Yes, I know the news of Cisco versus Apple case has been out for a while now, but what ever happened to reports that the two corporations were getting along ok?
From Engadget:
Apple "iPhone," huh? As we're all aware, that's the name of the new Linksys VoIP phone which Cisco (Linksys' parent company) owns the trademark to. So what's next? Another protracted legal battle for Apple? Oh hells no, son. After Steve dropped their latest i-bomb, Cisco told MarketWatch that they've been in "extensive discussions" with Apple recently and "it is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document. We expect to receive a signed agreement today (Tuesday)." Sweet.
I guess that all fell through. Ah well, now we've just got more Apple rumours. Let's hope this all ends quickly so we can stop guessing about what might happen.
Sorry to reply to the same post twice, but I forgot to add this earlier.
You asked:
When did you last hear of a security breach on Alcatel DECT Phone address books?
And here's the answer. No, it's not the exact model you were asking about, but it does cover a good handful of VOIP handsets. Just goes to show that there are easily found holes in a diverse range of products.
I wasn't going for humour. Let's expand my point a little.
Now, I'm used to a pretty good library service (I've got a Masters degree from a pretty big university), but I think that my point will stand for a whole range of libraries.
Ease: I've found libraries to be very easy to search - if you can work google, you can work the majority of library database search tools. Sure, you may not be able to do in text searching for a book (although you can for most online journal services), but you can use google to do that or, now this is a shocker, do some reading yourself. In short, finding stuff in books is easy. As for books being heavy, or on a high shelf; if you really have used a computer for so long that your body has withered away, I think books will be the last of you worries. I'd be much more concerned about walking to the library and getting mugged on route.
Vastness: No contest.
Updating: If I wanted something that wasn't in stock, it could be ordered. More often, however, a nearby library would have the book and I'd get it on inter-library loan. Basically, if a book came out, I could get a copy very quickly.
Decentralised: Much more than en.wikipeida.org.
Accuracy: You seem to be confusing "accuracy" and "neutrality". Almost nothing is published from a neutral viewpoint - you can't blame this on libraries. The problem with Wikipedia is that it claims to be neutral when it clearly is not. As with searching for things in books, the key to making judgements concerning the accuracy or neutrality of a book is to actually read it, then some more on the same subject.
Wikipedia might be great for people that have no intention or requirement to actually read things; it might be great for getting quick definitions of some TLA you've not encountered before, but it will never replace a library. For people that have to read things and produce credible pieces of work, Wikipedia is a joke: It will never replace traditional publishing. That was what I was trying to get across in my original post. If you found it funny, however, then even better!
I've seen this argument crop up regularly on/. recently, but that doesn't make it a good one. Why? Well lets extend your argument to its logical conclusion - not only should we all use different operating systems, web browsers, CPU architectures, but we should all also use different file formats, standards and networking protocols.
I'll never get caught by a phising scam because my web browser doesn't support the HTML used on fake-paypal.com and I can't even connect to it anyway because I'm using a brand of TCP/IP used only by myself and a handful of/. geeks.
Call me crazy, but I want to work on something that I can easily share with my colleagues - I want the most open digital environment I can get.
I refuse to accept that lazy/poor programmers can excuse the security holes in their products by claiming that everyone should be aiming for security through obscurity. Lets stop blaming Windows/Internet Explorer users for the insecurity of the products they use. Security through diversity is just renamed security through obscurity; it's no security at all.
Well, it might make it, but only if the Foundation pays for another full page advert. Let's face it, this story won't really be counted as news in less computer-orientated places - the main stream press.
You can, of course, help however. Email this story to your friends and family. Of course, the story itself still probably won't interest people, but you can make it interesting: Your friends credit card details are at risk for using IE. Importantly, there are alternatives to IE.
Perhaps, but I think there's at least some merit to what they're doing. Computer security is dependant upon the various pieces of software and the like that this pair seem very adept at exploiting, but it's also about exploiting public opinion. This is a site famous for Microsoft bashing, so it's not like I need to provide any examples to demonstrate my point.
In short, Apple knows about the bugs, we know about the bugs; everyone's a winner.
I recently bought a 250 gig USB drive and filled it in about a fortnight. I mess around with digital video - that 250 gigs represents one project I was working on. I backed it up to a drive in my server.
I've started two similar projects since then; I need a lot more storage space!
Whenever some advance is made in storage technology comes along, someone always says "but how will we use all this space?". Don't worry, we will. In 5 years time you'll be amazed that you could ever use a PC with less than a terrabyte storage and wouldn't it be great to burn it all to a single disk?
We'll easily find a use for all this space, just as we find uses for all the other developments in technology.
That's exactly the point I was trying to get across in my reply: Finding the money to buy a new TV is often easier than finding time to fix a broken one. It's stressful and it's wasteful, but it's the modern MTV lifestyle that most of us help to perpetuate.
For a long time I would have agreed with you completely, but since an example of someone fixing their TV turned up on Make today, I'm not so sure.
Yes, TVs and other consumer electrics may be getting more proprietary in their construction, but people are also less inclined to fix them, although examples exist that demonstrate that it is possible.
I think you're in danger of harking back to some "good old day" that never existed whilst also ignoring the fact that most people these days don't want to fix a TV or mess around with a soldering iron in the back of their hi-fi. It's easier, quicker and nicer to buy something new: We don't fix things any more because we don't want to, not because we can't.
Well put. And of course, the OP is keen to emphasise his habit of keeping all his working examples of technology; what would happen if something stopped working?
The original poster's attitude of "all my stuff works and I don't want to throw it out" is hardly interesting, despite what it may have been modded, and is in no way a solution to a growing problem within the third world. But hey, if he likes living in his own Western filth, why shouldn't people in Africa?
It's a movie about a crackpot who spent too much time on the internet and too much time with his dog. Throw in some Peter Jackson CGI pixies and this can't fail.
Anyone replying to the recent Revenge of the Nerds story with comments asking for originality in films rejoice! Nothing like this has ever been done before!
For every Sony product line with problems you can mention, I'm sure you could find one hundred without troubles. Likewise, for every user with a problem, I'm sure you could find a thousand without.
The point I've been trying to labour is that Sony's troubles are magnified endlessly by the blogosphere and its relentless minions.
Ok, I concede. Sony still makes great consumer products. The point I was trying to make was that they were far from being "crap".
An example: I'm posting this from a Sony laptop, I'd class myself as fairly tech-savvy (I post on/. for example, most consumers don't do that) and when it came to spending my own money on a laptop, this was the best deal I could find. I did a lot of research and I'm very happy with my purchase (I've had it about 18 months).
Sure, If I wanted some audiophile hi-fi I wouldn't buy Sony, nor would I buy Bose for that matter. In fact, many of your arguments could easily apply to that brand. I guess it all depends on how much money you have to splash around.
Still, my point stands, Sony hasn't got any worse since the 1980's, but people have become vocal in their opinions. The beauty of the internet is that the crackpot ramblings of one man can be read by millions an a "news" site with a proven history of Sony bashing.
Most Sony stuff is still great. What's changed since the 1980's? The invention of the blogosphere. Sure, the rootkit thing was a mistake, but did it actually affect you? It sure didn't hit me.
I'm no fanboy but I think that Sony still makes high quality goods, but the nature of the internet means that every single problem instantly gets blown out of proportion. Sony makes millions of CCDs and millions of LCD displays; a small percentage went wrong and geeks everywhere took up arms.
Sony is still making great products, despite what a vocal, geeky, minority may tell you. I'm sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
From Engadget:
I guess that all fell through. Ah well, now we've just got more Apple rumours. Let's hope this all ends quickly so we can stop guessing about what might happen.
MOAF moabs you.
Or something like that.
You asked:
And here's the answer. No, it's not the exact model you were asking about, but it does cover a good handful of VOIP handsets. Just goes to show that there are easily found holes in a diverse range of products.
I wasn't going for humour. Let's expand my point a little.
Now, I'm used to a pretty good library service (I've got a Masters degree from a pretty big university), but I think that my point will stand for a whole range of libraries.
Ease: I've found libraries to be very easy to search - if you can work google, you can work the majority of library database search tools. Sure, you may not be able to do in text searching for a book (although you can for most online journal services), but you can use google to do that or, now this is a shocker, do some reading yourself. In short, finding stuff in books is easy. As for books being heavy, or on a high shelf; if you really have used a computer for so long that your body has withered away, I think books will be the last of you worries. I'd be much more concerned about walking to the library and getting mugged on route.
Vastness: No contest.
Updating: If I wanted something that wasn't in stock, it could be ordered. More often, however, a nearby library would have the book and I'd get it on inter-library loan. Basically, if a book came out, I could get a copy very quickly.
Decentralised: Much more than en.wikipeida.org.
Accuracy: You seem to be confusing "accuracy" and "neutrality". Almost nothing is published from a neutral viewpoint - you can't blame this on libraries. The problem with Wikipedia is that it claims to be neutral when it clearly is not. As with searching for things in books, the key to making judgements concerning the accuracy or neutrality of a book is to actually read it, then some more on the same subject.
Wikipedia might be great for people that have no intention or requirement to actually read things; it might be great for getting quick definitions of some TLA you've not encountered before, but it will never replace a library. For people that have to read things and produce credible pieces of work, Wikipedia is a joke: It will never replace traditional publishing. That was what I was trying to get across in my original post. If you found it funny, however, then even better!
You think Wikipedia is good? You should try a library!
I've seen this argument crop up regularly on /. recently, but that doesn't make it a good one. Why? Well lets extend your argument to its logical conclusion - not only should we all use different operating systems, web browsers, CPU architectures, but we should all also use different file formats, standards and networking protocols.
/. geeks.
I'll never get caught by a phising scam because my web browser doesn't support the HTML used on fake-paypal.com and I can't even connect to it anyway because I'm using a brand of TCP/IP used only by myself and a handful of
Call me crazy, but I want to work on something that I can easily share with my colleagues - I want the most open digital environment I can get.
I refuse to accept that lazy/poor programmers can excuse the security holes in their products by claiming that everyone should be aiming for security through obscurity. Lets stop blaming Windows/Internet Explorer users for the insecurity of the products they use. Security through diversity is just renamed security through obscurity; it's no security at all.
Well, it might make it, but only if the Foundation pays for another full page advert. Let's face it, this story won't really be counted as news in less computer-orientated places - the main stream press.
You can, of course, help however. Email this story to your friends and family. Of course, the story itself still probably won't interest people, but you can make it interesting: Your friends credit card details are at risk for using IE. Importantly, there are alternatives to IE.
I would have read it, but I've been trained not to open Word documents from untrusted or unexpected sources, even though it's a Tuesday!
Perhaps, but I think there's at least some merit to what they're doing. Computer security is dependant upon the various pieces of software and the like that this pair seem very adept at exploiting, but it's also about exploiting public opinion. This is a site famous for Microsoft bashing, so it's not like I need to provide any examples to demonstrate my point.
In short, Apple knows about the bugs, we know about the bugs; everyone's a winner.
How does the blind skydiver know when it's time to open his parachute?
The dog's lead goes slack.
On a serious note, I agree; this shouldn't be an object of mockery. Even if I can't understand the appeal of blind shooting.
You missed my sarcasm then?
I see ebay on the map. That's because, I guess, he's trying to sell the jpg on ebay; of course, it makes perfect sense.
Perhaps the author has put on sites, for interest, that may appear to fellow geeks?
I recently bought a 250 gig USB drive and filled it in about a fortnight. I mess around with digital video - that 250 gigs represents one project I was working on. I backed it up to a drive in my server.
I've started two similar projects since then; I need a lot more storage space!
Whenever some advance is made in storage technology comes along, someone always says "but how will we use all this space?". Don't worry, we will. In 5 years time you'll be amazed that you could ever use a PC with less than a terrabyte storage and wouldn't it be great to burn it all to a single disk?
We'll easily find a use for all this space, just as we find uses for all the other developments in technology.
People love HD TV. I am not a marketing exec, but I can see that paying to advertise on these services could end in profit.
That's exactly the point I was trying to get across in my reply: Finding the money to buy a new TV is often easier than finding time to fix a broken one. It's stressful and it's wasteful, but it's the modern MTV lifestyle that most of us help to perpetuate.
I hope when you graduate you can spell "edible" correctly.
For a long time I would have agreed with you completely, but since an example of someone fixing their TV turned up on Make today, I'm not so sure.
Yes, TVs and other consumer electrics may be getting more proprietary in their construction, but people are also less inclined to fix them, although examples exist that demonstrate that it is possible.
I think you're in danger of harking back to some "good old day" that never existed whilst also ignoring the fact that most people these days don't want to fix a TV or mess around with a soldering iron in the back of their hi-fi. It's easier, quicker and nicer to buy something new: We don't fix things any more because we don't want to, not because we can't.
Well put. And of course, the OP is keen to emphasise his habit of keeping all his working examples of technology; what would happen if something stopped working?
The original poster's attitude of "all my stuff works and I don't want to throw it out" is hardly interesting, despite what it may have been modded, and is in no way a solution to a growing problem within the third world. But hey, if he likes living in his own Western filth, why shouldn't people in Africa?
It's a movie about a crackpot who spent too much time on the internet and too much time with his dog. Throw in some Peter Jackson CGI pixies and this can't fail.
Anyone replying to the recent Revenge of the Nerds story with comments asking for originality in films rejoice! Nothing like this has ever been done before!
Could they not film it somewhere else?
For every Sony product line with problems you can mention, I'm sure you could find one hundred without troubles. Likewise, for every user with a problem, I'm sure you could find a thousand without.
The point I've been trying to labour is that Sony's troubles are magnified endlessly by the blogosphere and its relentless minions.
Call me crazy, but I play my CDs through a CD player and amplifier.
Ok, I concede. Sony still makes great consumer products. The point I was trying to make was that they were far from being "crap".
/. for example, most consumers don't do that) and when it came to spending my own money on a laptop, this was the best deal I could find. I did a lot of research and I'm very happy with my purchase (I've had it about 18 months).
An example: I'm posting this from a Sony laptop, I'd class myself as fairly tech-savvy (I post on
Sure, If I wanted some audiophile hi-fi I wouldn't buy Sony, nor would I buy Bose for that matter. In fact, many of your arguments could easily apply to that brand. I guess it all depends on how much money you have to splash around.
Still, my point stands, Sony hasn't got any worse since the 1980's, but people have become vocal in their opinions. The beauty of the internet is that the crackpot ramblings of one man can be read by millions an a "news" site with a proven history of Sony bashing.
Most Sony stuff is still great. What's changed since the 1980's? The invention of the blogosphere. Sure, the rootkit thing was a mistake, but did it actually affect you? It sure didn't hit me.
I'm no fanboy but I think that Sony still makes high quality goods, but the nature of the internet means that every single problem instantly gets blown out of proportion. Sony makes millions of CCDs and millions of LCD displays; a small percentage went wrong and geeks everywhere took up arms.
Sony is still making great products, despite what a vocal, geeky, minority may tell you. I'm sorry.