What are you basing this on? Microsoft has a lot of completely free software and services. Why would Skype be so different? If anything. Microsoft has a lot more money to throw around than Skype's previous owners did, right?
Indeed.
But the last time I suggested that MS would integrate Skype into MS live I was flamed and modded Troll (in all fairness, that may have also been for posting the MS published minimum specifications for Office Communication Server 2007).
But I stand by what I said, MS has a semi-successful IM platform known as Windows Live, integrating skype into it is an ideal way to "monetise" the existing Windows Live user base. I expect a future version of Live to include a "call" function. Probably Xbox Live as well.
Why would MS waste time developing their own webcam based video calling and voice calling for Live when they could just bolt Skype into it?
These days, they ALSO support fake multitasking for user apps as well. An application can hook into an API for an already running Apple service such as audio or GPS but not start it's own where it can process its own data. When you close an IOS application, its current state is saved to memory for fast re-opening.
Good thing you took the time to learn about IOS multitasking. It makes evangelising it a lot easier and less embarrassing when someone else corrects you.
Why "limited"? Because iOS multitasking isn't really multitasking in the traditional senseâ"it's certainly not what you get on a desktop computer, or even what you get from Apple's own iPhone apps. Apple claims that it only allows for certain functionality
The point he was making is that it Android was open sourced by applying an open source *LICENSE* to the code. Without that *LICENSE*, downloading downloading Android from Google and doing "whatever I want with it" would be a copyright violation.
Dear AC (Hijacked Public).
His (your) troll was obvious, he was (you're) trying to obfuscate between "open license" and "license". Having an open license does not make something closed, which was the GGP's attempted point. just because Android is license does not mean it cannot be open.
If I wanted to release my own Android phone on my own hardware, I don't need the OHA's permission to use Android.
Might be worth looking into HTC still since they've declared they are going to only be selling unlocked bootloaders on their phones. I know when I'm able to get a new android phone cheap again (with my contract) I'll be looking at a HTC since if I don't like what they give me I can just wipe it with a custom rom.
HTC is well supported by Cyanogenmod. The HW is typically good although on my Desire Z the internal speaker is nowhere near as good as a Samsung Galaxy S or Moto Milestone.
Samsung has also not locked the bootloader on the Galaxy S and Galaxy S2 (AFAIK, so don't accept this as gospel).
Yep, the original Droid/Milestone was lighing fast running 2.1 and 2.2. When moto started to shoehorn in Motoblur they all of a sudden got really slow.
Same with HTC Sense but HTC are at least smart enough to chuck in lots of extra RAM to handle their bloated interface. I've been running Cyanogenmod on my Desire Z since 3 days after I got it and I've been more then pleased with how fast it is, Cyanogenmod uses ADW launcher which has a crapload of features (so much so it suffers from Kitchen Sink-itis) but is still very very fast.
I used to be a fan of Android on Moto, but between locked bootloaders and crappy social network based interfaces that slow everything down have completely changed my opinion on Moto. They are floundering because of bad design decision in using Motoblur, not because of Androids openness.
After HTC and Samsung, I'd rather buy a Huawei phone simply because they used the vanilla interface.
What are you basing that on? I would assume that the reason Android has a bigger marketshare than iPhone OS is because it's licensed to many, many manufacturers.
By licensed you mean open sourced.
Which pretty much proves the GP's point.
If cables are cut, radiowaves, light waves, microwaves or any other mechanism can be used.
Each of these technologies requires a base station, a point of ingress into an internal network. You cant simply just beam a microwave signal into nowhere. If a country wanted to cut itself off from the internet, it would be quite easy as you can simply shut down the transmitters and outgoing routers.
Where did you learn about wide area networking?
Or wireless, I'm yet to see a wireless technology that did not require a receiver. That would a physical bit of hardware that can be shut down, well, physically.
Countries like Thailand and China already control all the points of interconnect for data, it wouldn't be hard for the US or UK to completely isolate themselves if the need arises (they simply have more points of interconnect to send troops to). But what is more likely is that vital infrastructure is simply removed from the public grid. An air gap can easily be gated by a human. When Mil.net 1 wants to send something to Mil.net 2, the data can be loaded onto USB key, a Pvt simply moves this from the private USB slot to the public USB slot where it can be transmitted (or just carries the key over manually).
Seriously, what do they teach people about network security these days.
Cutting cables? You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about if you don't consider the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
If you think we connect vital systems by wireless you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
As soon as any threat presents itself, you simply cut off vital systems from the network. Air gap wins.
You need to get over your raging hard on for the word "cyber warrior" and come back to reality. If transmissions cannot be secured, we'll do it the old fashioned way, never underestimate the bandwidth of cpl noname with a case of USB drives handcuffed to his wrist.
Preparing for the "Cyber war" is utterly useless in an age where we cant afford the existing military pork barrel projects. Everything a "Cyber Command" does is already covered under existing cryptography units.
The US has already got their cyber warriors in training for this.
Whenever I see the word "cyberwarrior" I tend to think "battleship".
In the prelude to WWI European powers spent what would equate to tens of billions of today's pounds building battleships that were veritable floating fortresses meant to control the seas giving a decisive advantage. Battleships that spent most of WWI in dock.
For all the talk, battleships did nothing. It wasn't until generals started thinking "how do I get around this problem" as opposed to "how many men do I have to throw at the enemy guns" did they make progress.
My prediction, cyberwarriors will be useless in the next war if through nothing else, cutting cables will render them useless. The airgap is an impenetrable defence.
Right. This isn't about all the also-rans copying Apple's work at all, is it?
No it isn't.
If you've bothered to read the actual suit that Apple put together to sue Samsung with, they are suing over trivial things that cannot be patented like rounded corners.
The law suit is about trying to stop a competitor before the competitor becomes too advanced for them.
By the way, could you find a more trite and biased source of information. It's almost as if you need to reinforce a belief that you're not sure is actually true.
Now, I did find myself wondering, since I never heard of a MILF before the past decade,
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front terrorist group based on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines has been around since 1981 but have been pretty well overshadowed by their bigger, meaner cousin Abu Sayyaf.
Being from a region far from SE Asia it's understandable that you haven't heard of them until recently.
It's my opinion that the 10-second claim (or 4 minutes, as in the one I heard at that security conference) was made up by a security vendor in order to hawk their products. The claim has then been spread over the years, Chinese Whispers style, until it's accepted as a truth.
The 10 second claim was for an unfirewalled XP machine pre-SP2 directly connected to the internet.
Under those conditions, it was accurate.
Now days, you get a Win 7 machine, even if it's stock Win 7 with no SP (actually pretty hard to find now) you still have a firewall not to mention the fact most people now attach their computers to the internet via NAT on a firewalled router.
So since that claim, security has improved a great deal. So much so, most malware is user installed these days.
I take it places like that assume their laws apply globally?
Which is why he was arrested in a foreign country and secreted to an island prison.
No.. wait, he was arrested in Thailand, under Thai law, he's also a Thai citizen. But I guess that makes too much sense. Let the 2 minutes hate continue.
The political parties doesn't ignore him. He's not the Queen of England
Actually he is,
Go and look at what happened during the military rule of the early 90's. The King was forced to rubber stamp the dictators edicts.
He's the effective ruler of Thailand, he plays around with the military coups to keep his power
You've unwittingly struck upon the truth here, there is a shadow political force in Thailand, but it's not the King or the Royal family. It's the military.
As for the rest of your post, its something that may or may not have happened in 1946. We have no evidence either way (not that seems to matter to the AC). 65 years later you're claiming a man who is so ill he cant speak for 10 minutes is a political mastermind. Last years Kings Speech (traditionally, the King makes a speech on his birthday, its a feel good exercise not a political one, much like the Queens Christmas message) was cancelled because he was too ill to stand up and speak.
... But isn't it apple suing Samsung for copying their design?
I can see why a judge wants Apple to see the next Samsung models, but I fail to understand why would he ever grant Samsung permission to check future Apple releases.
Because Samsung can counter sue if the future designs have copied anything from the Galaxy series.
But then again, Apple is suing Samsung because the Galaxy S has rounded corners and the box it comes in is kinda the same. Heck, lets do away with the false pretences, Apple is suing Samsung because Samsung is a threat to them and they cant compete. Samsung is saying they will go after Apple's jugular with this move.
You are of course correct, they have had fatal crashes in the past. But none with jet engines. I.e. nothing in the modern era.
I'd prefer we had a rolling scale approach that reflects the average working life of modern planes, e.g. in the last 20 years has the airline had a fatal crash?
Not many would have I'd say, at least first world airlines.
However QANTAS' safety record in the last 3 years has dropped a lot. A few engine fires (not including the A380's) and hull loss incidents.
I hope you attempted to make a joke. Why would "the user is any systems biggest vulnerability" need to be reported as a new vulnerability in this case?
I hope you're attempting to make a joke here, otherwise you really need to be locked away from computers.
First of all, you've gotten confused between a vulnerability and a threat. Security companies like Sophos and Trend disclose threats, which this is one of.
Secondly the user is a massive vulnerability.
Thirdly, the nature of the threat has changed (no longer requires elevated permissions) so the threat warning needs to be re-issued.
Get used to these conversations. Malware is now a reality on OSX. Using semantics to try and hide it will not make it go away.
I am in Melbourne and my wife refuses to fly Qantas. Last time going to Malaysia she flew Emirates. I really should point her to this page about this incident. The north south runway at Tullamarine is slightly higher than the terrain past both ends of the runway and I heard from a traffic controller that the tower controllers almost lost sight of the aircraft as it traded altitude for speed immediately after takeoff. They hit the crash button and expected to see a fireball.
They used the wrong weight of the aircraft, bad form by the pilots.
I must admit to being a bit of a plane spotter, I've found VASO (Russian airline) like to use the entire runway when flying out of HKT (3000 M) when flying the IL86's out. Fortunately the western end of the runway goes over the ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you basing this on? Microsoft has a lot of completely free software and services. Why would Skype be so different? If anything. Microsoft has a lot more money to throw around than Skype's previous owners did, right?
Indeed.
But the last time I suggested that MS would integrate Skype into MS live I was flamed and modded Troll (in all fairness, that may have also been for posting the MS published minimum specifications for Office Communication Server 2007).
But I stand by what I said, MS has a semi-successful IM platform known as Windows Live, integrating skype into it is an ideal way to "monetise" the existing Windows Live user base. I expect a future version of Live to include a "call" function. Probably Xbox Live as well.
Why would MS waste time developing their own webcam based video calling and voice calling for Live when they could just bolt Skype into it?
These days, they ALSO support fake multitasking for user apps as well. An application can hook into an API for an already running Apple service such as audio or GPS but not start it's own where it can process its own data. When you close an IOS application, its current state is saved to memory for fast re-opening.
Good thing you took the time to learn about IOS multitasking. It makes evangelising it a lot easier and less embarrassing when someone else corrects you.
IOS multitasking is what I call "I wish it were multitasking"
Why "limited"? Because iOS multitasking isn't really multitasking in the traditional senseâ"it's certainly not what you get on a desktop computer, or even what you get from Apple's own iPhone apps. Apple claims that it only allows for certain functionality
The version the OEM's use is the OHA version, which differs from the open-source (AOSP) tree. They pay money for licenses.
Incorrect.
They license the Google applications which are not part of Android and never have been.
Hey, but thanks for trying.
Cyanogenmod is built from AOSP, they don't pay a cent to OHA (thus cant bundle Google apps).
The point he was making is that it Android was open sourced by applying an open source *LICENSE* to the code. Without that *LICENSE*, downloading downloading Android from Google and doing "whatever I want with it" would be a copyright violation.
Dear AC (Hijacked Public). His (your) troll was obvious, he was (you're) trying to obfuscate between "open license" and "license". Having an open license does not make something closed, which was the GGP's attempted point. just because Android is license does not mean it cannot be open.
If I wanted to release my own Android phone on my own hardware, I don't need the OHA's permission to use Android.
No please explain, I'm thick.
Do I just download Android from Google and do whatever I want with it?
You do know what open source means don't you.
Not my job to think for you sunshine.
Might be worth looking into HTC still since they've declared they are going to only be selling unlocked bootloaders on their phones. I know when I'm able to get a new android phone cheap again (with my contract) I'll be looking at a HTC since if I don't like what they give me I can just wipe it with a custom rom.
HTC is well supported by Cyanogenmod. The HW is typically good although on my Desire Z the internal speaker is nowhere near as good as a Samsung Galaxy S or Moto Milestone.
Samsung has also not locked the bootloader on the Galaxy S and Galaxy S2 (AFAIK, so don't accept this as gospel).
And the open sourcing of Android was accomplished how?
Tell me I dont have to explain this to you.
The Wikipedia article should explain it (HINT: Android has been open source since it's release).
Does he mean things like motoblur?
Yep, the original Droid/Milestone was lighing fast running 2.1 and 2.2. When moto started to shoehorn in Motoblur they all of a sudden got really slow.
Same with HTC Sense but HTC are at least smart enough to chuck in lots of extra RAM to handle their bloated interface. I've been running Cyanogenmod on my Desire Z since 3 days after I got it and I've been more then pleased with how fast it is, Cyanogenmod uses ADW launcher which has a crapload of features (so much so it suffers from Kitchen Sink-itis) but is still very very fast.
I used to be a fan of Android on Moto, but between locked bootloaders and crappy social network based interfaces that slow everything down have completely changed my opinion on Moto. They are floundering because of bad design decision in using Motoblur, not because of Androids openness.
After HTC and Samsung, I'd rather buy a Huawei phone simply because they used the vanilla interface.
What are you basing that on? I would assume that the reason Android has a bigger marketshare than iPhone OS is because it's licensed to many, many manufacturers.
By licensed you mean open sourced. Which pretty much proves the GP's point.
Each of these technologies requires a base station, a point of ingress into an internal network. You cant simply just beam a microwave signal into nowhere. If a country wanted to cut itself off from the internet, it would be quite easy as you can simply shut down the transmitters and outgoing routers.
Where did you learn about wide area networking?
Or wireless, I'm yet to see a wireless technology that did not require a receiver. That would a physical bit of hardware that can be shut down, well, physically.
Countries like Thailand and China already control all the points of interconnect for data, it wouldn't be hard for the US or UK to completely isolate themselves if the need arises (they simply have more points of interconnect to send troops to). But what is more likely is that vital infrastructure is simply removed from the public grid. An air gap can easily be gated by a human. When Mil.net 1 wants to send something to Mil.net 2, the data can be loaded onto USB key, a Pvt simply moves this from the private USB slot to the public USB slot where it can be transmitted (or just carries the key over manually).
Seriously, what do they teach people about network security these days.
If you think we connect vital systems by wireless you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
As soon as any threat presents itself, you simply cut off vital systems from the network. Air gap wins.
You need to get over your raging hard on for the word "cyber warrior" and come back to reality. If transmissions cannot be secured, we'll do it the old fashioned way, never underestimate the bandwidth of cpl noname with a case of USB drives handcuffed to his wrist.
Preparing for the "Cyber war" is utterly useless in an age where we cant afford the existing military pork barrel projects. Everything a "Cyber Command" does is already covered under existing cryptography units.
The US has already got their cyber warriors in training for this.
Whenever I see the word "cyberwarrior" I tend to think "battleship". In the prelude to WWI European powers spent what would equate to tens of billions of today's pounds building battleships that were veritable floating fortresses meant to control the seas giving a decisive advantage. Battleships that spent most of WWI in dock.
For all the talk, battleships did nothing. It wasn't until generals started thinking "how do I get around this problem" as opposed to "how many men do I have to throw at the enemy guns" did they make progress.
My prediction, cyberwarriors will be useless in the next war if through nothing else, cutting cables will render them useless. The airgap is an impenetrable defence.
Show me one government that doesn't put its own interests before those of the country and I'll only ask whether they have lax immigration laws.
I can only list places where governments don't bother you if you've got heaps of money.
That list is nearly 137 entries long but it's a sliding scale as to how much money you need to reach the threshold.
This is so scary, it's surreal.
I better buy some black electrical tape.
What if they start putting in IR camera's?
Right. This isn't about all the also-rans copying Apple's work at all, is it?
No it isn't.
If you've bothered to read the actual suit that Apple put together to sue Samsung with, they are suing over trivial things that cannot be patented like rounded corners.
The law suit is about trying to stop a competitor before the competitor becomes too advanced for them.
By the way, could you find a more trite and biased source of information. It's almost as if you need to reinforce a belief that you're not sure is actually true.
Now, I did find myself wondering, since I never heard of a MILF before the past decade,
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front terrorist group based on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines has been around since 1981 but have been pretty well overshadowed by their bigger, meaner cousin Abu Sayyaf.
Being from a region far from SE Asia it's understandable that you haven't heard of them until recently.
It's my opinion that the 10-second claim (or 4 minutes, as in the one I heard at that security conference) was made up by a security vendor in order to hawk their products. The claim has then been spread over the years, Chinese Whispers style, until it's accepted as a truth.
The 10 second claim was for an unfirewalled XP machine pre-SP2 directly connected to the internet.
Under those conditions, it was accurate. Now days, you get a Win 7 machine, even if it's stock Win 7 with no SP (actually pretty hard to find now) you still have a firewall not to mention the fact most people now attach their computers to the internet via NAT on a firewalled router. So since that claim, security has improved a great deal. So much so, most malware is user installed these days.
Which is why he was arrested in a foreign country and secreted to an island prison.
No.. wait, he was arrested in Thailand, under Thai law, he's also a Thai citizen. But I guess that makes too much sense. Let the 2 minutes hate continue.
cue the sound of a million angry bloggers inventing insults for the king of thailand.
*crickets*
Actually he is,
Go and look at what happened during the military rule of the early 90's. The King was forced to rubber stamp the dictators edicts.
He's the effective ruler of Thailand, he plays around with the military coups to keep his power
You've unwittingly struck upon the truth here, there is a shadow political force in Thailand, but it's not the King or the Royal family. It's the military.
As for the rest of your post, its something that may or may not have happened in 1946. We have no evidence either way (not that seems to matter to the AC). 65 years later you're claiming a man who is so ill he cant speak for 10 minutes is a political mastermind. Last years Kings Speech (traditionally, the King makes a speech on his birthday, its a feel good exercise not a political one, much like the Queens Christmas message) was cancelled because he was too ill to stand up and speak.
... But isn't it apple suing Samsung for copying their design?
I can see why a judge wants Apple to see the next Samsung models, but I fail to understand why would he ever grant Samsung permission to check future Apple releases.
Because Samsung can counter sue if the future designs have copied anything from the Galaxy series.
But then again, Apple is suing Samsung because the Galaxy S has rounded corners and the box it comes in is kinda the same. Heck, lets do away with the false pretences, Apple is suing Samsung because Samsung is a threat to them and they cant compete. Samsung is saying they will go after Apple's jugular with this move.
It will be a thin cuboid.
Actually it will be a rectangular prism with a low measurement on the Z axis.
First off, QANTAS had a fatal crash in 1951.
You are of course correct, they have had fatal crashes in the past. But none with jet engines. I.e. nothing in the modern era. I'd prefer we had a rolling scale approach that reflects the average working life of modern planes, e.g. in the last 20 years has the airline had a fatal crash?
Not many would have I'd say, at least first world airlines.
However QANTAS' safety record in the last 3 years has dropped a lot. A few engine fires (not including the A380's) and hull loss incidents.
I hope you attempted to make a joke. Why would "the user is any systems biggest vulnerability" need to be reported as a new vulnerability in this case?
I hope you're attempting to make a joke here, otherwise you really need to be locked away from computers.
First of all, you've gotten confused between a vulnerability and a threat. Security companies like Sophos and Trend disclose threats, which this is one of.
Secondly the user is a massive vulnerability.
Thirdly, the nature of the threat has changed (no longer requires elevated permissions) so the threat warning needs to be re-issued.
Get used to these conversations. Malware is now a reality on OSX. Using semantics to try and hide it will not make it go away.
I am in Melbourne and my wife refuses to fly Qantas. Last time going to Malaysia she flew Emirates. I really should point her to this page about this incident. The north south runway at Tullamarine is slightly higher than the terrain past both ends of the runway and I heard from a traffic controller that the tower controllers almost lost sight of the aircraft as it traded altitude for speed immediately after takeoff. They hit the crash button and expected to see a fireball.
They used the wrong weight of the aircraft, bad form by the pilots.
I must admit to being a bit of a plane spotter, I've found VASO (Russian airline) like to use the entire runway when flying out of HKT (3000 M) when flying the IL86's out. Fortunately the western end of the runway goes over the ocean.