434 posts • joined 27 Sep 2009
The one thing people often miss about the Chromecast (and in my opinion it is the most important thing) is it requires no authentication. I'm not talking about authentication to actually use it - which it could really do with.
I have a Netflix subscription, but I can go to my friend across the road and stream a film from Netflix on HIS Chromecast without having to enter details. I can buy a film from Google Play Movies and watch it at his house without logging in to anything. That is what makes the Chromecast so revolutionary.
It doesn't care who is using it or what they are using, it's up to the app to handle that stuff, all the Chromecast cares about is where it has to go to get the content.
I often hear people say that the Roku is more user friendly because it has a remote. But it doesn't offer the same usability, if I go to my friends house I have to download the Google Play Movies app (if there is one) onto his Roku and then enter my Google details, and then faff about with 2Factor authentication (assuming it supports it, otherwise I will need to use my phone to go to my Google account and setup an application specific password) and of course I have to remember to logout before I leave.
With the Chromecast, I open the app on my phone, choose the movie, press the Chromecast icon and start playing the movie. No authentication had to be done and when I leave, my account is still secure.
Additionally of course there is the fact that any developer can add Chromecast functionality to their app, they don't have to write a specific version of the app that only runs on the one device (or device family) and you can add Chromecast functionality to a website just as easily as a smartphone app.
So that's my thoughts.
Blocking VPN's wouldn't make a difference for Netflix access, all that you need is Netflix-unblocker DNS service. There are plenty of them about, and because there is no need for a VPN the stream is delivered at your usual connection speed.
So... well I don't know where to start.
1) We are in the middle (well more like at the start really) of the rather enormous task of upgrading a good proportion of the UK to broadband speeds that are actually fast enough to use BBC iPlayer.
2) Unlike other parts of the world, quite a lot of UK broadband contracts are still capped at a download limit.
3) The BBC streaming infrastructure is already creaking at the seams, I can't actually remember the last time we successfully managed to watch an entire programme with no buffering or - even worse - no apparent buffering but after about 15 minutes suddenly being told "you have insufficient bandwidth to stream this programme". I know there are those of you out there who don't have a problem with BBC iPlayer, but I know loads of people who do. (Meanwhile Netflix can deliver 2 HD streams to us at the same time without a problem)
So apart from the points above, I wonder if the BBC are planning to subsidise broadband connections for those of us who will have to pay extra for going over the download limit? Maybe the BBC can convince ISPs to not count traffic to iPlayer as part of the download allowance?
Re: HTML, USB and PCMCIA aren't acronyms
How are they not acronyms?
HTML = Hyper Text Markup Language
USB = Universal Serial Bus
PCMCIA = Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
and of course TWAIN - which may or may not mean "Technology without an interesting name"
Define acronym: an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. ASCII, NASA ).
They look very much and fit the definition of an acronym to me!
DEATH to in-app-purchases!!
Good, I get completely fed up with this new freemium idea that you can't really play the game unless you dig your hand in your pocket and buy virtual crap!
I was quite excited when I heard that Rollercoaster Tycoon is coming to Android, and then I was quite devastated when I heard it had been cancelled. I was not nearly as excited when I heard Theme Park was coming to Android because EA LOVE in-app-purchases. I would much rather BUY the game and play it, than get the game for free and pay 4x the cost of what the game should be in stupid in-app-purchases. I recently came across a video on YouTube that describes extremely well - why I am not alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpdoBwezFVA
And if you are impatient watching the full 8 minutes - http://youtu.be/GpdoBwezFVA?t=3m12s will take you right to the relevant bit.... £69.99 "Best Value" for some virtual gems!!
EDIT: The video I linked to features heavy swearing - just in case you are watching it at work or something.....
It never ceases to amaze me how - even though we know for a fact that mobile phones and in particular smartphones have a limited battery life, we know what things on our phone drain the battery quicker than other things, we know how expensive data and video is to battery life. But yet, somehow people think Google Glass is magic, it has some unknowable property to record absolutely everything all the time, and live stream that data back to Google over your limited capped data tariff - all without a) blowing through your data tariff and b) never draining the battery.
Further - Google has expressly forbid the use of Google Glass for facial recognition, which even if it was allowed - could only EVER be used to recognise people YOU ALREADY KNOW, because querying some database of people you don't know, for pictures of someone that gave NO PERMISSION for them to be there nor any permission to associate personal data with them, is illegal, a breach of data protection laws and would likely end up with the owner of such a service being prosecuted. But I suppose, common sense and rational thought just goes out of the window when people see Google Glass, the fact the CCTV system in the building or on the street is capable of LIVE facial recognition, or that a lot of CCTV systems aren't with cameras that stick out a mile away and are in fact small enough you don't notice them is obviously something they don't realise.
This particular story however, sounds very much like if she hadn't been wearing Glass, similar results would of played out but instead of "would you shut those off" it would be "would you stop looking at me"
So all those YouTube videos showing people on the beaches in California with Radiation detectors that are going into Alert mode are just imaginary then are they?
They might not be in "danger" as such, but the detectors sound an alarm for a reason - it's probably healthier to stay indoors than go to the beach until the detectors stop sounding the alarm.
Considering Amazon's streaming service is in competition with Netflix - you would think Amazon would do more to make themselves competitive - like - be available on my device for instance.
I can watch Netflix pretty much anywhere on any device I own:
Computer, Android phone, Android tablet, Panasonic freeview box, Bluray player, Chromecast
I can watch Amazon / Lovefilm on the computer ONLY.
Presumably just like the other 5 of these things we have had (ranging from 320GB to 1TB) they will mysteriously stop working a few weeks outside the warranty period. In every case, there is nothing wrong with the disk, they work fine in desktop computers - but the Lacie box just refuses to power up (other than a single flash of the blue LED).
Hardly surprising, blame the voicemail scam
I don't know why she is "shocked" I know lots of people who took their mobiles abroad "for emergencies" and when they switch it on in a foreign country and get the "Welcome to...." text, their phone is then until further notice attached to the foreign network, turning the phone off AFTER receiving that text means that any calls to that phone that get sent sent to voicemail (because the phone is off) are still "received" calls that the foreign network will charge for. Technically it is possible to take a phone abroad, get the text, turn the phone off, bring it back to the UK but not turn it on for 4 weeks and for the 4 weeks you will still get charged roaming charges for every call you receive that goes to voicemail UNTIL you turn the phone back on and the network acknowledges it is back in it's home country - the reason is because when you phone is abroad your home network is notified how and where to route any calls to it's subscriber id, so in the event your phone is off it goes like this:
Orange UK Caller > Orange UK Operator Network > O2 UK Operator Network > Foreign Network (Foreign Network can't see the phone) > O2 UK Operator Network > Voicemail
At the point the call leaves the UK, O2 is being billed for it by the foreign network, even though the call is then being sent back to the UK operator to go to voicemail, because the voicemail service is really a call forward service.
So until your phone reattaches to the UK network, the UK network will keep sending the call to the foreign network. Thus for most people who have been hit with large bills because of this, they switch their phone off in the UK, and leave it in the UK.
See the video for more information.
The register should really have linked to video Engadget posted to explain to commenters how this works: http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/16/google-acquires-slicklogin-sound-passwords/
Now - as a 2Factor method - I think this is pretty exciting, note for those wondering about eavesdropping - apparently the phone has to be VERY close to the computer in order for this to work, and the system generates a ONE TIME key for each session - so someone recording the ultrasonic chirping and playing it back would get no-where because the authentication session will have already expired.
My issues are: 1) They are talking about (and do demo in the linked Engadget article) replacing not just the 2Factor stage but the entire login process with this technology, meaning if your phone is lost / stolen - potentially whoever has it can login as you. and 2) The phone appears to be listening constantly as they claim it works without launching anything or even unlocking the phone.
If it is used JUST to replace Stage 2 and I have to open an app on my phone first, I'd be much happier.
Ship has sailed.
I still can't understand why they are going on about Subscriptions.
That ship sailed when HD boxes came on the market and there were no card slots.
The majority of Freeview equipment in use today does not have any conditional access equipment, and therefore it would require everyone who wanted to continue watching the BBC to replace their equipment, that simply is not going to happen.
The best they could hope for would be a phasing in (over at least a decade) of a subscription - but that would require manufacturers who are currently making the cheap freeview kit - adding CA to their kit and still keeping the cost down.
If it turns out that the UK Gov switched off Analogue - while promising that Freeview would still provide access to the channels, a pay once, watch forever deal (the freeview advert still says that) and then now that there is no-way back they change the system - there will be absolute hell to pay.
Re: Different versions serve different devices
It is true that each version of Android has gradually gotten better in the Battery life department - and I am referring to the same devices across successive Android versions. 4.4 features a low memory mode (that developers need to take advantage of) which essentially allows developers to query whether the device has oodles of memory or hardly any and then turn off more memory hungry features as appropriate. It's worth noting before people wander in saying how they are sick of Google trying to run the world etc etc - that the document only formally clarifies what has basically always been the unwritten situation.
When this story first broke though, some of us were wondering what the point of it was - the companies that peddle low-end Android phones running ridiculously outdated versions, are also the ones that generally put GMS on without licensing it.....
Still the assurance that Google will do more with Platform Development Kit to allow manufacturers more time to work with the next version of Android before it is officially announced it a good step, and much less talked about.
No, No, No, No, No!
So, I actually had to do this the other day, a friend used some High Street shopping vouchers to buy a new PC from Argos. It came with Windows 8, obviously he wanted as much as possible copying across from his XP machine. I turned to File Transfer Wizard, it wan on Windows 8, asked me where I wanted to transfer from, I created a share on the old PC and dumped the XP version of the program there, and ran it - the machines spoke to each other and Windows 8 eventually said there was 12.1GB it would transfer from the old machine, on a gigabit network - I thought great that'll do nicely. 6 Hours later it had only transferred 11% and the progress bar hadn't moved for about an hour. I thought fine, I'll do it manually. Pulling the files from the old computer to the new the copying dialog said it was calculating the remaining time, the network graph in the copying dialog said 22.1kbs and it didn't seem to be doing anything, even after 20 minutes. I tried doing it the other way around PUSHING the files from the old computer to the new and it took 6 minutes.
In between setting up the computer for him, it of course downloaded a ridiculous amount of updates and I told it download Windows 8.1 as well, I thought there was no point in teaching him how to use the computer with Windows 8 if Windows 8.1 was going to change things enough that I would have to teach him again. 3.2GB?! Are you kidding me?! Has Microsoft ever heard of Delta Updates?!
Anyway 48 hours later the machine was (almost) ready to use. Now we just had to fill in a captcha and wait for a verification code on his mobile before we could even log in to the machine?! Yes Microsoft, this is REALLY making it very very easy for people to use the computer :/
I've done plenty of upgrades and transferring of data to a new machine in my time, but this.... this was the most backward, hellish experience I have ever had - thank god I haven't given up smoking yet or that machine would of been thrown out of the nearest window.
As for hardware, a philips spc230nc webcam is detected by Windows 8.1 and it does attempt to install it, but the light never goes off and the Windows "issues" center says an updated driver is available and we should click to install it, and it downloads the bloody same driver we have already downloaded!
......and Microsoft wonders why people don't want to leave Windows XP.
Long live Chromecast!
Would just like to point out that as well as Plex, Avia also developed with the full support of Google - allows Local content streaming too.
Shame on the register for jumping to conclusions and turning what should be a fantastic piece of news - the ability for anyone to write a ChromeCast compatible app and publish it for instant consumption - into something full of moaning and half truths.
The way to look at this is simple, by the time the Chromecast is released here - it will have a lot of support, we have 2 - one in the bedroom and 1 in the livingroom - and apparently over the last 2 months have consumed 750GB of internet traffic on Netflix. But my god is it worth it!
Even when YouTube cannot play without buffering every 5 seconds, Netflix quite happily sends us 2 glorious HD streams with no buffering!
It might be a vulnerability in Android 4.4 but no-one will notice since VPN is pretty broken in 4.4 anyway. VPN connects but either stops passing data after a minute, or just doesn't pass data at all.
Plenty of complaints about it -
Frankly - they can talk about it as much as they want - it just will not happen - how can it?
The UK gov have spent all this time and money convincing people to move to Digital TV (specifically Freeview), now while I admit that there are DVB-T devices out there capable of accepting a viewing card - the vast majority of them are not equipped to do so, even the latest smart TVs don't tend to have a CAM slot these days because TopupTV (the only pay TV service available on DVB-T) has moved to a different model whereby you buy a TopupTV PVR and it downloads content overnight.
The BBC and the UK gov would risk pissing people off if they change the goalposts now.
Have you even seen House of Cards?
You can't call it a remake simply because a British Version exists. The Netflix House of Cards is very American and deals with the American political system.
A remake is something which is recreated after the original and is almost entirely the same story as the original.
You can't even say it is "based on" because the original deals with the British political system and the Netflix version deals with the American political system.
Sigh. Apparently you cannot ask a question on the internet anymore.
It's not like I said it cannot possibly cost that much - I asked WHY it costs that much?
So... the rover is already on Mars, it is powered by the sun, it communicates via radio waves. What exactly is costing $14m a year?
I've read this story across many different sites and I still don't see the problem.
The only way to fall victim to this is to allow a site to listen to your microphone? So surely this only affects the sort of people that tell every website they visit that "yes, please feel free to listen to my microphone" regardless of what the site is, these people incidentally are also the ones that download and open every attachment on every email and click every banner that says something like "437 billion problems have been detected with your computer, download Super Anti Virus Malware Scam remover 2026 now to fix these problems"
You can't use technology to save the stupid people all the time.
I remember Hamachi
One of the best aspects of the LogMeIn service was the software known as Hamachi which existed standalone before LogMeIn bought it. The benefit of Hamachi was that it was a Zero Config VPN which managed to work with almost every NAT in existence which no messing about with port forwards or even UPnP. It was a sad day when Hamachi was taken over.
Can someone explain this - I am having issues understanding where the problem is.
From the way the story reads, Facebook "notify" a web site that their URL is being shared in a private message, but presumably they don't tell the website WHO shared the URL or WHO is the recipient of the message or WHAT the message is actually about. I can't see how this breaking the privacy of anyone?
On another site it is reported that Google have specifically in their request for trial - called out the fact that the Consortium behind Rockstar are actively suing Android manufacturers like HTC and Samsung for their Android devices BUT NOT their Windows (or other OS) devices which would clearly infringe on some of the same patents IF if is found that their Android devices do infringe. That is what makes this much more interesting. As someone elsewhere wrote in the comments on an article about this - they have poked the sleeping giant too many times, and now - he has awoken.
It reminds me a bit, of a cat pawing at a dog - the dog will only tolerate it for so long.... and then it will bare it's teeth.
So.... the Facebook app is planning to run in the background downloading videos to cache.... I wasn't planning on rooting my Nexus 4 - but I guess Greenify will put a stop to Facebook's plans for my device.
With all the exploding devices going around at the moment, I'm not sure how I would feel about a potential bomb on my wrist - and as the article notes - Samsung may be joining the foray - but I don't think I'd trust Samsung enough to wear anything of theirs just now.....
If it comes back it will be because of peer pressure.
Dianne Hackborn stated that it was never meant to exposed to users and is an internal testing tool.
While initially quite happy to talk to users about the removal, she has since stopped commenting - which is a shame, I suggest an interim solution might be to remove the switches but leave the data (eg this app has accessed the following data). The most obvious reason Google have removed this - is because users can turn off the internet permission on apps that only require the internet to display ads.
See more here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DannyHolyoake/posts/FkfBxA5i3iG
Now for a party trick....
Pick up a nexus 4 (or other Android device) and ask a question like "what time is it in Paris"
after you get an answer, pick up another device (like the Nexus 7) and ask "what about New York" - Google will correct your search to "what time is it in New York". Then pick up a laptop and visit the Google search page, click the Microphone and ask "what's the weather like" which Google will correct to "What is the weather in New York". Cross device, contextually relevant conversational search.
Yes it seems like a gimmick - but it essentially means your phone is aware of your current search process that have you just been doing on your laptop / work computer.
So explain to me.....
If an attacker wants access to my phone - how exactly do they bypass the lockscreen to install the app that will execute code to bypass the lockscreen?
If it is a remote hack - as in the code is included in some popular app that people install, well they don't need to bypass the lockscreen once they have the code on the phone?
Surely this is just natural selection working it's will? The passerby clearly prevented natural selection from working and now this guy who is clearly too stupid to survive without assistance will end up spreading his DNA and creating more stupid people. This is why I keep arguing that computer viruses should be more explosive / deadly. We'd be rid of almost all malware in a few years - because the idiots who don't know any better - wouldn't be around to click on "your media player is out of date, click here to upgrade it" or "while you were sitting here innocently surfing the web, we scanned your computer magically without installing any software to do it, and we discovered you had 99 bazillion problems, but because we are so nice we are going to let you click here and download our super amazing virus exterminator 2099 software to clean up your machine, aren't we nice? We have absolutely no ulterior motives for getting you to download this!"
While we are at it actually, we should also have a cull on ANYONE on Facebook who reshares crap that a quick Google will reveal to be bollocks. Like "if you cut an onion in half and leave it in your room overnight it will absorb all the germs in the air and stop you getting sick, but because of this magical property of onions, you must never eat an onion that has been cut in half for more than a day - or you will die" or my personal favourite "blah blah blah, dire consequences, look snopes.com has confirmed this to be true" - with an included link to the article on snopes.com that confirms it to be false, but everyone still bloody reshares it anyway!
Didn't have a problem with the tounge twister in the article, can quite easily cope with "I'm not a pheasant plucker" at speeds fast enough that the words ALMOST become unintelligible but "The Leith Police" I have a problem saying slowly never mind speeding it up, my brain tries to correct "dismisseth" to "dismisses" by the second go around. And of course - the lorrys very quickly turn into lollys of either colour.
EDIT: Was unaware of the other verses for the Pheasant Plucker though - so will check those out.
They would probably give up looking, close their eyes (yes... the whole country) and stick a pin in a map - and say "that's where it is"
Seriously? How do they get away with this stuff?!
Android has been using Face Recognition to "log in" to your device for over a year!
I'd like to know how this was even possible?
Surely there is some sort of backup system in place right?
Reading twitter last night - it would appear that even the call centres were offline - the phones rang - but never got answered.
They have promised to compensate people that were "left out of pocket" but that doesn't really make me feel better about them - most people were not left out of pocket - because they couldn't actually spend anything in the first place! I do wonder though how people coped at things like self-service petrol stations and the like - are we to be expected to check online-banking and Twitter now before we attempt to use our cards to make sure everything is working? Checking Natwest's online 'Service Status' page last night was pointless because it claimed everything was running normally - leading me (and thousands of people on Twitter) to believe something must have gone wrong with just my account.
Anyway - I discovered a lovely site last night which instead of just pinging their website, appears to scrape Twitter (and other networks?) to give you the real story - http://downdetector.co.uk/problems/natwest quickly confirmed that it wasn't just me having problems.
The battery charging wizardry is supposed to negotiate with the charger to decide on what is the best current to charge at. In general though ALL modern smartphones charge better and happier at a minimum of 1A you will find that most Smartphones while happy enough to charge at 0.5A can't actually charge and be used at the same time because the battery is being drained quicker than it can be charged when the screen is on. The nice thing about the negotiation wizardry is that I can provide my phone with access to more than it requires but it will only ever draw as much current as it requires. For instance I can quite happily plug my phone in to a 2A charger but it will generally sit drawing between 1.2 and 1.5A
In the good old Windows 95 days you could download a lovely program that allowed you to drag a bomb onto any running application and it would immediately crash. That was useful in my college days. And then of course.... there was this site: http://www.rjlpranks.com/pranks/ hours and hours of fun!
The thing is - something clearly did emerge - there are thousands of reports with STEREO images showing it.
Most importantly - the section appears in the UK.
It could finally make it's way to the UK!
Re: Not in the UK then....
Turns out the SDK is nearing release too - http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1r656p/google_hosting_chromecast_hackathon_in_early/
Re: Not in the UK then....
As they recently posted job openings for both an international person and a UK person in relation to the Chromecast - it's likely that yes - it's coming.
I have a suspicion that they are working with the BBC behind the scenes to make iPlayer a launch partner.
Technically if I use Disqus, Google+ or Facebook for my commenting system - the comments are not ON my site - they are on some 3rd party site that I do not control. Any requests for comment removal should be directed at the 3rd party and not me.
If necessary I could prove this by simply opening Developer Tools in Chrome and showing that the data on AndroidPolice for instance are served from the Disqus server. Just because the comments are displayed ON my site - it doesn't make them part of my site - in the same way that an offensive advert that shows on my site is not put there by me - and I have very little control over what is displayed.
I can see 2014 shaping up to be an interesting year - either this law will prove to be unworkable or a dangerous precedent will be set whereby you are responsible for any content that appears on your site regardless of whether you have any control over it.
It is actually pretty impressive in all honesty when I ask Google to show me all my pictures of Sunsets and it returns all my Sunset pictures in a fraction of a second - despite 3/4 of them not being tagged (because they haven't yet been shared - they have just been auto-uploaded from the phone).
How do you even describe a sunset? Or a beach or a castle - and yes "show me photos of my dog at the beach at sunset" does in fact return exactly what I asked for.
Well... I've googled and googled and I just can't for the life of me figure out......
"Somewhat to the surprise of everyone I showed it too, the constructed Sonic Screwdriver works as advertised, the body lights up red when the upper band is touched, and the greed LED can indeed detect the unseen forces of static electricity."
What is a Greed LED?
At the time that I followed/circled you - you have 1,448 +1's and 720 people have circled you.
In what - an hour, an hour and a half?
We G+ folks are a demanding bunch though - we like engagement - that's what sets apart G+ from every other network - even on Twitter a lot of the time you aren't talking to the person you think you are - you are talking to whoever represents them (there are obviously very high profile exceptions to this).
Expect to see people mention you in comments and posts - we like social.
PS - in the time it took me to to write this (a few minutes) your follower count went from 720 to 733.
I think you may yet learn the value of Google+
Of course on the other side of the coin - those of us who actually a) use Google+ and b) don't try to use Google+ like Facebook (because it is not, never will be and never was intended to be anything like Facebook) actually like the integration - because we now see YouTube videos pop up in our stream, with a comment from the poster - and encourages a much more active discussion - for example a video from someone else who hates Google+ has gone viral on Google+ and because of this - it has gotten a lot more exposure than it would of normally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuIRY5KFEU0
Please remember: Facebook == Social Network, Social Network != Facebook
....and just like that - the Register infers Spam filters and email virus checkers are part of the problem - especially ones that use Heuristics.......
The amount of time I have to remove crap like "Wajam" from peoples Chrome Extensions is mind boggling, sure they shouldn't be downloading every single thing they see on Facebook - but at least this will go some way to stopping hundreds of extensions they neither need or want bogging down Chrome.
The real question that has to be asked.......
Did this give them a heads up on the Boston Bombing?
Did it give them a heads up on ANY of the School shootings?
Did it give them a heads up on the Airport shooting?
NO! Then what the fuck is the point - they continuously trot out this bollocks about it being for the good of the country but in both the UK and US - there is very little evidence that they are actually gaining any sort of warnings from the data they are collecting.
Could it be at all possible - that the average terrorist doesn't just randomly lay out their plans in an email and send it across the internet?
The comment up that there mentions "war on stuff" is dead on, it's not a war on terror - it's a war on whatever takes their fancy that morning when they wake up.....
It was a lovely system called the Squeezebox which was made by SlimDevices and then Logitech bought them out - however there are still relatively cheap Squeezebox Classic v3 boxes floating around on ebay and the Logitech Media Server software is still free and downloadable at http://www.mysqueezebox.com/download you can have as many squeezeboxes as you want and they do play in sync. You can also download the software and just use virtual players on your computers if you don't want to buy ANY hardware at all. Was out before Sonos and is IMHO loads better.
You can even have it email you a picture from an IP cam when a certain device is triggered - in our case - a Byron Doorbell (it can both receive signals from ALL Byron doorbells in the "SX" range - which is pretty much all of them, and it can also trigger the doorbells too)
So when someone pushes the Doorbell, Domoticz receives the signal and snaps a picture on the IP cam watching the door - and emails it to my phone.
Some of you may even have the remote sockets already - B&Q were selling them for years - remote control sockets, they came in packs of 3 with a remote control, that's where we started - and when I discovered the system could be controlled by a cheap-ish USB stick - off I went!
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON