You can get an unlimited text/unlimited data pay as you go bundle for £12 on a 3G network.
Three have said that they won't charge extra for 4G connectivity so existing unlimited data plans will be fine on that network. Sadly they came out worst in the auction so they aren't going to be able to offer the same headline speeds as the other networks.
If Arlie is right why is there more than one Linux distro? Why does Linux exist at all, we had free BSD Unixes before hand? Why is there more than one Smartphone OS? Why is there more than one console? Why are there both diesel and petrol combustion engines? In fact why are there engines at all, horses will do the job of pulling carts and carriages around.
Arlie is pissed because something that Intel releases is likely to get more traction than his pet project. His comments are as much about ego as anything else. I've had some pretty decent achievements in my IT career but at no point have I been that arrogant to assume that my way was the only way.
Sailfish runs Android apps and has a better interface. I could see Jolla being bought by Motorola or HTC or Sony as a way to get back into the game against Samsung.
Why would Google (Motorola) buy them? I think someone has missed an important development.
The answer is to get rid of email and replace it with something secure. The problem is, no one has stepped up to try it. Google Wave had promise in this area. Texting and instant messaging have chipped away at it a bit, but nothing has come out and replaced it.
Email needs end to end encryption along with built in spam prevention. It needs to look and feel like it does now but with all the changes made on the backend as to make the transition for end users seamless.
No, it doesn't need to get rid of email. What it needs is a secure, authenticated, replacement for SMTP as the transfer protocol.
Google Wave? Can I please have some of the drugs you are smoking? Lets replace a standard protocol and facility that has been around for 30+ years with a proprietary system developed by a secretive company who's stated purpose is to analyse your correspondence for their financial gain.
Spamhaus operates in a very broad brush manner deliberately. Its not a universally liked approach and comes with its own issues. It does however get ISPs to listen and make changes because it hits them in the pocket. Does it make it right? No. Is it effective? Yes.
What is needed is a secure, authenticated, alternative to SMTP. Sadly that's not coming soon.
The summary makes it sound like the Cyberbunker is a physical location. If so, a wire cutter should cut off it's access to the inter webs.
Interesting that people on Slashdot really think that the DDOS attack is being co-ordinated from hosts housed in the Cyberbunker hosting site. Are people really that out of touch with how botnets and DDOS attacks are managed?
Item 1: The DDOS began after Cyberbunker IPs were added to the black lists.
Item 2: Cyberbunker have a policy saying that they won't look at your servers and don't care what you do. Pretty much a green-light for spammers.
Item 3: The internet activist stating that the DDOS is in response to the blacklisting.
The circumstantial evidence points towards the attacks as being the result of the action Spamhaus took with respect to Cyberbunker. Its unlikely to be the company themselves, but rather at the instigation of one of their customers. The interesting thing is that you can find reports from 2011 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/spamhaus_a2b_row/) where Spamhaus say that Cyberbunker were on the blacklist then with no prospect of being removed. What has happened in the meantime?
“Nobody ever deputized Spamhaus to determine what goes and does not go on the Internet,” Mr. Kamphuis said. “They worked themselves into that position by pretending to fight spam.”
I'd rather not have to consult Spamhaus blacklists on my mail servers to block incoming email. I know that if I removed it my bandwidth would be clogged and the amount of work done by my servers to deal with spam would increase many fold. So I use Spamhaus blacklists and it makes me feel dirty. It's the wrong solution to the problem of spam. Surely we should be able to come up with something better.
Spamhaus has been going for 15 years. Look at the other technological advances in that time why don't we have an effective, agreed upon, resolution to the problem of spam? Perhaps the best thing would be for Spamhaus to shut up shop, to stop providing the DNS lists. For mail servers to stop filtering and marking the spam. Let the size of the problem manifest itself. Perhaps then we will get a concerted effort to stop it rather than mitigate the impact.
I've been using an old, broken (touchscreen no longer working) no-name brand 7" Android tablet as a third screen for months now. It displays the Chrome developer console window.
I'm using RedFly, but there are atleast 3 similar apps for Android and 2 for iOS devices and this kind of functionality has been around for much longer than I've been using it.
How come Amazon keeps getting away with getting patents on completely obvious and common technology?
If you're using an app on a, more capable, tablet then you aren't doing what this patent describes. You paid full price for the tablet, with the touchscreen, and battery, and decent processor etc. This is for a much lower cost device that won't be able to do anything but act as a display.
There are different ways to get the results. Your style evidently involves taking a hands on approach and being there the whole time. If that's what works for you great.
Bezos style differs. It looks as though he operates strategically and allows his reports to do the day to day management. I daresay that they can contact him when necessary and that he's able provide the leadership necessary remotely.
Is one style better than the other? I would say that depends on the capabilities of the team around the CEO and the comfort that CEO has in letting go a little.
Me, I'd delegate and respond better to someone that felt that they could delegate responsibility than to someone that felt they always hand to be there keeping an eye on things.
Perhaps you would like to explain what is inherently wrong with ID cards, and road pricing... without descending into hysterics without justification?
There's nothing wrong inherently wrong with ID cards it was the way that the UK government were going to introduce them and who would be able to have access to the information. They had this great idea that it could be used by all sorts of retail organisations to validate your age and identity. Each of these uses would be logged, to make sure no one was assuming your identity. This information would likely give anyone with access a good picture of your life.
The proposals for road pricing were to track every journey and have variable pricing dependent on which roads you travelled and when. The sell was that it would ease congestion because people would avoid the expensive journeys. Except it doesn't work because the roads are organised to funnel people along them and it wouldn't change people's working hours. It would however give the government access to the travel patterns of every car on the road, and by implication, and cross checking against ID card use, the location of everyone.
Given our governments track record on making their databases available to dubious commercial organisations, wheel-clampers etc., this information would leak out and would have the potential to create all sorts of privacy issues. The end result would be massive intrusion into private affairs, for dubious benefit, at massive cost.
I'm not paranoid, or looking for conspiracies, I just don't trust our government not to cock things up.
If you pay attention, most of the people who were outspoken against press regulation were the big-money media companies. Funny that, isn't it, an industry that has proven to be out of control is against any regulation. So, let me ask you this, whose side are you on, that of Murdoch and the Fox Empire, or that of the general public who have been hacked, wire-tapped, lied to and abused by the press?
So, use the existing laws to punish the wrongdoers, which is what is happening regarding the phone 'hacking' that led to the Leveson enquiry which provided the recommendations that this law is based on. If the press, and by implication bloggers, are subject to government censorship there is no democracy.
Its no surprise that its the left of the political debate that is in favour of additional laws to control the press. Its alright though, they've got our best interests at heart. Just like when they wanted to introduce ID cards, and road pricing (vehicle tracking).
This is about the European Parliament. We have elections to this parliament every four years. The people voting have been elected by the people within their states.
Membership of the EU was affirmed either by referendum or by a vote in the parliament of the individual states by the elected representatives of the people. So your anonymous statement of nobody voting the EU into power is false.
- Return trip: Not only is Mars much further away than the moon, it has a far more substantial gravity well: so we'll need a bunch more fuel, almost as much as for the trip out. The obvious solutions are to either make it there (a potentially major undertaking on a hostile planet), or send it ahead, probably via the interplanetary transport network (in which case we need to worry about what years of radiation exposure is doing to it) Also: - Takeoff could be a problem. While SpaceX and others are working on it no-one has (so far as I know) ever successfully built and tested a reusable launch vehicle, which means we need to design something new that can land and take off again, even if only under 1/3 G.
Visit the Mars One website, there is no return trip planned. They go to great length to explain the reasons for this, most of which make some sort of sense. The main reasons are the fact that there is no available technology to do it, so that would delay the mission and increase the cost, and the weight considerations of sending a vehicle capable of making the return trip with all of the necessary fuel etc.
A further consideration, and not an insignificant one, is the impact on the bodies of the crew/colonists of an extended time away from Earth's gravity well. In order for the base to be established and real work to be done the time on Mars would have to be more than a few weeks.
This is quite a brave adventure and an attempt at colonisation rather than a flag planting exercise.
If Google won, full-stop, then why have they felt it necessary to license the MPEG-LA patents, and why is this license restricted to VP8 and one successor generation? Your spin on it is interesting, especially as it comes from reading the announcement by WebM which isn't exactly without interest.
Far from the rosy picture you are painting this seems to say that Google have recognised that VP8 was patent encumbered all along. Google will be paying substantially for this licensing deal and its nothing to do with a battle for the FOSS movement and everything to do with Google positioning itself for the future. In effect this is a loss for Google and they've had to stump up to get themselves out of a hole that they managed to dig themselves into.
That doesn't work without a server authority, so that needs always-online to work.
Thats funny because my friends, myself, and many others had that same sort of feature in SimCity 4 without a central server. And... guess what... EA even had a way to do it through their servers without any such always on requirement.
Thinking they NEED to be connected for this just shows how you don't understand how this stuff works and as such are being taken advantage of.
They have sold the game as requiring an always on connection. This has been known for a long time. In what way is this a surprise to anyone?
The fact that the demand has outstripped the capacity of the servers seems to indicate that its been a bigger success than EA were expecting. Perhaps they believed all of the negative reaction with people saying that they wouldn't buy it because of the always online requirement.
EA haven't done anything here that they didn't say that they would do. Its ok theorising about whether always online is required for gameplay reasons but its moot point. EA have built the game with that requirement. They will say so that they can provide a richer simulation, the cynics will say its to maximise income, but the reason is immaterial. Its a done deal, get over it.
I remember when Apple was a computer company. In fact, its only recently that they've been anything but. They have used advertising well, but so did everyone else. This 'all Apple is a marketing company' is getting rather trite and over used.
I tried to provide some context and educate you but you've such a closed and opinionated mind that you aren't able to grasp the different meanings of words in different contexts. Let me guess, your an open-sores advocate and Android fanboi.
Balance is not the same as equal. There is balance across the different outcomes, however the chance of each outcome is not equal. The balance is provided by factoring in the odds offered for each outcome. A less likely outcome will offer better odds.
I used to work for a large UK gaming company that now has a presence in Nevada and Delaware. They are buying up local US companies so as to expand into that market. They are very good at parting people from their money online I'd expect them to be looking to at least a partnership with, if not an outright purchase of, an Atlantic City casino. This will lead to minimal job creation in the US and funds to be siphoned off into their operation in Gibraltar.
Its the wild west all over again, as each state approves this sort of operation, the existing online gambling companies will be there to try and get a share of the action.
Is Torvalds right? In this case, probably. There isn't a reason to include this functionality in the base kernel. If it is useful to RedHat, then RedHat can include it in their distribution. But publicly attacking someone, especially someone working for a company which is largely responsible for making Linux "respectable" isn't doing himself, the project, or the community at large any good, any more than Ballmer throwing chairs and screaming "Developers" or the "Howard Dean Scream" helped Microsoft or Howard Dean.
So because Redhat have made Linux respectable for business use that this should add weight to their proposals and get them special treatment if they make a brain dead suggestion? Linus is very brunt and forthright in his dealings, it saves time, there's no doubting his position. Sadly I wish I worked with more people like this rather than ones that talk around ideas and suggestions instead of being decisive.
Self censorship is a huge problem throughout organisations with people not being sure enough of themselves to say what they mean or think instead they couch replies in vague terms so as not to offend and hope for some sort of consensus. This invariably leads to sub-optimal solutions but allows people to escape any resultant blame due to the shared nature of the final decision process. I'd rather stick my neck out and say things as I see them. If I'm wrong on something tell me why and I'll take it onboard, however we should get a good solution rather than a half-assed one.
The explosion serves two purposes; firstly it puts an immediate block on this particular action, secondly its memorable and noticeable enough so as to dissuade future proposals of a similar nature thus saving time.
True but by including links in the email it raises suspicion on the validity of the email. This is not dissimilar to the recent email sent from Twitter regarding accounts being compromised.
A better approach is to provide information in the email indicating that people should visit the website to change their password, but not include a link, then place confirmation of the issue on the website landing page so as to confirm that the threat is real.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get an unlimited text/unlimited data pay as you go bundle for £12 on a 3G network.
Three have said that they won't charge extra for 4G connectivity so existing unlimited data plans will be fine on that network. Sadly they came out worst in the auction so they aren't going to be able to offer the same headline speeds as the other networks.
If Arlie is right why is there more than one Linux distro? Why does Linux exist at all, we had free BSD Unixes before hand? Why is there more than one Smartphone OS? Why is there more than one console? Why are there both diesel and petrol combustion engines? In fact why are there engines at all, horses will do the job of pulling carts and carriages around.
Arlie is pissed because something that Intel releases is likely to get more traction than his pet project. His comments are as much about ego as anything else. I've had some pretty decent achievements in my IT career but at no point have I been that arrogant to assume that my way was the only way.
How the hell do they expect me to do password resets now?
I'm sure that Dremel will come out with an attachment for that.
Sailfish runs Android apps and has a better interface. I could see Jolla being bought by Motorola or HTC or Sony as a way to get back into the game against Samsung.
Why would Google (Motorola) buy them? I think someone has missed an important development.
No constant reminders of what has happened and trailers of what is going to happen? I might just have to check it out.
The answer is to get rid of email and replace it with something secure. The problem is, no one has stepped up to try it. Google Wave had promise in this area. Texting and instant messaging have chipped away at it a bit, but nothing has come out and replaced it.
Email needs end to end encryption along with built in spam prevention. It needs to look and feel like it does now but with all the changes made on the backend as to make the transition for end users seamless.
No, it doesn't need to get rid of email. What it needs is a secure, authenticated, replacement for SMTP as the transfer protocol.
Google Wave? Can I please have some of the drugs you are smoking? Lets replace a standard protocol and facility that has been around for 30+ years with a proprietary system developed by a secretive company who's stated purpose is to analyse your correspondence for their financial gain.
Spamhaus operates in a very broad brush manner deliberately. Its not a universally liked approach and comes with its own issues. It does however get ISPs to listen and make changes because it hits them in the pocket. Does it make it right? No. Is it effective? Yes.
What is needed is a secure, authenticated, alternative to SMTP. Sadly that's not coming soon.
The summary makes it sound like the Cyberbunker is a physical location. If so, a wire cutter should cut off it's access to the inter webs.
Interesting that people on Slashdot really think that the DDOS attack is being co-ordinated from hosts housed in the Cyberbunker hosting site. Are people really that out of touch with how botnets and DDOS attacks are managed?
Item 1: The DDOS began after Cyberbunker IPs were added to the black lists.
Item 2: Cyberbunker have a policy saying that they won't look at your servers and don't care what you do. Pretty much a green-light for spammers.
Item 3: The internet activist stating that the DDOS is in response to the blacklisting.
The circumstantial evidence points towards the attacks as being the result of the action Spamhaus took with respect to Cyberbunker. Its unlikely to be the company themselves, but rather at the instigation of one of their customers. The interesting thing is that you can find reports from 2011 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/spamhaus_a2b_row/) where Spamhaus say that Cyberbunker were on the blacklist then with no prospect of being removed. What has happened in the meantime?
From TFA:
“Nobody ever deputized Spamhaus to determine what goes and does not go on the Internet,” Mr. Kamphuis said. “They worked themselves into that position by pretending to fight spam.”
I'd rather not have to consult Spamhaus blacklists on my mail servers to block incoming email. I know that if I removed it my bandwidth would be clogged and the amount of work done by my servers to deal with spam would increase many fold. So I use Spamhaus blacklists and it makes me feel dirty. It's the wrong solution to the problem of spam. Surely we should be able to come up with something better.
Spamhaus has been going for 15 years. Look at the other technological advances in that time why don't we have an effective, agreed upon, resolution to the problem of spam? Perhaps the best thing would be for Spamhaus to shut up shop, to stop providing the DNS lists. For mail servers to stop filtering and marking the spam. Let the size of the problem manifest itself. Perhaps then we will get a concerted effort to stop it rather than mitigate the impact.
I've been using an old, broken (touchscreen no longer working) no-name brand 7" Android tablet as a third screen for months now. It displays the Chrome developer console window.
I'm using RedFly, but there are atleast 3 similar apps for Android and 2 for iOS devices and this kind of functionality has been around for much longer than I've been using it.
How come Amazon keeps getting away with getting patents on completely obvious and common technology?
If you're using an app on a, more capable, tablet then you aren't doing what this patent describes. You paid full price for the tablet, with the touchscreen, and battery, and decent processor etc. This is for a much lower cost device that won't be able to do anything but act as a display.
There are different ways to get the results. Your style evidently involves taking a hands on approach and being there the whole time. If that's what works for you great.
Bezos style differs. It looks as though he operates strategically and allows his reports to do the day to day management. I daresay that they can contact him when necessary and that he's able provide the leadership necessary remotely.
Is one style better than the other? I would say that depends on the capabilities of the team around the CEO and the comfort that CEO has in letting go a little.
Me, I'd delegate and respond better to someone that felt that they could delegate responsibility than to someone that felt they always hand to be there keeping an eye on things.
Perhaps you would like to explain what is inherently wrong with ID cards, and road pricing... without descending into hysterics without justification?
There's nothing wrong inherently wrong with ID cards it was the way that the UK government were going to introduce them and who would be able to have access to the information. They had this great idea that it could be used by all sorts of retail organisations to validate your age and identity. Each of these uses would be logged, to make sure no one was assuming your identity. This information would likely give anyone with access a good picture of your life.
The proposals for road pricing were to track every journey and have variable pricing dependent on which roads you travelled and when. The sell was that it would ease congestion because people would avoid the expensive journeys. Except it doesn't work because the roads are organised to funnel people along them and it wouldn't change people's working hours. It would however give the government access to the travel patterns of every car on the road, and by implication, and cross checking against ID card use, the location of everyone.
Given our governments track record on making their databases available to dubious commercial organisations, wheel-clampers etc., this information would leak out and would have the potential to create all sorts of privacy issues. The end result would be massive intrusion into private affairs, for dubious benefit, at massive cost.
I'm not paranoid, or looking for conspiracies, I just don't trust our government not to cock things up.
If you pay attention, most of the people who were outspoken against press regulation were the big-money media companies. Funny that, isn't it, an industry that has proven to be out of control is against any regulation. So, let me ask you this, whose side are you on, that of Murdoch and the Fox Empire, or that of the general public who have been hacked, wire-tapped, lied to and abused by the press?
So, use the existing laws to punish the wrongdoers, which is what is happening regarding the phone 'hacking' that led to the Leveson enquiry which provided the recommendations that this law is based on. If the press, and by implication bloggers, are subject to government censorship there is no democracy.
Its no surprise that its the left of the political debate that is in favour of additional laws to control the press. Its alright though, they've got our best interests at heart. Just like when they wanted to introduce ID cards, and road pricing (vehicle tracking).
This is about the European Parliament. We have elections to this parliament every four years. The people voting have been elected by the people within their states.
Membership of the EU was affirmed either by referendum or by a vote in the parliament of the individual states by the elected representatives of the people. So your anonymous statement of nobody voting the EU into power is false.
And what, prithee, do you intend to do about the wind?
Don't pack beans as part of the supplies.
- Return trip: Not only is Mars much further away than the moon, it has a far more substantial gravity well: so we'll need a bunch more fuel, almost as much as for the trip out. The obvious solutions are to either make it there (a potentially major undertaking on a hostile planet), or send it ahead, probably via the interplanetary transport network (in which case we need to worry about what years of radiation exposure is doing to it) Also:
- Takeoff could be a problem. While SpaceX and others are working on it no-one has (so far as I know) ever successfully built and tested a reusable launch vehicle, which means we need to design something new that can land and take off again, even if only under 1/3 G.
Visit the Mars One website, there is no return trip planned. They go to great length to explain the reasons for this, most of which make some sort of sense. The main reasons are the fact that there is no available technology to do it, so that would delay the mission and increase the cost, and the weight considerations of sending a vehicle capable of making the return trip with all of the necessary fuel etc.
A further consideration, and not an insignificant one, is the impact on the bodies of the crew/colonists of an extended time away from Earth's gravity well. In order for the base to be established and real work to be done the time on Mars would have to be more than a few weeks.
This is quite a brave adventure and an attempt at colonisation rather than a flag planting exercise.
If Google won, full-stop, then why have they felt it necessary to license the MPEG-LA patents, and why is this license restricted to VP8 and one successor generation? Your spin on it is interesting, especially as it comes from reading the announcement by WebM which isn't exactly without interest.
Here is the press release http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8.
Far from the rosy picture you are painting this seems to say that Google have recognised that VP8 was patent encumbered all along. Google will be paying substantially for this licensing deal and its nothing to do with a battle for the FOSS movement and everything to do with Google positioning itself for the future. In effect this is a loss for Google and they've had to stump up to get themselves out of a hole that they managed to dig themselves into.
That doesn't work without a server authority, so that needs always-online to work.
Thats funny because my friends, myself, and many others had that same sort of feature in SimCity 4 without a central server. And ... guess what ... EA even had a way to do it through their servers without any such always on requirement.
Thinking they NEED to be connected for this just shows how you don't understand how this stuff works and as such are being taken advantage of.
They have sold the game as requiring an always on connection. This has been known for a long time. In what way is this a surprise to anyone?
The fact that the demand has outstripped the capacity of the servers seems to indicate that its been a bigger success than EA were expecting. Perhaps they believed all of the negative reaction with people saying that they wouldn't buy it because of the always online requirement.
EA haven't done anything here that they didn't say that they would do. Its ok theorising about whether always online is required for gameplay reasons but its moot point. EA have built the game with that requirement. They will say so that they can provide a richer simulation, the cynics will say its to maximise income, but the reason is immaterial. Its a done deal, get over it.
I remember when Apple was a computer company. In fact, its only recently that they've been anything but. They have used advertising well, but so did everyone else. This 'all Apple is a marketing company' is getting rather trite and over used.
Why the implied insult?
I tried to provide some context and educate you but you've such a closed and opinionated mind that you aren't able to grasp the different meanings of words in different contexts. Let me guess, your an open-sores advocate and Android fanboi.
Balance is not the same as equal. There is balance across the different outcomes, however the chance of each outcome is not equal. The balance is provided by factoring in the odds offered for each outcome. A less likely outcome will offer better odds.
... and have been for a while.
I used to work for a large UK gaming company that now has a presence in Nevada and Delaware. They are buying up local US companies so as to expand into that market. They are very good at parting people from their money online I'd expect them to be looking to at least a partnership with, if not an outright purchase of, an Atlantic City casino. This will lead to minimal job creation in the US and funds to be siphoned off into their operation in Gibraltar.
Its the wild west all over again, as each state approves this sort of operation, the existing online gambling companies will be there to try and get a share of the action.
Is Torvalds right? In this case, probably. There isn't a reason to include this functionality in the base kernel. If it is useful to RedHat, then RedHat can include it in their distribution. But publicly attacking someone, especially someone working for a company which is largely responsible for making Linux "respectable" isn't doing himself, the project, or the community at large any good, any more than Ballmer throwing chairs and screaming "Developers" or the "Howard Dean Scream" helped Microsoft or Howard Dean.
So because Redhat have made Linux respectable for business use that this should add weight to their proposals and get them special treatment if they make a brain dead suggestion? Linus is very brunt and forthright in his dealings, it saves time, there's no doubting his position. Sadly I wish I worked with more people like this rather than ones that talk around ideas and suggestions instead of being decisive.
Self censorship is a huge problem throughout organisations with people not being sure enough of themselves to say what they mean or think instead they couch replies in vague terms so as not to offend and hope for some sort of consensus. This invariably leads to sub-optimal solutions but allows people to escape any resultant blame due to the shared nature of the final decision process. I'd rather stick my neck out and say things as I see them. If I'm wrong on something tell me why and I'll take it onboard, however we should get a good solution rather than a half-assed one.
The explosion serves two purposes; firstly it puts an immediate block on this particular action, secondly its memorable and noticeable enough so as to dissuade future proposals of a similar nature thus saving time.
True but by including links in the email it raises suspicion on the validity of the email. This is not dissimilar to the recent email sent from Twitter regarding accounts being compromised.
A better approach is to provide information in the email indicating that people should visit the website to change their password, but not include a link, then place confirmation of the issue on the website landing page so as to confirm that the threat is real.