It's sad that you're even asking the question of the authenticity of this video, it's so obviously tongue in cheek. The only story here is that large numbers of Chinese people have fallen for it.
"It bears all the hallmarks of a policy proposal that is trying to fix a problem without understanding the solution"
I'd go further and say the government is trying to fix a problem without even understanding the problem, never mind any solution...
Network level filtering for mobile data connections is right and propper as parents can't otherwise restrict adult content on a childs device, but on a home ISP connection it is entirely inappropriate not just for technical reasons but because it is never going to be an effective solution and will pring with it a whoile host of new problems and issues.
I personally don't se what all the fuss is about - securing every device on a hoime network in one swoop can be easily achieved by using an alternative DNS service such as OpenDNS. Even without a static IP tis can be effective by way of a DNS update client. Of course, ISPs wouls be very reluctant to tout such a solution as it would cut their revenu drastically if users migrated away from their DNS servers en masse; so surely a reasonable solution is for ISPs to implement OpenDNS style user configurable content filtering on their own DNS servers. This could even be done on an opt-out basis without causing too mouch hastle, or alternatively provide alternate DNS server addresses depending on a customers choice at sign-up.
The posibilities and permutaions are many but I'm convinced that this would be the best way to implement additional content controls, provided the responsibility and configurability of it was placed firmly with the bill payer.
"Since then customers have benefited from ebooks that are more..." EXPENSIVE.
Fuck you Apple, I don't want the novels I buy to be fucking 'interactive' (and all priced at a minimum $9.99), I just want them to be as decent value as possible, which is why I only have Kindle and Google Books on my Android phone.
Apple's definition of a monopoly = success in any market sector by anybody but them.
If you know seven people with the-new-iPads's then I'd have to say there's a very good chance that you and your circle of friends are all enormous twats.
I'm with you - now instead of taking my family to see the movie at my local flea-pit, I'm going to ILLEGALLY DOWLOAD IT - there - not even posted anonymously either!
About the most sensible response so far - SZC could be seen to be protecting their IP, while also acknowledging the fact that the actions of a small village pub are having absolutely fuck all financial effect or negative influence on them, and said pub is not seeking to profit from their IP in any way, but simply applying an enthusiastic theme to the regular business of flogging the medicinal compound.
There are a lot of idiots about today I see - contrary to the comment below the FBI are perfectly entitled to use any method they wish to bypass the security on the phone, just as they could obtain a warrant to search the guys car or house, this is a task which in this case would be very straight forward indeed; the Android pattern lock screen offers minimal real security and is easily bypassed in a number of ways.
But wait, aren't they asking Google to help them do exactly that? The court request is not for permission to beak into the phone, simply to try to force Google to help them do it, they obviously already have that right.
7 thumbs down? C'mon ppl, did you all just read the stupid comment below and forget to engage your brains?
Look to another recent case where encryption keys were refused; the feds eventually broke the encryption thus negating the need to enforce the court order demanding they keys be revealed.
In this case as there they have reasonable grounds to suspect incriminating material is held on the phone and they have the same right to search it as they would to search a house or a car.
13 thumbs down? Maybe 13 people who read your comment and didn't stop to consider that it might be complete and utter bollocks..?
1. The Oink verdict firmly established that sites which link to potentially infringing content but host nothing infringing do not break UK law, even if the site operator profits from advertising / donations as Oink did.
2. Did this site enhance / proliferate other sites which held infringing content, probably yes, but the same can be said of any search engine. If the US want to protect creative rights they should go after those who are infringing those rights. If I were to offer up copyrighted content, or sell illegal satellite decoders / copy bypass systems then I've clearly broken the law, if I publish URLs of sites doing this, I have done nothing wrong; indeed, the media police should be thankful to me that they can use my site for it's intended purpose and to their own ends - to locate and take action against those infringing their rights.
If I see someone shop lifting and I point them out and publicly declare; "this person is shoplifting, and probably has stolen goods to sell" I'm doing nothing wrong, I';m being a good public servant.
The only factor which could turn this into a crime would be an element of agreement / conspiracy between the infringer, and the one linking to the infringing content - if that could be proven then the site owner would become an accessory - it looks like this is the route being pursued against Tim Dotcom and Mega-Upload where the US believe they can prove a degree of collusion.
The alleged infringement was way back in 2002, when the site was first set up the extradition treaty wasn't even in place...
Even so, if this had all occurred last week I'd still argue that he's done nothing illegal under UK law and should not be subject to the Whims of the US media industry.
"Frustrated in its attempts to get at the secrets on the phone, the FBI filed a warrant on in order to compel Google to assist it."
If the FBI, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the world, had to resort to this route rather than breaking into the phone themselves (something which most reasonably intelligent / IT literate human beings should be able to do in no more than a few hours / Google searches) then frankly they are morons.
The whole treaty and it's application are the complete fucking disgrace:
Brought in to supposedly 'fight terrorism' the treaties recent application proves the much laboured point that bad laws will ALWAYS be abused and used for purposes that were not originally intended.
Now UK citizens can be shipped out when they've done NOTHING illegal under UK law, (as the Oink verdict established - linking to copyrighted content is not a crime).
"It may not sell as many sets as Samsung or Sony, but it can make a mark"
No doubt it'll dig up some spurious patents for a "rectangular media delivery panel" and commence legal actions against Samsung in Australian, German and Scandinavian courts to block sales of their infringing 'televisions'...
"Scotland Yard said this morning that its cops arrested all six individuals on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977."
If the police find evidence of such a conspiracy, then this just got a WHOLE load more serious than illegal intercepts - maximum sentence of life imprisonment...
Was with Be for almost 6 years and always very happy, but over the last year they have failed to scale their central and distributed infrastructure in line with demand leaving most users seeing significant slowing down at peek times and users on some exchanges finding their connections becoming close to unusable for long periods.
Again they tried to point the blame elsewhere, generally at BT, but have recently started to admit to capacity related problems and faults on some exchanges with no planned or projected fix in sight.
As soon as Sky installed LLU on my exchange i bailed out, why pay almost £20 / month for a second rate service, when I can get an equally good second rate service from Sky for £7.50 / month?!
Just to clarify - I'm not saying that the opposite argument is in fact the case and 'cyber weapons' do indeed have massive offensive potential. There is a valid argument that their capabilities are often over egged in the minds of the non-technical public and law enforcement / security bods.
However, this guy's whole thesis appears to be based on the above flawed premise.
The plainly obvious truth of the matter is that the 'deeper' into a system an attack vector can infiltrate, the more potential for exercising control and effecting change on the infiltrated system and connected systems.
"Huawei has long been suspected of links to the Chinese government and not without reason. The firm’s founder, president and CEO Ren Zhengfei served in the People’s Liberation Army while a US intelligence report last year tied chairwoman Yun Safang to the mysterious Ministry of State Security."
In the west we often fail to understand the political and military structure in China: The government and the military are two quite distinct 'families' with a lot of links and shared purpose but surprisingly little overlap.
Huawei (roughly translated "Go China!) is very much military affiliated, whereas ZTE is more under government control.
I'm sure (well I hope at least) that the intelligence communities understand the separate affiliations of the two companies and the significant implications this has in relation to their position and motivation within the PRP as a whole.
Frankly I'm getting fed up with all of the "Apple and Samsung need to play nice" posts.
The fact is, Apple are the aggressor, Apple are the litigious party, Apple are the (poorly attempted) patent troll...
I have every sympathy for Samsung who are taking hit after hit on behalf of all Android vendors simply because they are making the best, and best selling products.
OK, their move to block Apple on the basis of GSM patents wasn't perhaps their best move but understand that they were backed into a corner with few legal options, finding their valid challenges to ludicrous patents and 'look & feel' arguments by Apple being rejected in key court cases it was something of a last resort.
Personally I think they're recent ad campaign is a much better response and it's good to see that Apple's litigious strategy has back-fired in Europe and Australia sending Samsung sales souring! =OD
In the contrary, it's you who's revealed a prejudice:
Most popular apps have versions on both platforms, the only real 'lock in' is Apple's walled (and electrified & razor wired) garden...
The Android platform and related services (with the partial exception of the Amazon Kindle Fire) makes little or no attempt to 'lock in' users with proprietary limitations and restrictions, but rather relies on the opposite approach of openness and choice to attract users.
Apple, on the other hand, operate almost exclusively in this way which makes any move from iOS to another platform WAY harder and less likely than a move from another platform to iOS. (Although admittedly the latter is mitigated by the fact that not many right thinking people, having tasted and enjoyed freedom, will march willingly into a jail cell.)
I think 14 years is a bit of an exaggeration, but yes; recognizing and dialer / hyper-linking URLs / phone numbers etc. in sms and emails is a feature that was available on several platforms (both smartphone and featurephone) long before Apple filed a patent on it.
Of course, Apple routinely ignore prior art and imagine everything they 're-invent' becomes original in some mysterious way, for example, remember the ads for 'facetime' - a bunch of cookie cutter Apple execs talking about how amazing and revolutionary this was, when in fact 3G video calling and video conferencing in general have been running video chat in this format for years, and Apple as usual brought up the rear and were pretty much last in line to give in and put a front facing camera on their phones...
Apple are not an innovator, they're a corporate and cultural cancer. Apple are to business what The Church of Scientology are to religion.
Hmmm... Not even a mention of the many 'leaked' beta versions and the considerable amount of development that has gone into them by xda-developers / Cyanogen team?
Nice to get the tip but this article is rather light on related info...
For example, Samsung's release will almost certainly replace the stock ICS launcher with their Touchwiz interface, a move which will be very unpopular with many and to some extent negate the very reason for upgrading to ICS!
The only thing Apple really cares about is their bottom line, and as long as they're making 70% profit on iPads and squeezing their suppliers and manufacturers for all they're worth, poor conditions and worker abuses will continue.
Of course, a better use of a powerful X-ray laser would be to turn it on all of the pseudo-intellectual wankers who regularly troll the Reg forums with pitiful examples of cleverer, (yes it is a word), they think they are than everybody else.
Anyone who's icon use is pretty much limited to "D'oh", "Meh", "highly technical content", "No Shit Sherlock" and "Grammar Nazi" should probably be asking themselves, "am I really that much of a cunt?"
Register
174 posts • joined Tuesday 11th May 2010 12:17 GMT
Page:
I would have thought these guys would be firmly in the frame for this...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/13/pirate_pay_dos_against_torrents/
Pricing?
I'm reminded of the following quote by Sir Sydney Camm re the demise of the TSR-2 in 1965...
"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."
BAE have the fourth dimension pretty much wrapped up where UK defence is concerned :o(
It's sad that you're even asking the question of the authenticity of this video, it's so obviously tongue in cheek. The only story here is that large numbers of Chinese people have fallen for it.
First cock-up the Queens Knickers in a long while...
"One might suggest that a half-arsed approach is still a cunning strategy to make election rival Ken Livingstone look less Chinese-friendly"
I dunno - compared to Boris he definitely looks more Chinese...
"It bears all the hallmarks of a policy proposal that is trying to fix a problem without understanding the solution"
I'd go further and say the government is trying to fix a problem without even understanding the problem, never mind any solution...
Network level filtering for mobile data connections is right and propper as parents can't otherwise restrict adult content on a childs device, but on a home ISP connection it is entirely inappropriate not just for technical reasons but because it is never going to be an effective solution and will pring with it a whoile host of new problems and issues.
I personally don't se what all the fuss is about - securing every device on a hoime network in one swoop can be easily achieved by using an alternative DNS service such as OpenDNS. Even without a static IP tis can be effective by way of a DNS update client. Of course, ISPs wouls be very reluctant to tout such a solution as it would cut their revenu drastically if users migrated away from their DNS servers en masse; so surely a reasonable solution is for ISPs to implement OpenDNS style user configurable content filtering on their own DNS servers. This could even be done on an opt-out basis without causing too mouch hastle, or alternatively provide alternate DNS server addresses depending on a customers choice at sign-up.
The posibilities and permutaions are many but I'm convinced that this would be the best way to implement additional content controls, provided the responsibility and configurability of it was placed firmly with the bill payer.
"Since then customers have benefited from ebooks that are more..." EXPENSIVE.
Fuck you Apple, I don't want the novels I buy to be fucking 'interactive' (and all priced at a minimum $9.99), I just want them to be as decent value as possible, which is why I only have Kindle and Google Books on my Android phone.
Apple's definition of a monopoly = success in any market sector by anybody but them.
Fucking greedy arrogant hypocritical twats.
"Sony axes 10,000 workers"
Axes them what?
Re: ok
If you know seven people with the-new-iPads's then I'd have to say there's a very good chance that you and your circle of friends are all enormous twats.
"Debbie Douez" - Why oh why couldn't she have been from Dallas?!
Re: I stopped reading after the first point
Obviously this article is way too subtle for all of the Gary McKinnons out there...
This article is now going viral across Facebook, top stuff!!!
Re: Fuck Saul Zentz
I'm with you - now instead of taking my family to see the movie at my local flea-pit, I'm going to ILLEGALLY DOWLOAD IT - there - not even posted anonymously either!
(I'll still buy the DVD though ;o)
Re: Bad feeling...
About the most sensible response so far - SZC could be seen to be protecting their IP, while also acknowledging the fact that the actions of a small village pub are having absolutely fuck all financial effect or negative influence on them, and said pub is not seeking to profit from their IP in any way, but simply applying an enthusiastic theme to the regular business of flogging the medicinal compound.
I agree with any and all posts above referring to SZC as 'wankers', 'twats', 'cunts' etc.
Re: Brain dead feds...
There are a lot of idiots about today I see - contrary to the comment below the FBI are perfectly entitled to use any method they wish to bypass the security on the phone, just as they could obtain a warrant to search the guys car or house, this is a task which in this case would be very straight forward indeed; the Android pattern lock screen offers minimal real security and is easily bypassed in a number of ways.
But wait, aren't they asking Google to help them do exactly that? The court request is not for permission to beak into the phone, simply to try to force Google to help them do it, they obviously already have that right.
7 thumbs down? C'mon ppl, did you all just read the stupid comment below and forget to engage your brains?
Re: Brain dead feds...
This is simply wrong.
Look to another recent case where encryption keys were refused; the feds eventually broke the encryption thus negating the need to enforce the court order demanding they keys be revealed.
In this case as there they have reasonable grounds to suspect incriminating material is held on the phone and they have the same right to search it as they would to search a house or a car.
13 thumbs down? Maybe 13 people who read your comment and didn't stop to consider that it might be complete and utter bollocks..?
Re: Couple of questions
Answer to both questions is no...
1. The Oink verdict firmly established that sites which link to potentially infringing content but host nothing infringing do not break UK law, even if the site operator profits from advertising / donations as Oink did.
2. Did this site enhance / proliferate other sites which held infringing content, probably yes, but the same can be said of any search engine. If the US want to protect creative rights they should go after those who are infringing those rights. If I were to offer up copyrighted content, or sell illegal satellite decoders / copy bypass systems then I've clearly broken the law, if I publish URLs of sites doing this, I have done nothing wrong; indeed, the media police should be thankful to me that they can use my site for it's intended purpose and to their own ends - to locate and take action against those infringing their rights.
If I see someone shop lifting and I point them out and publicly declare; "this person is shoplifting, and probably has stolen goods to sell" I'm doing nothing wrong, I';m being a good public servant.
The only factor which could turn this into a crime would be an element of agreement / conspiracy between the infringer, and the one linking to the infringing content - if that could be proven then the site owner would become an accessory - it looks like this is the route being pursued against Tim Dotcom and Mega-Upload where the US believe they can prove a degree of collusion.
Re: two points of view
The alleged infringement was way back in 2002, when the site was first set up the extradition treaty wasn't even in place...
Even so, if this had all occurred last week I'd still argue that he's done nothing illegal under UK law and should not be subject to the Whims of the US media industry.
Brain dead feds...
"Frustrated in its attempts to get at the secrets on the phone, the FBI filed a warrant on in order to compel Google to assist it."
If the FBI, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the world, had to resort to this route rather than breaking into the phone themselves (something which most reasonably intelligent / IT literate human beings should be able to do in no more than a few hours / Google searches) then frankly they are morons.
The whole treaty and it's application are the complete fucking disgrace:
Brought in to supposedly 'fight terrorism' the treaties recent application proves the much laboured point that bad laws will ALWAYS be abused and used for purposes that were not originally intended.
Now UK citizens can be shipped out when they've done NOTHING illegal under UK law, (as the Oink verdict established - linking to copyrighted content is not a crime).
"It may not sell as many sets as Samsung or Sony, but it can make a mark"
No doubt it'll dig up some spurious patents for a "rectangular media delivery panel" and commence legal actions against Samsung in Australian, German and Scandinavian courts to block sales of their infringing 'televisions'...
"Scotland Yard said this morning that its cops arrested all six individuals on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977."
If the police find evidence of such a conspiracy, then this just got a WHOLE load more serious than illegal intercepts - maximum sentence of life imprisonment...
Re: So...
Well, he did postulate the forward deflector as well, a solution to preventing time-locked matter build up at the front of the 'warp field'...
Least of their problems
Was with Be for almost 6 years and always very happy, but over the last year they have failed to scale their central and distributed infrastructure in line with demand leaving most users seeing significant slowing down at peek times and users on some exchanges finding their connections becoming close to unusable for long periods.
Again they tried to point the blame elsewhere, generally at BT, but have recently started to admit to capacity related problems and faults on some exchanges with no planned or projected fix in sight.
As soon as Sky installed LLU on my exchange i bailed out, why pay almost £20 / month for a second rate service, when I can get an equally good second rate service from Sky for £7.50 / month?!
Maybe I'm a bit jaded but I wonder how long before they start turning up on eBay for £££
PRIOR ART!!!
WTF are the US Patent and Trademark Office thinking?!!!
These patents, including multi-touch, are riddled with prior art.
Just to clarify - I'm not saying that the opposite argument is in fact the case and 'cyber weapons' do indeed have massive offensive potential. There is a valid argument that their capabilities are often over egged in the minds of the non-technical public and law enforcement / security bods.
However, this guy's whole thesis appears to be based on the above flawed premise.
The plainly obvious truth of the matter is that the 'deeper' into a system an attack vector can infiltrate, the more potential for exercising control and effecting change on the infiltrated system and connected systems.
"The deeper a bug can get into any given system, the less likely it is to trouble anything else."
What complete and utter bollocks!
This guy obviously doesn't have the slightest technical understanding of the subject he's pontificating about.
He really should do himself a favour and shut the fuck up.
First names to go...
"Jimmy"
"Jimbo"
"James"
Re: "A bit of a push to say it was an insult to one individual"
" it was the woman's CURRENT partner who bought it for her"
Intel integrated graphics and only 128 MB SSD for £1370?!!!
It may be a decent all round system but it's GROSSLY overpriced and just for that not worthy of an 80% score!
Huawei = military / ZTE = government
"Huawei has long been suspected of links to the Chinese government and not without reason. The firm’s founder, president and CEO Ren Zhengfei served in the People’s Liberation Army while a US intelligence report last year tied chairwoman Yun Safang to the mysterious Ministry of State Security."
In the west we often fail to understand the political and military structure in China: The government and the military are two quite distinct 'families' with a lot of links and shared purpose but surprisingly little overlap.
Huawei (roughly translated "Go China!) is very much military affiliated, whereas ZTE is more under government control.
I'm sure (well I hope at least) that the intelligence communities understand the separate affiliations of the two companies and the significant implications this has in relation to their position and motivation within the PRP as a whole.
It is a flag - a Shetland flag...
http://mynokiablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/shetland.jpg
"they're recent ad campaign"?!!
Hangs own head in shame...
Frankly I'm getting fed up with all of the "Apple and Samsung need to play nice" posts.
The fact is, Apple are the aggressor, Apple are the litigious party, Apple are the (poorly attempted) patent troll...
I have every sympathy for Samsung who are taking hit after hit on behalf of all Android vendors simply because they are making the best, and best selling products.
OK, their move to block Apple on the basis of GSM patents wasn't perhaps their best move but understand that they were backed into a corner with few legal options, finding their valid challenges to ludicrous patents and 'look & feel' arguments by Apple being rejected in key court cases it was something of a last resort.
Personally I think they're recent ad campaign is a much better response and it's good to see that Apple's litigious strategy has back-fired in Europe and Australia sending Samsung sales souring! =OD
In the contrary, it's you who's revealed a prejudice:
Most popular apps have versions on both platforms, the only real 'lock in' is Apple's walled (and electrified & razor wired) garden...
The Android platform and related services (with the partial exception of the Amazon Kindle Fire) makes little or no attempt to 'lock in' users with proprietary limitations and restrictions, but rather relies on the opposite approach of openness and choice to attract users.
Apple, on the other hand, operate almost exclusively in this way which makes any move from iOS to another platform WAY harder and less likely than a move from another platform to iOS. (Although admittedly the latter is mitigated by the fact that not many right thinking people, having tasted and enjoyed freedom, will march willingly into a jail cell.)
I think 14 years is a bit of an exaggeration, but yes; recognizing and dialer / hyper-linking URLs / phone numbers etc. in sms and emails is a feature that was available on several platforms (both smartphone and featurephone) long before Apple filed a patent on it.
Of course, Apple routinely ignore prior art and imagine everything they 're-invent' becomes original in some mysterious way, for example, remember the ads for 'facetime' - a bunch of cookie cutter Apple execs talking about how amazing and revolutionary this was, when in fact 3G video calling and video conferencing in general have been running video chat in this format for years, and Apple as usual brought up the rear and were pretty much last in line to give in and put a front facing camera on their phones...
Apple are not an innovator, they're a corporate and cultural cancer. Apple are to business what The Church of Scientology are to religion.
Hmmm... Not even a mention of the many 'leaked' beta versions and the considerable amount of development that has gone into them by xda-developers / Cyanogen team?
Nice to get the tip but this article is rather light on related info...
For example, Samsung's release will almost certainly replace the stock ICS launcher with their Touchwiz interface, a move which will be very unpopular with many and to some extent negate the very reason for upgrading to ICS!
There was a story here...
Told you so again...
Just as I said (and was roundly downvoted) in two previous articles - now it turns out HP were doing Android development themselves.
This post has been deleted by its author
"iTV" Let them try using that name in the UK.
Title troll
"Belle end"... C'mon Reg, really? =o/
No, sorry, but this is bollocks not worthy of the screen inches.
The only thing Apple really cares about is their bottom line, and as long as they're making 70% profit on iPads and squeezing their suppliers and manufacturers for all they're worth, poor conditions and worker abuses will continue.
Of course, a better use of a powerful X-ray laser would be to turn it on all of the pseudo-intellectual wankers who regularly troll the Reg forums with pitiful examples of cleverer, (yes it is a word), they think they are than everybody else.
Anyone who's icon use is pretty much limited to "D'oh", "Meh", "highly technical content", "No Shit Sherlock" and "Grammar Nazi" should probably be asking themselves, "am I really that much of a cunt?"
This post has been deleted by its author
Then they'll lose thousands if not millions of users (including me).
I suppose with 500 million+ users they simply don't care as they'll still be quids in :o(
Milked??!!!
Shatner is a legend!
Page: