Posts by Lou Gosselin

Re: Re: ffs

"You see, it's not a matter of *principles* (that's for the forum trolls and bloggers), it's a matter of *money*, and--right now--the iPhone is where the money is."

Well, that actually sums up apple's policy towards customers quite well.

Not a big deal

1. Apple are the ones who think they're better than the register and it's readers as it's well known that apple refuses to admit reg reports to its functions. The language chosen in apple articles is often a reflection of apple's own behavior.

2. There are a number of places people can go to get their news, but sarcasm and "snarky, smart ass comments" are a differentiator for the reg, and it's for this reason many of us are here.

Re: Easy way to protect the phone

It's so easy that one wonders why google didn't.

Linear scalability

"Many of today's RAID-5/6 controllers wait for all spindles to respond back before reassembling the data packets after an I/O request."

If D disks requires a max of T time to return a sector, then D*X disks necessarily can return X sectors within that same time t. All that would be required is a raid controller that can handle the combined bandwidth.

For sequential access, one could theoretically scale performance linearly with the number of disks.

For random access of individual sectors, the performance depends on whether or not the raid controller allows each disk to seek a different sector in parallel and whether random requests are queued synchronously or asynchronously (ie an app performing random synchronous read calls could not be accelerated). Assuming a full random request queue for evenly distributed data, I'd still expect the performance/time to scale linearly with number of disks.

Re: Awww, did they un-install the Hacker's root kit?

That's all well and good, but at the very least google's control over the phone should be authorized by the user.

Any updates should prompt the user each time unless the user has a configured a preference to auto install google updates.

The way it's been described implies that google have remote access without any user authorization. Why should google or any other manufacturer keep a back door on my computing device holding my data and apps?

Re: Not acceptable

Agree entirely.

This is a major conflict of interest, think of the espionage possibilities.

It wouldn't be bad if google's remote update mechanism 1) was optional, and 2) explicitly prompted the user, however that is was hidden shows just how untrustworthy google is.

This is no different from what apple do, but then apple don't operating under the pretense of selling open devices, people (should) know that apple controls their device.

"But of course, I'm harping about a long-lost notion : the consumer has rights. Seems that that is sooo last century."

The PC era was so fantastic for consumers because of open platforms which spurred innovation and competition. I worry very much that the future of computing could be closed and proprietary, and only a few corporations holding the keys to all apps and data.

It's about popularity

Direct from the Chase Faq:

"Why are some browsers not supported?

There are two primary reasons—security and popularity. There are dozens of browsers in use today, but not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site. The security of your accounts and private information is one of our highest priorities and some browsers, especially older versions, are simply higher security risks to use with our site."

Obviously the inclusion of IE6 means that Chase's choice was based predominantly on popularity over all other factors. The security argument is a bit thin. In the end their decision really came down to what browsers their customers are using, which is what everybody else does too.

I was a customer of theirs, the biggest problem I had was that each time I logged in to the online banking using a "new" computer, it would require an out of band telephone activation. The problem was it would forget about the previous computer that had been activated. So half the time I needed an automated telephone call to login. This was so asinine that I deliberately called tech support each time I needed to login so that they got the message.

Re: Another Supreme Court fail

The only people in a position to fix anything are also the same people who have a disincentive of doing so. The best lawyers work for corporate america. For them it's not about being right or wrong, it's about making maximizing profits for oneself by sacrificing the public well being and overall soundless of legal policy. Sure there may be a decent one here and there, but they loose out financially to those who have no quips about selling out.

It's why we have a backwards patent system for software. It's why high tech jobs are being offshored at alarming rates, and also why product quality has turned to crap across the board at the same time as being more expensive due to inflation.

It's about time government started honoring it's obligations to the public rather than the corporations which have become all too powerful.

@Paul 129

In the US, any patent which is granted is also made public

See uspto.gov for actual examples.

One problem is that by far and large, many of the software/algorithms that gets patent protection don't take long to implement independently. Consider that patented algorithms are often mathematically derivable such that multiple developers will necessarily end up with the same result. Thus, by merely solving mathematical equations for a problem, one can easily run afoul of existing and pending software patents.

In a computer science class, as an assignment, we had to work on a developing a huffman encoding algorithm independently from external sources. This algorithm was patented by unisys, which meant that theoretically we could be sued for using our own code without a patent license. If a handful of students can develop an algorithm by themselves in a short time, then why in the world would the government grant a 17 year monopoly on it?

In granting these software patents, a huge financial burden is placed upon all developers, who necessarily have to divert resources from R&D and increase customer prices. Diverted resources must be able to cover legal fees and pay into the government sanctioned monopoly's licensing fees. This disproportionately affects the small developers who don't have a legal department or a large patent portfolio to counter sue.

Re: who wants this?

Owners don't want it. I assume microsoft did it's homework though and calculated that it could get more money out of advertisers than it could from product owners.

I'm not sure if they factored in the inherent customer backlash, but on the other hand people may just become accustomed to it like with everything else, especially since steve balmer and jobs are both on the same bandwagon. So much for a non-intrusive user experience.

@DZ-Jay

"Intolerable to you--which apparently is a sentiment not shared with a vast amount of consumers."

I'm sure there are plenty of customers who are annoyed with apple's closed garden. Some purchased their device with the intent of jailbreaking, even though it voided their warranty and support. Others didn't realize that they were buying into a closed garden when they purchased it. Still others wanted an iphone, but are still irked by the closed garden.

I think the "pro apple, anti-closed" camp is much larger than you think it is. Or do you believe that those two things are mutually exclusive, and all pro-apple users favor the closed garden?

@DZ-Jay

"I never avoided the question.."

Actually you did whenever I asked, repeatedly.

"I am not defending Apple as much as I am disagreeing with the irrational bashing against *anything* they do."

Read over your posts, you are defending apple from very rational criticisms.

"Let's turn that argument on its head and see how it sounds: Mr. Gosselin, I cannot imagine why anybody would complain about absolutely everything Apple does and decry it as evil, unless they are a possibly a Google affiliate, a troll, or just stupid."

Google affiliate? Ha. I'll criticize both apple and google when they deserve it. Since you brought it up though, google and even microsoft are less restrictive than apple.

Some users don't care about apple's level of control, which is fine if it suits them. But every last person on earth who is aware of the situation should at least recognize that apple's totalitarian control is both anti-competitive and harmful developers and users who would have benefited from an open market.

One cannot logically deny this, and yet you have been. You don't want to admit that apple is using anti-competitive means to achieve its growth, but it is true.

"Why must it be a zero-sum game in which you either hate Apple or are an idiot?"

It's not about hating apple, it's about hating restrictions imposed by apple...big difference. I never said I don't like apple's mobile products, but to buy into a closed ecosystem which removes my freedoms as a user and developer is intolerable.

@DZ-Jay

I'll agree that my prior post was in bad taste. However you had been avoiding the question, and it was a fair question. Having an affiliation to, or investment in apple, are the only reasons I can come up with that someone would unilaterally defend all of apple's evils despite undeniably uncompetitive actions. Some people don't care that apple's garden blocks out outside innovation, good for them, I honestly don't object to people who have that opinion. However the moment somebody (like yourself) claims that apple's restrictions are designed for the benefit of anyone other than apple, well they deserve the criticism for either being a troll, a possible apple affiliate, or just stupid. Take your pick.

@DZ-Jay

*You* are misleading and disingenuous. You still haven't revealed your affiliation with apple.

House analogy

Why is it that so many people think that leaving a house unlocked (or window open or...) is equivalent to giving permission to anyone who comes around to take what they please?

I never understood the analogy. I would hope that everyone could at least agree that a thief who is caught should be convicted even if a house was unsecured. After all, fact the house was robbed is irrefutable proof that the house was insecure.

In the same way, leaving bikes or tools outside is risky behavior, but a thief who is caught shouldn't be able to claim that as a defense, especially if he is a repeat offender.

Yes, thanks.

This is a nice shift from all the damn mobile phone articles. The technical & professional coverage of interesting, yet low profile developments seems to have lost out to popular gizmos, especially those of ms, apple, google, etc. Is this the long-tail effect applied to news coverage? The bulk of news coverage is composed mostly of the largest players, meanwhile most developments occur in small shops who don't get so much as a peep.

@ml100

"Why would you assume I refer to the US? I am British."

To quote you...

"Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum."

Technically the Internet is a US creation. By that logic, the US (not you British) should get the ultimatum. Obviously that logic is wrong and elitist, you merely used it because you thought it entitled you to get an ultimatum.

"But on the contrary the Internet was setup and IS mostly funded by USA, Britain, Germany, France - ie the west."

The internet is mostly consumed by the west, therefor it would make sense that it is mostly funded there too. Besides, worldwide peering is mutually beneficial for all of us.

"We can happily do without the non english content contributed by Pakistan, for that matter I would take no issue with disconnecting China too. They can have their own Internet just by fragmenting the network. We dont need them, they need us."

Really? Banning innocent people because of where they're from? Why do you think you are better than they are? That's racist. Ban them for having different ideologies than you? That's censorship. If we put up a firewall to cut off the east, then we are hypocrites.

What if the east becomes the world superpower, I imagine that you will be very unhappy if they show you the same respect that you've shown them.

Re: As far as I was aware

Was with you until this piece of entitlement:

"Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum. On our Internet we will exercise freedom of speech."

The US don't own the internet any more than Pakistan, so no, it should not have any ultimatum.

Re: Not dominant, and never will be

That's one of the limitations of anti-trust law.

It doesn't matter if a corp is behaving badly until it has monopoly status. The reality is that an entity with < 50% market share can still do a great deal of harm to smaller competitors such that they cannot effectively compete. Walmart, though not a monopoly, is still able to abuse it's competition.

The situation gets worse if there is an oligopoly of anti-competitive companies with near total market share, since separately they are untouchable with anti-trust.