If you have a GPS receiver that can simultaneously interpret the signals from more systems than the standard GPS then you are more likely to get an accurate fix due to the higher number of visible satellites.
However, it might affect processing time for the first fix as it calculates the geometries etc from different systems especially if you can't use AGPS.
Not sure what Oracle won - this part of the trial was really about whether Google had fair use of the APIs. It didn't deny copying the (cough) SSO of the API - this was just deemed to not be subject to copyright previously and the question of whether it is is still to be decided.
The judge asked the jury to consider it copyrighted and therefore, basically, told them to tick the first box.
Do you mean the partial win was because they copied rangeCheck? Really?
This article seems to be a cobble together of the BBC and ZDNet articles and seeing as Rachel King seemed to be lost in a world of her own, I'm not sure the ZDNet articles should be used as source material.
I can't see any reasonable reason why Google would want to capture a very brief glimpse on unencrypted WiFi traffic. Even looking at some weird conspiracies to think that they are some subversive underground organisation which has malicious intents it seems very strange.
The only possible reason I can come up with is that they would be able to capture an IP address in the WiFi traffic and therefore associate a rough location with that IP address.
However, that still wouldn't make much sense as you would expect most WiFi access points to be encrypted nowadays and I would guess public hotspots make up a large amount of unencrypted spots then the location would only correspond to a user's temporary location.
This wouldn't be anywhere near enough to run a project based around targeted advertising based on location as the hit would be too unreliable.
They don't and never had needed a licence for Java, they don't run Java.
Just because you've read a headline on a website doesn't mean that Oracle have any sort of case to sew.
If you had looked at any of the details of this case then you would see that Oracle are now resting their case on trying to say that APIs are copyrightable. In fact not just APIs but only these specific Java APIs, simply due to the fact that there are so many and they are arranged 'artistically' - yes it is as crazy as it sounds.
They have already lost nearly all their patents and there is the case of the 11 files that weren't every used in Android that were in it's test environment.
Oracle are not suing Google for not paying for a licence. They are not saying that Google should have bought a licence or that they are using Java.
The idea that a 'simple' solution would be for Google to just give Android to Oracle to stop them being annoying is like suggesting that Apple should just give their iPAD division to Proview - after all the iPAD isn't critical to Apple's business - Absurd.
"Maybe Google can't just walk away from Android, but could they give it away to Oracle as part of damages?"
What friggin' planet are you on?
Just give away one of their most important technologies since search to a bunch of ambulance chasers that don't have a cat's hell in chance of walking away form this bogus lawsuit with anything more than their bus fare home.
Oracle are completely clutching at straws with this. Their case has been blown out of the water along with the billions they were hoping to scoop in damages. Just go back to the first stages of this lawsuit and see what Oracle were claiming and the money involved.
The Judge seems extremely clued up. There is so much to this case that it is hard to explain all the failings in Oracle's argument but suffice to say the author seems to have only scratched the surface and taken a sniff.
The comparisons between SCO v The World are startling and the coincidence lies with the lawyers representing the antagonist - BSF.
Just remember that Sun were all for Android, celebrating its launch and the positive effects for the Java community, to have another system that allowed developers to write and learn Java. A few years later after Android has become extremely successful a new owner decides it wants to monetize its Sun purchase and this is the result - nothing about morals or IP or Copyrights.
In the slightly earlier days of the internet (although I'm sure they still exist today) you could go to a site and ask to be considered as a nominee for their award e.g. "Tech Superior Web Gold Award". Sometimes you'd have to pay for the nomination, sometimes you'd have to pay to be considered for the'gold' nomination often they were free to be nominated.
The point being you would always get a reply back a few days later saying something along the lines of "Our editor has reviewed your site and are please to award you their Tech Superior Web Gold Award". You could then display that on your site.
All a big 'harmless' con, and each party knew it, but it could raise your profile as an "award winning" site. The developer could tell the CEO that their site has won an award.
Truly astonishing price, for sure. But the value might not be of the company itself but of the anti-value it may pose to Facebook.
It is a social network started from nothing that has gained popularity and a devoted following quickly - an inkling to investors that another social start up can become popular so quickly might cause the forthcoming stock price of Facebook to wobble.
If Facebook can prove that they can own the competition then it might give investors more confidence.
You can make revenue from 0845 numbers if you have enough calls. I've used them and have -only 0.5p per min but it all adds up. A quick search shows that is still possible to get at keast 0.25p per minute.
Your original remark said "At my company, we use 0845 numbers so that if (and it has happened a couple of times) there is a problem with the local number, it can be easily diverted elsewhere"
and now you state that my comment I have no clue because obviously "One of our 0845's has 14 different numbers behind it, depending on time of day, day of week and if there are any faults on the line. Oh some of those are international numbers.".
Quite different from your original post. You obviously don't use 0845 numbers for diverting a call if there is a problem with the local number you use it because you have set up a multi-number gateway, so your original comment is not true.
So maybe you comment should be "people commenting on stuff when they have no clue how our company specifically runs" - which would be true, congratulations.
I don't need 0800 numbers to be free. Just allow 0845, 0800 and similar to be part of the calling plan and not charged extra.
This would stop the calling card services that operated on 0800 that caused the free 0800 numbers to stop in the first place, but it would also allow users on contract phones to have them taken out of their standard minutes.
I know it's not as ideal as having 0800 be free from mobiles but it would be better than the current situation.
Re: Have you all forgotten? They USED to be free...
Not quite. The problem was that a lot of companies started offering to connect you through to another number for a small fee by dialling their 0800 number.
Therefore - in the days before lots(any?) of free minutes, instead of paying your mobile company 25p per minute to call a number , you would ring an 0800 number and pay them 5p a minute. Of course the mobile company had to pay for the infrastructure and any other associated costs while the 0800 company profited.
The mobile firms would then shut down the 0800 services one-by-one, but in the end (with Orange being one of the few left) they gave up and charged for all 0800 calls except some charities.
SO unfortunately it was some mobile users who spoilt it for everyone as it was innevitable that it was going to happen.
You can divert any number to any other number. If it is a fault with BT then it'll be free, if it is your fault then you'll pay a very small charge, so very poor reason.
If you aren't getting money for your Non-Geo company then use a different company - as long as you get quite a few calls in you'll get some cash.
"Google can easily access and organize a database of trademarks around the world"
Easily? Bearing in mind trademarks don't have to be registered, the many people can have the same trademark in different sectors, the same trademark can be used in the same sector in different countries, etc...
Oracle has has nearly all their patents invalidated on appeal, the 104 has been invalidated but is not yet 'final'. The final patent the '520 is not expected to apply and runs out soon.
The final claims are of copyright over the APIs (and the 11 unused files). Now this has a significant impact to the whole of the software industry, if Oracle were to win a claim in this area.
Google would not want to settle out of court unless there was a full admission that there was no infringement and the claims withdrawn with prejudice (difficult to make a settlement then). Oracle don't want to delay as there is a chance that there will be no patents left for them and therefore their purchase of Sun is written off to an extent.
An already shaky Oracle (in the eyes of some of its shareholders) would have to accept that the lawsuit was bogus, it has cost it millions, lost its 'prime' assets that they bought from Sun in the meantime and had to take regularly their eye off their core business for a couple of years. In this case they have put all their eggs in one basket because they have claimed that the six patents are the core patents that are worth nearly all the cost of the patent portfolio from Sun (so as to astronomically raise the potential damages of their claim). As these 6 are looking to be worth very little if anything then the whole portfolio is also worth very little.
You're right that the money is now (even admitted by Oracle) very little in the scheme of things Oracle's only hope is that they win the case on every count - they could then look at a claim of less than $50 million. This is by winning with a patent that has been invalidated (but not 'final') and claiming copyright on their APIs - unlikely. Even Oracle are unlikely to expect to win this.
This case is very similar to the SCO saga that wiped out the whole of SCO - and they do have something in common. Their lawyers are from that same 'maverick' firm - Boies Schiller.
It seems that this actually is actually runnning or at least capable of running android on the device, therefore there could be some interesting development options. Would be good to get a constant Grid Ref readout when out walking in the UK on a foggy hill, or a take me home direction indicator.
Shame about the battery life though - if it could last a long weekend with a fair bit of GPS use that would make it a pretty useful tool.
What a terrible business plan and it didn't work if they were stupid enough to think that. I mean, AOL, Compuserve, Mosaic all took the lead while Microsoft were starting to be seen as out of touch and irrelevant.
Why do you think car manufacturers show off advanced concept cars, and tech companies boast about products and markets not yet realised.
You don't keep quiet about the hills, sit in a valley and watch other's take the pickings then have to find another hill.
You tell the world that you own the hill, you have access to all the gold, you have the market sewn up and there is no point in trying as everyone will buy their gold from you anyway. You become the de-facto gold seller...
Can you yet add user rights to a file/folder multiple layers down and Windows automatically create a folder traversal path for that user to reach it - as per Netware circa 1995?
No you do not - have you read the above posts - look at the one entitled "Anyone for the facts?"
The fact is, you do not need a TV licence unless you are watching or recording live or nearly live TV. Doesn't matter what equipment you have or what it is capable of. Doesn't matter what the BBC or TV Licensing try to tell you. End of story.
Lots of news about the HP gen8s and HP servers in general.
I have nothing against HP servers in fact we use a range of G5 to G7s, but the amount of articles recently suggest that there might be a bit of an advertorial going on?
Wouldn't like to think that El Reg is losing it's impartiality, so wondered if you could confirm....
Or... just maybe, they bought them over the phone or online! A sophisticated criminal?
Also the PIN isn't your bank card PIN it is just a pseudo security lever which is a lot more than your normal wallet has - which is the point. We're talking about bonk cards not bank cards - same on the phone.
You do bonking with you wallet completely unprotected, you bonk with you phone with protection but not very good protection.
They do not represent anything other than how little of the sale cost actually goes to those who create it and how they can afford to pass a greater percentage to other factories in other countries.
It is a cost per product so without knowing the number of employees, the number of products made etc then the article itself does not mean a lot as each employee will see only a few cents of that.
The questions to be asking are - is there an *exploitation* of those workers due to the lack of a welfare state that forces them to work in dangerous, sub standard conditions without adequate recompense due to the real and present danger that not working would mean 'real' and critical poverty (i.e. not Western definitions of poverty).
Also, should Apple consider whether a company that could have greater working standard with the same quality of manufacture would be worth paying $10 (or more) a unit for and take the hit out of their massive profits? If they can lose much more per unit in another country then perhaps, they could also do it in China?
I think the article is suggesting that seeing as the complete product is made there then Apple should be philanthropic and spread a little of its wealth back to the people who have helped make it so profitable.
However, Apple don't pay a dividend even to it's shareholders, so presuming they will pass some money charitably and on their own accord is fairly slim.
As this was a single enterprise in control of the PCs, it could have just pushed out it's own trusted root to the machines and installed them on other devices and accomplished exactly the same thing.
The average user wouldn't have been likely to know (if that's what they wanted).
They wouldn't then have needed the expense of using Trustwave.
They would only need a known Trusted Root Authority if they were also spying on visitors or guests using their network (public WiFi?). Which would raise a few more questions...
You hold a phone with your fingers touching the sides but when you hold a tablet with one hand your palm or thumb has to rest on the face of the screen a little. This would register as a touch and keep messing with the software so you need a bezel to hold it.
Yes, I stand corrected. The information was from postings on Their forums regarding the reasons for only having decodes but it looks like that poster was incorrect.
A decode and encode in the same product is 1 unit.
In fact you can use the pin pad from any other bank, they're an open standard. You could even use your Dutch friend's Pin Device from their Dutch Bank with your Barclays card/account (or Nationwide, or any other)
Two-factor, in this case is something you have and something you know>
You have your bank card, you know your PIN. Therefore two-factor.
"That means that anyone in posession of those" - they must steal both your bank card and 'torture' you for your PIN - not your everyday purse snatcher or phisher? By then they have tied you up and been around the cash points for a few days nicking your money and buying high value goods.
"When I install something on my computer, I can block it from accessing the internet"
Really, Have you blocked every program on your PC apart from a select few from accessing the internet?
Does any program on a PC tell you it needs to use the internet before you install it?
Do you stop all programs on your PC from accessing your hard disk and set up individual permissions for all of them so they can only access a specific area of userland?
Do programs on your PC ask you before they can access your USB port, or access your printer?
Do you only get programs for your PC from a safe area, where all the programs have had their source reviewed and checked for malware or bugs? Any software downloaded from a manufacturers website or bought in retail packaging hasn't been checked.
How much junk is out there that you could install on your PC?
Android is far, far safer in all these respects. But still gives you the freedom to decide yourself what gets installed (after knowing the permissions it needs) without anyone telling you that you are not allowed to.
It used to be that you bought a UK wide road atlas (From John Menzies or your local service station) and every 2 weeks you'd get sent a new one through the post with all the updates from the UK local authorities for that week.
They would kindly mark on the updated atlas, with a red cross, every road that they didn't wish you to use and also place warnings on there telling you all the risks for using certain roads or if they were close to cliffs or liable to flood.
However, since sat navs have come out, the updates now take months and the user has no possible way of telling which roads are suitable for their vehicle. They are no longer allowed to ignore directions if it becomes obvious that the route is not suitable and have been forced (I think by legislation?) to obey the directions it gives.
Modern technology is always creating these backwards steps.
If it is being used legitimately then it is probably being used for debugging purposes to send error logs. However, they could, as other developers have done, have a separate log upload app in the case of problems and leave the log permission out of their main app.
I agree with you, I wouldn't install any of their apps with that permission, combined with internet access.
Why does it matter what they are going to use the access for or the list of contacts - as you have realised it's a bit too much access you don't install the app. The security worked, the phone warned you that the application required certain rights and asked you if you still wanted to allow it access.
So 'good' apps become well known by having reputable authors with a decent company, strict privacy policy, reviews by trusted organisations etc
This is just like Windows, Mac OS and even Linux on the desktop. You can simply install anything from anywhere on these platforms and they will not inform you what permissions they require. You use your common sense but you also aren't restricted to only programs that your OS maker decides you are allowed to access.
Android is safer than any desktop in that respect - just use your friggin common sense - use the permissions to decide to install and don't try out any ol' crapware just for the fun of it.
Well, if Francis Aldhouse has "'no recollection' of the meeting between with Owens and the former commissioner Richard Thomas where they discussed the investigation" then Mr Aldhouse would by default also not recall telling Mr Owens that "the press was too big to take on".
So extrapolating that we could assume that Mr Aldhouse probably did say that (as recalled by Mr Owen) but simply forgot the meeting and its contents happened. If the whole fact of the meeting is forgotten then the detail within the meeting by default must also be forgotten.
Register
135 posts • joined Monday 12th April 2010 22:46 GMT
Page:
Re: enlighten us..
If you have a GPS receiver that can simultaneously interpret the signals from more systems than the standard GPS then you are more likely to get an accurate fix due to the higher number of visible satellites.
However, it might affect processing time for the first fix as it calculates the geometries etc from different systems especially if you can't use AGPS.
This post has been deleted by its author
Partial Victory?
Not sure what Oracle won - this part of the trial was really about whether Google had fair use of the APIs. It didn't deny copying the (cough) SSO of the API - this was just deemed to not be subject to copyright previously and the question of whether it is is still to be decided.
The judge asked the jury to consider it copyrighted and therefore, basically, told them to tick the first box.
Do you mean the partial win was because they copied rangeCheck? Really?
This article seems to be a cobble together of the BBC and ZDNet articles and seeing as Rachel King seemed to be lost in a world of her own, I'm not sure the ZDNet articles should be used as source material.
Why do this?
I can't see any reasonable reason why Google would want to capture a very brief glimpse on unencrypted WiFi traffic. Even looking at some weird conspiracies to think that they are some subversive underground organisation which has malicious intents it seems very strange.
The only possible reason I can come up with is that they would be able to capture an IP address in the WiFi traffic and therefore associate a rough location with that IP address.
However, that still wouldn't make much sense as you would expect most WiFi access points to be encrypted nowadays and I would guess public hotspots make up a large amount of unencrypted spots then the location would only correspond to a user's temporary location.
This wouldn't be anywhere near enough to run a project based around targeted advertising based on location as the hit would be too unreliable.
Return Policy
"Customers have also griped over HTC's 28-day returns policy "
If it's faulty, it's faulty - your statutory rights give you an absolute minimum of a year but up to 6 or so depending on the term "reasonable".
Re: Do no evil?
They don't and never had needed a licence for Java, they don't run Java.
Just because you've read a headline on a website doesn't mean that Oracle have any sort of case to sew.
If you had looked at any of the details of this case then you would see that Oracle are now resting their case on trying to say that APIs are copyrightable. In fact not just APIs but only these specific Java APIs, simply due to the fact that there are so many and they are arranged 'artistically' - yes it is as crazy as it sounds.
They have already lost nearly all their patents and there is the case of the 11 files that weren't every used in Android that were in it's test environment.
Oracle are not suing Google for not paying for a licence. They are not saying that Google should have bought a licence or that they are using Java.
The idea that a 'simple' solution would be for Google to just give Android to Oracle to stop them being annoying is like suggesting that Apple should just give their iPAD division to Proview - after all the iPAD isn't critical to Apple's business - Absurd.
Re: Do no evil?
"Maybe Google can't just walk away from Android, but could they give it away to Oracle as part of damages?"
What friggin' planet are you on?
Just give away one of their most important technologies since search to a bunch of ambulance chasers that don't have a cat's hell in chance of walking away form this bogus lawsuit with anything more than their bus fare home.
This whole trial is flawed
Oracle are completely clutching at straws with this. Their case has been blown out of the water along with the billions they were hoping to scoop in damages. Just go back to the first stages of this lawsuit and see what Oracle were claiming and the money involved.
The Judge seems extremely clued up. There is so much to this case that it is hard to explain all the failings in Oracle's argument but suffice to say the author seems to have only scratched the surface and taken a sniff.
The comparisons between SCO v The World are startling and the coincidence lies with the lawyers representing the antagonist - BSF.
Just remember that Sun were all for Android, celebrating its launch and the positive effects for the Java community, to have another system that allowed developers to write and learn Java. A few years later after Android has become extremely successful a new owner decides it wants to monetize its Sun purchase and this is the result - nothing about morals or IP or Copyrights.
Re: 'Award Winning'
In the slightly earlier days of the internet (although I'm sure they still exist today) you could go to a site and ask to be considered as a nominee for their award e.g. "Tech Superior Web Gold Award". Sometimes you'd have to pay for the nomination, sometimes you'd have to pay to be considered for the'gold' nomination often they were free to be nominated.
The point being you would always get a reply back a few days later saying something along the lines of "Our editor has reviewed your site and are please to award you their Tech Superior Web Gold Award". You could then display that on your site.
All a big 'harmless' con, and each party knew it, but it could raise your profile as an "award winning" site. The developer could tell the CEO that their site has won an award.
Re: Smells like... the dotcom years again!
Truly astonishing price, for sure. But the value might not be of the company itself but of the anti-value it may pose to Facebook.
It is a social network started from nothing that has gained popularity and a devoted following quickly - an inkling to investors that another social start up can become popular so quickly might cause the forthcoming stock price of Facebook to wobble.
If Facebook can prove that they can own the competition then it might give investors more confidence.
Re: Amazing,....
Quite passive aggressive there?
You can make revenue from 0845 numbers if you have enough calls. I've used them and have -only 0.5p per min but it all adds up. A quick search shows that is still possible to get at keast 0.25p per minute.
Your original remark said "At my company, we use 0845 numbers so that if (and it has happened a couple of times) there is a problem with the local number, it can be easily diverted elsewhere"
and now you state that my comment I have no clue because obviously "One of our 0845's has 14 different numbers behind it, depending on time of day, day of week and if there are any faults on the line. Oh some of those are international numbers.".
Quite different from your original post. You obviously don't use 0845 numbers for diverting a call if there is a problem with the local number you use it because you have set up a multi-number gateway, so your original comment is not true.
So maybe you comment should be "people commenting on stuff when they have no clue how our company specifically runs" - which would be true, congratulations.
Re: The capacitive buttons: I'm curious...
You get an on-screen menu button like on the nexus but on its own in the middle.
Just add some numbers to the calling plan.
I don't need 0800 numbers to be free. Just allow 0845, 0800 and similar to be part of the calling plan and not charged extra.
This would stop the calling card services that operated on 0800 that caused the free 0800 numbers to stop in the first place, but it would also allow users on contract phones to have them taken out of their standard minutes.
I know it's not as ideal as having 0800 be free from mobiles but it would be better than the current situation.
Re: Have you all forgotten? They USED to be free...
Not quite. The problem was that a lot of companies started offering to connect you through to another number for a small fee by dialling their 0800 number.
Therefore - in the days before lots(any?) of free minutes, instead of paying your mobile company 25p per minute to call a number , you would ring an 0800 number and pay them 5p a minute. Of course the mobile company had to pay for the infrastructure and any other associated costs while the 0800 company profited.
The mobile firms would then shut down the 0800 services one-by-one, but in the end (with Orange being one of the few left) they gave up and charged for all 0800 calls except some charities.
SO unfortunately it was some mobile users who spoilt it for everyone as it was innevitable that it was going to happen.
Diverting a call
You can divert any number to any other number. If it is a fault with BT then it'll be free, if it is your fault then you'll pay a very small charge, so very poor reason.
If you aren't getting money for your Non-Geo company then use a different company - as long as you get quite a few calls in you'll get some cash.
Re: What is the source?
"Google can easily access and organize a database of trademarks around the world"
Easily? Bearing in mind trademarks don't have to be registered, the many people can have the same trademark in different sectors, the same trademark can be used in the same sector in different countries, etc...
Not quite so easy.
I thought the Gmail Multitap was awesome!
Especially the multitasking mode....
Gmail Tap
Re: Huh?
As there is now a lot more to lose now...
Oracle has has nearly all their patents invalidated on appeal, the 104 has been invalidated but is not yet 'final'. The final patent the '520 is not expected to apply and runs out soon.
The final claims are of copyright over the APIs (and the 11 unused files). Now this has a significant impact to the whole of the software industry, if Oracle were to win a claim in this area.
Google would not want to settle out of court unless there was a full admission that there was no infringement and the claims withdrawn with prejudice (difficult to make a settlement then). Oracle don't want to delay as there is a chance that there will be no patents left for them and therefore their purchase of Sun is written off to an extent.
An already shaky Oracle (in the eyes of some of its shareholders) would have to accept that the lawsuit was bogus, it has cost it millions, lost its 'prime' assets that they bought from Sun in the meantime and had to take regularly their eye off their core business for a couple of years. In this case they have put all their eggs in one basket because they have claimed that the six patents are the core patents that are worth nearly all the cost of the patent portfolio from Sun (so as to astronomically raise the potential damages of their claim). As these 6 are looking to be worth very little if anything then the whole portfolio is also worth very little.
You're right that the money is now (even admitted by Oracle) very little in the scheme of things Oracle's only hope is that they win the case on every count - they could then look at a claim of less than $50 million. This is by winning with a patent that has been invalidated (but not 'final') and claiming copyright on their APIs - unlikely. Even Oracle are unlikely to expect to win this.
This case is very similar to the SCO saga that wiped out the whole of SCO - and they do have something in common. Their lawyers are from that same 'maverick' firm - Boies Schiller.
OS?
It seems that this actually is actually runnning or at least capable of running android on the device, therefore there could be some interesting development options. Would be good to get a constant Grid Ref readout when out walking in the UK on a foggy hill, or a take me home direction indicator.
Shame about the battery life though - if it could last a long weekend with a fair bit of GPS use that would make it a pretty useful tool.
Re: "Chrome catching IE slowly"?
Why don't you just set up company-wide permissions to not allow execution rights to the APP DATA folder for users?
Re: Gold in the hills
What a terrible business plan and it didn't work if they were stupid enough to think that. I mean, AOL, Compuserve, Mosaic all took the lead while Microsoft were starting to be seen as out of touch and irrelevant.
Why do you think car manufacturers show off advanced concept cars, and tech companies boast about products and markets not yet realised.
You don't keep quiet about the hills, sit in a valley and watch other's take the pickings then have to find another hill.
You tell the world that you own the hill, you have access to all the gold, you have the market sewn up and there is no point in trying as everyone will buy their gold from you anyway. You become the de-facto gold seller...
Re: Re: Real issue is
No but he did say
“The Internet? We are not interested in it.” in 1993
and
“I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” in 1994
before going head long into the internet in 1995 with a call to arms and the creation/purchases of MSN and Hotmail.
At the time most people using the internet knew it was going to be massive.
I only need one feature...
Can you yet add user rights to a file/folder multiple layers down and Windows automatically create a folder traversal path for that user to reach it - as per Netware circa 1995?
@AC 09:18 Re: Very Wrong.
No you do not - have you read the above posts - look at the one entitled "Anyone for the facts?"
The fact is, you do not need a TV licence unless you are watching or recording live or nearly live TV. Doesn't matter what equipment you have or what it is capable of. Doesn't matter what the BBC or TV Licensing try to tell you. End of story.
Re: Just a second
I don't think he is an Reg journalist - they use freelancers as well.
Are these planted stories?
Lots of news about the HP gen8s and HP servers in general.
I have nothing against HP servers in fact we use a range of G5 to G7s, but the amount of articles recently suggest that there might be a bit of an advertorial going on?
Wouldn't like to think that El Reg is losing it's impartiality, so wondered if you could confirm....
Re: prior art?
Android App of the week:
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/03/22/app_of_the_week_android_thrutu/
Looks very similar!
@AC
Or... just maybe, they bought them over the phone or online! A sophisticated criminal?
Also the PIN isn't your bank card PIN it is just a pseudo security lever which is a lot more than your normal wallet has - which is the point. We're talking about bonk cards not bank cards - same on the phone.
You do bonking with you wallet completely unprotected, you bonk with you phone with protection but not very good protection.
6.4 TB but how much usable?
So if you want to use 10+2 that makes about 2.6TB of usable space for $200K.
The figures are meaningless
They do not represent anything other than how little of the sale cost actually goes to those who create it and how they can afford to pass a greater percentage to other factories in other countries.
It is a cost per product so without knowing the number of employees, the number of products made etc then the article itself does not mean a lot as each employee will see only a few cents of that.
The questions to be asking are - is there an *exploitation* of those workers due to the lack of a welfare state that forces them to work in dangerous, sub standard conditions without adequate recompense due to the real and present danger that not working would mean 'real' and critical poverty (i.e. not Western definitions of poverty).
Also, should Apple consider whether a company that could have greater working standard with the same quality of manufacture would be worth paying $10 (or more) a unit for and take the hit out of their massive profits? If they can lose much more per unit in another country then perhaps, they could also do it in China?
Redstribution of wealth
I think the article is suggesting that seeing as the complete product is made there then Apple should be philanthropic and spread a little of its wealth back to the people who have helped make it so profitable.
However, Apple don't pay a dividend even to it's shareholders, so presuming they will pass some money charitably and on their own accord is fairly slim.
Why was it even necessary?
As this was a single enterprise in control of the PCs, it could have just pushed out it's own trusted root to the machines and installed them on other devices and accomplished exactly the same thing.
The average user wouldn't have been likely to know (if that's what they wanted).
They wouldn't then have needed the expense of using Trustwave.
They would only need a known Trusted Root Authority if they were also spying on visitors or guests using their network (public WiFi?). Which would raise a few more questions...
Thick Borders
It's so you can hold it.
You hold a phone with your fingers touching the sides but when you hold a tablet with one hand your palm or thumb has to rest on the face of the screen a little. This would register as a touch and keep messing with the software so you need a bezel to hold it.
@mccp
Yes, I stand corrected. The information was from postings on Their forums regarding the reasons for only having decodes but it looks like that poster was incorrect.
A decode and encode in the same product is 1 unit.
This post has been deleted by its author
Rasberry Pi
That is decode only - encode was too expensive for them
It's already been done
This has already been invented: unfortunately their site is down at the moment but there is a cached version, courtesy of the web archive team, here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110408142833/http://chromeadblock.com/freedom/
Android doesn't use Java...
...it uses the Davlik VM and ASF Harmony libraries, and you do realise that Sun released most of Java as Free, Open Source under the GPL?
@NomNomNom
The pin device isn't important.
In fact you can use the pin pad from any other bank, they're an open standard. You could even use your Dutch friend's Pin Device from their Dutch Bank with your Barclays card/account (or Nationwide, or any other)
@Joefish - two-factor
Two-factor, in this case is something you have and something you know>
You have your bank card, you know your PIN. Therefore two-factor.
"That means that anyone in posession of those" - they must steal both your bank card and 'torture' you for your PIN - not your everyday purse snatcher or phisher? By then they have tied you up and been around the cash points for a few days nicking your money and buying high value goods.
This post has been deleted by its author
Pay-per-view
But isn't this a pay per programme/movie rather than a monthly access pass?
RE: Point in case
"When I install something on my computer, I can block it from accessing the internet"
Really, Have you blocked every program on your PC apart from a select few from accessing the internet?
Does any program on a PC tell you it needs to use the internet before you install it?
Do you stop all programs on your PC from accessing your hard disk and set up individual permissions for all of them so they can only access a specific area of userland?
Do programs on your PC ask you before they can access your USB port, or access your printer?
Do you only get programs for your PC from a safe area, where all the programs have had their source reviewed and checked for malware or bugs? Any software downloaded from a manufacturers website or bought in retail packaging hasn't been checked.
How much junk is out there that you could install on your PC?
Android is far, far safer in all these respects. But still gives you the freedom to decide yourself what gets installed (after knowing the permissions it needs) without anyone telling you that you are not allowed to.
Design Guidelines
Android has always had design guidelines http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/ui_guidelines/index.html
They may not have had a dedicated website or be as comprehensive but they've been there since 1.5 at least.
This is just an evolution of it (a good one) but not brand new.
Keep a power adapter in the safe?
Or you could just use a memory stick, or a CD or even stick a post it note in the safe!
These Sat Navs have brought all these problems...
It used to be that you bought a UK wide road atlas (From John Menzies or your local service station) and every 2 weeks you'd get sent a new one through the post with all the updates from the UK local authorities for that week.
They would kindly mark on the updated atlas, with a red cross, every road that they didn't wish you to use and also place warnings on there telling you all the risks for using certain roads or if they were close to cliffs or liable to flood.
However, since sat navs have come out, the updates now take months and the user has no possible way of telling which roads are suitable for their vehicle. They are no longer allowed to ignore directions if it becomes obvious that the route is not suitable and have been forced (I think by legislation?) to obey the directions it gives.
Modern technology is always creating these backwards steps.
Probably for debugging
If it is being used legitimately then it is probably being used for debugging purposes to send error logs. However, they could, as other developers have done, have a separate log upload app in the case of problems and leave the log permission out of their main app.
I agree with you, I wouldn't install any of their apps with that permission, combined with internet access.
Experts exchange...
Just scroll to the bottom of the page
All the 'answers' are sitting there waiting to be read.
Why does it matter what they are going to use the access for or the list of contacts - as you have realised it's a bit too much access you don't install the app. The security worked, the phone warned you that the application required certain rights and asked you if you still wanted to allow it access.
So 'good' apps become well known by having reputable authors with a decent company, strict privacy policy, reviews by trusted organisations etc
This is just like Windows, Mac OS and even Linux on the desktop. You can simply install anything from anywhere on these platforms and they will not inform you what permissions they require. You use your common sense but you also aren't restricted to only programs that your OS maker decides you are allowed to access.
Android is safer than any desktop in that respect - just use your friggin common sense - use the permissions to decide to install and don't try out any ol' crapware just for the fun of it.
No Recollection?
Well, if Francis Aldhouse has "'no recollection' of the meeting between with Owens and the former commissioner Richard Thomas where they discussed the investigation" then Mr Aldhouse would by default also not recall telling Mr Owens that "the press was too big to take on".
So extrapolating that we could assume that Mr Aldhouse probably did say that (as recalled by Mr Owen) but simply forgot the meeting and its contents happened. If the whole fact of the meeting is forgotten then the detail within the meeting by default must also be forgotten.
Page: