog agencies. They simply don't care anymore. If they did care, there would be a minimum font size for disclaimers shown on television (that I currently can't even read on my huge television), and the carriers wouldn't call their services "unlimited" (and Sprint, which calls all the other major carriers liars, wouldn't have a bs "data premium" fee itself tacked on top of its existing advertised rates for its so-called "unlimited data plans").
Personally, I am not a Apple fanboy, not in the least, but I wouldn't blame Apple for this. If you want to blame someone, blame the US advertising environment the Apple executives are coming from. Advertising in the US has become a race to the bottom. Since almost every large US company is lying in their ads to consumers, and most of those companies are getting away with those lies, the only companies that are getting hurt in the marketplace are the ones that are not lying enough (or that don't have a large enough advertising budget compared to their competitors).
Even if they had opened the package and seen hard drives, to know there might have been a problem they would have had to connect them to computers and read the data off them. It's just not reasonable in the slightest.
And even that, if the data had been properly encrypted for transit, opening that FedEx package, scanning the data, and decoding/decrypting it, could easily take an extra one hundred years per usb stick.
Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"
I can imagine FedEx's response.
"What are you suggesting? That we open every FedEx package we ship out? To check against some kind of real-time up-to-second list provided by the police department for what's already in their evidence locker?
What happens if we don't do that? Are you going to arrest us and freeze all our assets too? Wouldn't it be easier to just put a lock on your evidence locker and carefully vet/punish the people who took out the evidence in the first place? Or at least punish/fire/jail the people who gave them access to that locker? "
Slashdot Mirror
"According to the head of Communication Affairs the draft bill aims to discourage illegal use of internet telephony, not any VoIP calls made PC-to-PC or PC-to-phone. He also indicated that the draft bill prevents illegal use of internet phone as some people are making international calls with domestic charge." "According to the draft bill, anyone who uses internet phone illegally is punishable by up to 15 years in prison."
Lucky for him, most of our SlashdotTV editors are located in Ethiopia.
Can you guys arrange for a video-Skype interview?
Competition for qualified talent is difficult at the CEO level.
That's why we should have a H1-B program for CEOs.
I'm sorry, but GM's CEO is not 34 times more talented or more qualified than Toyota's CEO. I say we outsource all our CEO positions to Japan.
If someone can run ICANN they can run a lot of other stuff too.
Yes, they can probably run Fannie Mae.
It must be really difficult to run a government-granted monopoly as if it were your own private domain. With an almost unlimited budget, it must be really difficult to hire consultants who are going to do all the work for you.
Computer games have done that since the dawn of time. *grabs cane*
That makes sense. Most amateurs and internet-generated comics do it that way too. It's way cheaper to reuse the same drawing 50 times by sliding it than having to draw the same object 50 times.
Creating new characters is way cheaper too. Who has the budget to pay a franchise for the rights to an existing character anyhow? Very few publishers do. It's far better to create your own characters, and then pretend that your character will be good enough so that others will be willing to pay outrageous sums of money for it some day.
The organization also pointed out that there are many other similar applications available at the site, 'which can be used to steal content from CBS, which owns Download.com.'
Yeah, CBS is also going to be real happy about this.
Now even less people will download their adware/malware infected wrappers. That can't be good for Download.com's business model.
It's one thing for the RIAA to go after little kids for downloading music, it's another thing entirely to go after its own members (but then again, CBS is probably just a member of MPAA, not RIAA, so may be I just answered my own question).
That's what I was going to say.
Professor Tim Wu's speech, in this case, is just New York Times speech. Tim Wu is just telling what the New York Times wants to hear and is willing to print.
And the New York Times has a vested interest in decreasing the influence Google has over its own search results. The more Google and other search engines can be hampered by political machinations and government regulations, the more value and influence the New York Times may be able to regain once they're out of the way.
Or perhaps can anyone name a national bank who has allowed them to get a debit card that doesn't do this?
You must be in Europe. In the US, most cards still don't have this functionality. Right now, this vulnerability seems to be limited to MasterCard nfc cards, not Visa nfc cards (and yes, the Mastercard nfc specs are supposed to be different from the Visa nfc ones, not that I've even seen the Visa ones, so I can't confirm that for a fact).
Your other option could be to use an NFC-phone to pay for things. Contrary to the popular opinion on slashdot, I believe that most nfc phones are actually much more secure than the leather/plastic wallet you might already be carrying.
And if you don't trust either of those options, there are always those faraday cages envelopes you can buy on ebay. Those will work for sure.
Usually, that manufacturer assembles the limited runs of devices they give out to Western governments and the military. The parts still come from China, but the device itself is assembled in Canada for security reasons (not that this guarantees anything of course).
The rest of their devices however, get both manufactured and assembled in China. Only in China and/or Asia can they produce the kind of volumes required, not to mention they don't have to pay the normal Canadian Union wages over there.
Sounds more like they took the door off the hinges, and put up a big sign saying "NO DOOR! COME ON IN!".
Since the robots.txt was actually asking search engines not to index that page.
The sign was more like "You see that door there. Yes, that one. Do not go there. Do not open it. There is nothing to see there. "
Hopefully, that was just a robot's trap with dummy data in it.
It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing...
Perhaps, the case would have been a little bit different if Sun had not open sourced Java in the first place.
Also, it wasn't against Oracle's objections. You've got to remember that Oracle didn't even own Java at the time Google cloned it. Sun owned it and Sun had no problems with Google cloning it. So it's not like Oracle can even claim it was a victim in all of this, it wasn't.
Are you serious? If you actually like Star Trek, you should start with the Start Trek series you still like, and stop with the series where you know they've jumped the shark. And I don't think we need to tell you what those are.
No joke, dead serious---Here in the US, they scan you again if you sneeze....really-- I sneezed, looked up, and all these TSA agents were looking at me like I killed someone...
I believe you.
My dog sneezes when it gets nervous. Personally, I'll yawn almost compulsively before I'm about to go on stage and give a public performance (It's because I'm always afraid that I'll yawn during my performance).
I don't think my dog or myself are typical, but I wouldn't be surprised if TSA agents weren't trained to look these kinds of tell-tale signs of nervousness for the few of us that have these reactions. The sneezing could also be a tell-tale sign for putting pepper all over yourself, in the mistaken belief that the pepper might defeat the drug-sniffing dogs.
Getting groped by private screeners (punny) is totally more liberating than when done by TSA agents.
Hopefully, consensual groping by private screeners will still be legal in Nevada (outside of County lines).
Bonus points if those private screeners still get to impersonate police officers with their uniforms and have ready-access to handcuffs just like our current crop of TSA security guards / police academy dropouts.
This is Rand Paul, not Ron.
Damn that Ron Paul!!
He should have named his kid Judas Paul, or Anti Paul, to make it easy for voters.
The REAL news here is that Jobs was charging 30% and Time said "no" to that. The new Apple arranged for lower rates.
Not quite. The rates are staying the same for the rest of the publishers.
And as far as I'm aware, this new deal only affects Time, Inc. just in time for Apple's WWDC 2012, which has already started and which is ending this Friday. After all, even if Apple's makes zero percent in commission from Time, Inc, the illusion that Time, Inc. is on board with Apple's onerous terms may persuade other publishers to accept those onerous terms themselves.
I honestly don't understand. [...] What the hell is wrong with the rest of you?
Not believing a survey sponsored by a company with a financial interest in the results of the survey.
That's called critical thinking. That's what's wrong with us apparently.
Does this mean that you can go abroad to buy one (assuming that this monopoly doesn't exist everywhere)? If you can find a device with the same kind of quality abroad for $500, you might as well use the rest of your money for a nice vacation.
can anyone join this, or is it only for patent holders who "throw their patents into the pool"?
Of course, even Microsoft can join with just one patent.
And then, they can give the rest of their patents to a proxy shell corporation, like they have done in the past, and continue to sue everybody that way.
The analogy the author uses doesn't work.
A better analogy would be the airline industry. The airline industry likes to over-book airplane seats it may not have because it's always trying to optimize its profit-margin.
The same will happen with cloud-services. Cloud-services will always try to optimize their own profit-margins, at the risk of triggering significant outages.
And I don't see what this has to do with the financial crisis at all.
I nominate
HTTP 233 - because not everyone lives in "your country"
If I stood in front of your house taking pics with a camera on a 10 foot monopod, you'd rightfully wonder WTF. But Google, with their 10 foot tall cameras, somehow gets a pass.
You've made a good point, but just to clarify.
The height Google Street View was using for their camera was actually around 8.2 feet, or about 2.5 meters, and those pictures are usually taken from the middle of the road, not just a few inches next to the top of your fence.
And no, I'm not trying to give Google an excuse here. 8.2 feet in some of the smaller streets in Switzerland was too high in my opinion. And I'm glad that the government is making them lower that height. But for many larger streets, wider boulevards, and autoroutes, where larger trucks and buses routinely drive on, 2.5 meters is about the eye level of some of the truck drivers and bus passengers, and in my opinion that makes the expectation of privacy at that height in those areas much different.
For one thing, 2.5 meters was just enough to see above the car roof of most cars, but if you lower that limit across the board, many more street numbers and road signs will start getting obstructed depending on traffic, and that could seriously decrease the continuity and the quality of the resulting product.
Also blanking out prisons and women's shelters, doesn't make much sense to me. The Swiss government obviously didn't learn from the mistakes of other governments or Barbra Streisand. Experience has shown, that hiding information, which would normally be publicly accessible, only helps publicize that information even more and attract it undue attention.
Yes, but it will be more like a little light that wiggles around the screen, or a little bird in a cage, not the actual LSD-inspired cat food commercials that are usually targeted at their human owners.
The cats will also be able to miaow at the TV to trigger a credit card purchase and a delivery of cat food through the mail slot that next day. This functionality should save quite a bit of heart-hake the next time a cat owner dies and its cat has nothing to eat except for its owner's body.
Restricting it to AT&T frequencies seems counter-productive.
No, that's not the problem. Even if they had the same AT&T bands in Australia, they'd still be skating on thin ice.
The real problem is our US consumer watchdog agencies. They simply don't care anymore. If they did care, there would be a minimum font size for disclaimers shown on television (that I currently can't even read on my huge television), and the carriers wouldn't call their services "unlimited" (and Sprint, which calls all the other major carriers liars, wouldn't have a bs "data premium" fee itself tacked on top of its existing advertised rates for its so-called "unlimited data plans").
Personally, I am not a Apple fanboy, not in the least, but I wouldn't blame Apple for this. If you want to blame someone, blame the US advertising environment the Apple executives are coming from. Advertising in the US has become a race to the bottom. Since almost every large US company is lying in their ads to consumers, and most of those companies are getting away with those lies, the only companies that are getting hurt in the marketplace are the ones that are not lying enough (or that don't have a large enough advertising budget compared to their competitors).
Even if they had opened the package and seen hard drives, to know there might have been a problem they would have had to connect them to computers and read the data off them. It's just not reasonable in the slightest.
And even that, if the data had been properly encrypted for transit, opening that FedEx package, scanning the data, and decoding/decrypting it, could easily take an extra one hundred years per usb stick.
Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"
I can imagine FedEx's response.
"What are you suggesting? That we open every FedEx package we ship out? To check against some kind of real-time up-to-second list provided by the police department for what's already in their evidence locker?
What happens if we don't do that? Are you going to arrest us and freeze all our assets too? Wouldn't it be easier to just put a lock on your evidence locker and carefully vet/punish the people who took out the evidence in the first place? Or at least punish/fire/jail the people who gave them access to that locker? "
Why is the website registered in Montinegro?
Most likely for the .me top level domain name.
The actual business seems to be based in Santiago, Chile.