Yup. The security advisory says that "NetUSB suffers from a remotely exploitable kernel stack buffer overflow."
My home router model is listed, but I'm running DD-WRT on it, so hopefully that avoids any issue with this...
43 posts • joined 22 Dec 2009
Yup. The security advisory says that "NetUSB suffers from a remotely exploitable kernel stack buffer overflow."
My home router model is listed, but I'm running DD-WRT on it, so hopefully that avoids any issue with this...
The CH website used to better in 2004 - back then, they had static URLs for individual companies i.e. you could bookmark the information page for individual companies. Unfortunately, a year or two later they started including session IDs in URLs, and that borked bookmarks.
I use UK Gov online services fairly frequently as part of my work, and the primary difference I have seen is a re-skinning of the service home page. The web pages for the actual services themselves haven't changed.
As ever, delighted to see my taxes being spent well...
I'd just say watch out for the 12V LED bulb prices though - they can be significantly higher than for 240V equivalents. For example, 240V GU10 dimmable LEDs are an awful lot cheaper than the 12V GU5.3 equivalents. That said, given expected bulb life it might be that the additional cost of the bulbs is a relatively minor issue.
GU10 dimmable LEDs - £4 each: http://www.screwfix.com/p/lap-gu10-led-lamp-346lm-5w-pack-of-5/3797g
GU5.3 dimmable LEDs - £16 each: http://www.screwfix.com/p/sylvania-led-lamp-mr16-350lm-7w/57901
Having read the article, it has however reminded me that I need to double-check the minimum load that my dimmers support - just looking at replacing halogens all round the house, and new dimmers would be an unwanted additional cost.
I'm not exactly clear from the website article of the exact architecture of the Superfish MITM software setup, but if it's acting as a proxy and is intercepting all traffic without informed user consent then there has to be a privacy aspect here - they may be processing private information and so the Data Protection Act could come into play.
If Superfish were masquerading as other businesses via certificates issued under their root certificate then I wonder if the other businesses would have a cause of action in terms of passing off. Certainly if I was Bank of America or any other business offering services via https or suchlike then I'd be pi**ed off about the potential damage to my reputation and business if customers knew that I would do nothing about other people pretending to be me and intercepting private sessions with my customers. Any EULA the consumer nominally agreed to would be irrelevant in terms of whether or not an act of passing off had occurred.
I would also wonder about copyright infringement - by modifying webpages users were requesting to display ads for other "similar" products, and doing that without the consent of the copyright owner, then that might be an unauthorised adaptation of the copyright work (the webpage).
As other commentards have said, roll on DNSSEC.
Thanks for that - really useful to know about the Lightroom setup and features. It's now on the list of candidates :)
Thanks. I think it's an issue of *how* they support the libraries - I believe that the current iPhoto supports multiple local libraries. That's not the issue - it's a case of needing to have the data split between locations, or at least have the main data stored on a LAN and some duplication of data onto the local machine for convenience/ease of use.
For example, photos + thumbnails + metadata stored in a library located on a NAS. Laptop connects up to the NAS for the first time, pulls the thumbnails + metadata for the library over to it and stores them locally. As and when photos are required, they are pulled from the NAS. As changes (additions, deletions, modifications) are made to the library on the NAS (assuming it's shared), they can be sync'd across to the laptop. Ditto, when the laptop disconnects and reconnects to the NAS, changes can be sync'd across to it. When changes are made to a photo on the laptop, the data can by sync'd back to the library on the NAS. When the laptop is disconnected from the NAS, the thumbnails and metadata are still available locally and the app behaves gracefully when users try to access the photos.
Yes... the file-server NAS setup is good for me - I've got a Synology box sat at home happily storing a few TB of data - Time Machine backups, music, video etc. and that's great. So I have the available space and device on the LAN. Just need to be able to use it.
As before, the use scenario is that I have a large amount of photos which cannot all be stored locally on the machine. However, I want a unified photo app so that I can access *all* of the photos through a uniform interface, irrespective of where they are stored - locally or on a NAS device somewhere else on the LAN. At times, I will want to use the app and access (locally stored) photos when not connected to the LAN, and I don't want the app to throw a hissy-fit about not being to access the other photos. Overall, the basic cloud/cloud app scenario.
To me, the basic question is whether the new Photo app will allow a NAS device to be the "cloud" or whether it is locked down to a specific cloud provider i.e. iCloud.
Thoughts/feedback much appreciated. TIA.
I'm just using the free iPhoto app on my MacBook Pro at home. However, the big issue that I've got is the library - I've got the best part of 200GB of photos in iPhoto (I know...) stored locally on my machine and need the space back. I've been avoiding doing anything about it, especially in the knowledge that iPhoto is being ditched, and so this is a good time to look at the available options. I *really* do not want to put my library on a cloud service - cost, speed etc. etc.
My major question is whether the Photos app supports libraries located on a NAS, i.e. can I have multiple libraries with some located on a NAS? And if I can, how is this set up? Are indexes stored locally for speedy and easy access, or does everything have to come from the NAS?
If not, I know that it has been asked in many places many times before, but any suggestions for a suitable non-pro package?
Exactly - if the single file is decrypted locally then the key must be in memory in one form or another. Presumably the key is stored on a remote server which will only allow a single use of the free decrypt button (so no taking an image of the machine and then using the "free decrypt button" on different files on different copies of the image).
Since the key is the critical asset here, it might be that using the "free decrypt button" results in the chosen encrypted file being sent to the remote server, decrypted, and returned to the affected machine. That way, the key is not made accessible in any form, and the remote machine can control/restrict access to the "free decrypt button" functionality.
Spent an hour last night doing remote support on a parent's PC, and the amount of cr*p which had been installed since I last looked at it was scary. Odds of this (or something like it) appearing on a family member's machine at some point is, unfortunately, scarily high and there's little or no chance of them starting to do backups to removable media.
Ho hum :(
It looks like the technology is going to be something to do with this patent application, which was published on 9 October 2014 (US equivalent published a week later): WO2014/164901
Title: "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUGMENTED AND VIRTUAL REALITY"
Claim 1: A user display device, comprising:
a housing frame mountable on a head of a user;
a first pair of cameras coupled to the housing frame to track a movement of the user's eyes and to estimate a depth of focus based on the tracked eye movements; a projection module having a light generating mechanism to generate and modify, based on the estimated depth of focus, a projected light associated with a display object such that the display object appears to be in focus;
a lens mounted on the housing frame; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the projection module to communicate data associated with the display image to the projection module.
Also, this one: WO2012/154620, titled: "MASSIVE SIMULTANEOUS REMOTE DIGITAL PRESENCE WORLD"
Looking at the somewhat limited specification (http://www.apple.com/ipad-air-2/wireless/), it talks about short-term contracts when travelling, and lists UK and US networks.
As per earlier comments, it would seem ludicrous (and potentially anti-competitive) to block use of other networks at a software level.
So I suspect that the actual iPad Air 2 will still have a slot for a physical SIM, and that the Apple SIM is (at least for the moment) an additional software option offering pre-configured SIM services, useful when you are e.g. travelling, or want cellular services on a device when you don't have a physical SIM.
So when you're visiting the US and want cellular access on your iPad Air 2 which has got a UK SIM card in it, you just go to the config page, get presented with the Apple SIM options, make a selection (e.g. based on signal strength where you are located), make payment via the iTunes store, and that's it - job done.
Apple have made the sale, take their cut from the network operator, and you have the network access you need.
When you get back home, your device reverts to using the network which its physical SIM card is configured for.
No competition problems since this is just a convenient additional service for users and doesn't impose any additional limitations upon them, and in fact can be argued to provide them with a significant benefit.
Obviously, this is just the beginning and clearly long-term things will develop. However, so long as a physical SIM slot still exists in the device then there's no issue.
I would be bothered about the contracts between the network operators and Apple - the network operators will want to be able to provide lower cost services when accessed through a physical SIM, but if Apple have put a "most favoured nation" type clause in the contract for provision of services via the Apple SIM then, effectively, the network operators who sign up will be signing their own death warrants. Then again, maybe if the contracts through Apple are truly short-term or require the presence of a physical SIM in the device with a "home country" type feature locked to that physical SIM (the short-term Apple SIM contracts only being available for other countries) then that might keep network operators happy. We shall see...
Like the article says (and various other articles have said before and commentards commented on), this is a fundamental problem with Android. I've got a Nexus 5 and Android's permissions handling is the main thing that would push me back towards using an iOS device.
Yep... that and SwiftKey are going to be fantastic enhancements for iOS
I suspect that this might all hang on whether or not Uber uses GPS data from the actual journey to determine the fare.
So, for example, if you go onto the Uber website/app, provide your journey details, and get a fixed price for the journey then there's no taximeter issue since there's no metering in the vehicle and e.g. delays in the journey, detours etc. won't affect the price.
However, if the fare is determined at the end of the journey based on GPS data logged by a device in the vehicle (and e.g. transmitted to an Uber server which calculates the fare) then there must be a strong argument that it brings a taximeter into effect in the vehicle. There's caselaw where having part of a device/system in a different location wasn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
So I think that it might depend on exactly what that GPS data is used for - logging journeys for live journey status info, passenger safety and optimising future fare calculations is one thing. Using it to meter the journey is another...
Yep... definitely not competitive against 3 with its unlimited 4G data deal. Ditto, GiffGaff are offering a similar 4G package (running on O2's infrastructure) at £12.99. However, if the price difference isn't too much (and e.g. BBC iPlayer still requires a wifi connection to download/stream shows) then maybe the majority of people just won't bother to move.
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback.
mxtoolbox.com was an easy way of checking whether STARTTLS is stated as being supported - just do an MX lookup on the chosen domain to identify the MX server(s) and then click on the "SMTP Test" button for each MX server. The "Session Transcript" box then shows the response to EHLO - as per comments, you're looking for "250-STARTTLS".
However, http://checktls.com is vastly better (since it's designed just to check TLS) - does a very detailed check of all MX servers, and gives a commented, easy to understand, session transcript/analysis. Amongst other things, it checks the full certificate chain and gives a nice colour-coded summary results panel.
So with the email address/domain I was interested in, MX servers include service19.mimecast.com and service20.mimecast.com. The results tell me that both have incorrect certificate chains because Mimecast are using certificates issued for *.mimecast.com instead of the specific service19 and service20, and include RFC references. The summary results include the helpful message that:
"Note: Cert failures do not affect TLS encryption, but may mean the site isn't who they say they are."
Another email address I tried has Google providing all MX servers, and passed all checks.
Yahoo fails for the same reason as Mimecast.
Interestingly, there's a lot of variation in the crypto algorithms used, which is interesting since I would expect there to be some kind of an industry consensus on what to use. Thoughts/comments anybody?
Minor tweak on the question from @theodore - I'm wondering if there's an *easy*/convenient way to double-check whether STARTTLS is correctly set up on a domain.
For example, an email address I can send mail to from my domain, or a service that can be pointed at an email address on my domain, and which will return results on whether STARTTLS is correctly set up.
Just set up voicemail on a new mobile on EE, and it does give you the option of requiring a PIN every time you call the voicemail number, even from your own phone. It seems from the page on the 3 website linked to by the article that they have the same option.
That said, the marketing droids could have actually given a direct answer to the question/issues raised, rather than the usual tripe that they seem to churn out.
I guess that ultimately this might come down to the mobile phone companies providing the mass-market convenient option of not having to enter a PIN when calling from a number that appears to be your own, whilst providing the "always on" PIN requirement for those who want some security.
CLI spoofing has been an easy option for many years, so the fact that it provides a way to get into people's voicemail doesn't surprise me. Oh well...
I'm going to put my neck on the line here, but... maybe since multiple streams from multiple providers have gone down then it's an issue with an expired certificate held by the CDN, e.g. Akamai or whoever else they use. If the CDN is delivering an encrypted Flash stream then it should have master video streams which are then encrypted on a per-user basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Streaming). If encryption is with a key held by the CDN (e.g. its own key used to encrypt a whole range of streams) then that might explain why BBC, Sky etc. are affected.
Ultimately, you will have to pay for all of the gas and electricity you have used. So whether it's worth under-paying now depends on how gas and electricity prices move in the future - if they e.g. increase above inflation (or at a greater rate than the interest rate on your bank account minus tax) then it's actually better to pay for everything now (or even over-pay i.e. pay for gas and electricity you haven't used yet) since you'll end up paying more for the same gas/electricity later.
I was a bit stressed about what they did with passwords as well - the comment (link below) from a Kickstarter person is that:
"... we're being very public with how we hashed them: older Kickstarter passwords used using SHA-1 digested multiple times. More recent passwords are encrypted with bcrypt."
Discussion here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7245349
Erm... simplest thing is to backup to an external drive via USB, pull out the old drives, insert new (larger) ones, and restore from backup. Then use RAID expansion (below).
However, an alternative solution is to pull out a drive from your RAID, plug a new (larger) one in, and let it repair the RAID array by creating the missing disk image on the new drive. Repeat for the other drives in the array. This can be *very* slow. Then use RAID expansion (below).
Whichever option you've gone for, you now have new drives with RAID images using only part of the drive capacity, and you can then do RAID expansion. Just go into the Storage Manager web app and expand the RAID (basically, creates an additional RAID volume on the available space on the drives, and attaches it to the existing RAID volume). Just requires a few mouse clicks.
IMHO, the best thing to do is just buy the largest drives possible when you first get the box, and go for the first option (backup to external drive via USB and restore to new drives from backup) when you eventually bite the bullet and decide you need more space.
@Eguro - you could try spamgourmet (http://www.spamgourmet.com/)
Not mentioned in the release notes, but unbelievably annoying, Firefox 23 has changed the search behaviour for text entered into the address bar so that it now uses your default search engine.
You might previously have used the address bar for Google searches, and have dictionary.com or suchlike set as your default search engine in the search box to the right; now all searches from the address bar will be to your default search engine.
This addon fixes it, but it's not exactly the smartest move from Mozilla:
Crumbs... it's all a bit of a blur, but I think that you're talking about the SALVAGE utility.
If you knew about the accidental deletion fairly quickly then you could usually get files back before they were purged from the volume. Depending on how you were doing for available space on the volume, you could have a fairly extended version history.
Next. I'll be reminiscing about Word Perfect 6.1...
For me as a non-IT person who was responsible for IT of a small company back in the early/mid-90s, Netware was perfect - simple, easy, and *it just worked*. Our office file/print server just never went down, backups ran happily every night, and the dozen or so users never really appreciated or noticed what was going on. Internet access and email (thanks Paul Smith and vPOP3) was seamlessly added, and we had a small business set-up that ran happily for many years.
Yes, but the issue for the Beeb is having to support iPlayer on all of those platforms/devices - I suspect that it's an absolute nightmare and a total black hole for developer time and resources. At which point, some open/defined standards in terms of minimum hardware and OS can help, and that gives us YouView. If it takes off and device manufacturers incorporate it in future TVs and STBs then they'll be able to deliver a single build of their IPTV service for an awful lot of devices.
So presumably irrespective of how iPlayer progresses, the prospect of reduced costs and a more consistent and better user experience will ensure that the BBC are keen on YouView. That and the fact that, as you say, they'll be able to control to a certain extent how their channels and services are presented. Big fish in a relatively small pond.
GoogleTV could be the real issue for them. However, as the broadcast content provider they'll be able to decide whether or not to support it and therefore until it gains a critical mass and their hand is forced, they'll probably avoid it like the plague - much bigger pond and an awful lot more fish to fight with for people's attention.
Agreed - the price point is massively wrong, and the large amount of snagging is very worrying. Lack of what is now basic features in terms of apps/subscription services (Lovefilm etc.) also looks bad.
I've said it before, and I'll very happily say it again - should have ditched YouView a couple of years ago when HbbTV was clearly going to be the winner. We need a single platform that all manufacturers and content providers can target so that the box, format, interface and functionality used in France or Germany etc. is essentially the same as that in the UK - would lead to more products, lower prices and much quicker and more complete (and broader) delivery of apps/channels/services from content providers. Would also give a much better chance of decent firmware and speedy bugfixes.
The winner here is going to be the box that provides freesat/freeview, catchup TV (and other online content) from terrestrial broadcasters, apps/services etc. from other content providers (and the ability of the user to add their own chosen services etc. - enter URIs of your own chosen repos for content/services), gigabit ethernet with access to content on the home LAN and the ability to copy recorded content onto the home LAN, remote access for scheduling recordings, excellent search (all recordings, all scheduled broadcast content, all catchup TV, all online content, all LAN content), and a fantastically simple and easy-to-use interface. Not much to ask... :)
Overall, good on Humax for putting out the box (even though it has issues), but as ever a fail for YouView.
Hmmm... Eduardo Saverin's probably not too happy that the share price is still low and is under massive pressure (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/01/eduardo_saverin_tax/) - he'll presumably have to pay the IRS at some point.
Facebook share price chart (year to date):
I was going to have an outraged moan and conclude by saying "how on earth can Apple put out something with such a low spec at that price?", but I think that we all know the answer.
The depressing thing is that I've been talking with my wife about replacing her Mac, and I really don't want to go anywhere near this one. Might give it a few months if, as per people's comments, there's a chance of a vaguely better model emerging.
However if (as I suspect) the right to write an app is jealously guarded and vetted by YouView genuinely useful apps like this will probably not get approved and in a world of increasingly "smart" TVs I reckon that'll be the death of YouView.
That's my concern as well - for anything to succeed now, it must be open so that you can add your own chosen content and content providers. Otherwise, it will just end up as an annoying and frustrating walled garden. There will always be content out there that you want and that you should be able to access, but which won't be available through a closed members-only platform. For example, new online TV/video providers, and overseas providers might not make it on. Similarly, I'd love to see content from my NAS box seamlessly integrated into whatever other content is available. Zero chance of that on the current offering.
Also, do remember that everybody else is going for HbbTV, so targeting YouView will require special effort from content providers, which may translate to delay in content becoming available, or in it never becoming available at all.
My suggestion - let's just have open standards for the hardware and content provision so that anybody can supply content and can DRM things as required, and an open UI so that users can select their own content repos and add whatever channels/content providers they want. Works great on XBMC. Include a single integrated search across all content sources and you've got something that might be worth paying for.
Oh... and you'll probably want to support apps as well. In fact, why not go the whole hog and use HTML5 for as much as possible? Could even make the apps run as browser windows. Hmmm... maybe just build the whole thing on Android around Chrome? Could the ultimate solution be what Google TV is currently morphing into?
Basic trademark infringement. Sounds like the decision is a repeat of the Tesco v Levis case from ten years ago - that one went to the ECJ. The ECJ confirmed that Levis could control the first sale of their jeans in Europe - Tesco couldn't buy the product from outside of Europe and place it on the market in Europe without Levis' consent (which of course they didn't have).
Trademark law creates a "wall" around Europe which means that only the trademark owner (or somebody authorized by them) can be the first person to put the product on the market in Europe. This allows manufacturers to control movement of goods into Europe, but *not* within Europe. So manufacturers can e.g. establish different prices in different regions (e.g. Europe, USA, Asian countries etc.) - for example sell into India with a lower profit margin in order to achieve sales and develop the market, and sell into the established European market at a higher price point.
European free trade laws ensure that once the product is legitimately on the market in Europe, the trademark owner has exhausted their rights and (generally - might have to re-label or replace instructions for language/safety issues) can't control further movement/sales within Europe.
Like most people, I increasingly want online content rather than broadcast (satellite or Freeview), and the current offering and options just doesn't provide what I need.
An open standard for delivering content (e.g. hbbTV) would be great - for example, the iPlayer app on my 2011 Bravia is utter pants compared to the web app, and LoveFilm on the Bravia is okay but nothing like as good as on the PS3. So if an open standard makes it easier for broadcasters/content providers to provide their content and make sure that the UI and user experience is top-notch then that would be fabulous.
However, the one thing that always strikes me is that right now I'm just not in control of what content is available through my TV - I get the online services that Sony deems I should get. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's what Sony think - I want to be able to add any service that I want. It might be e.g. a German or French TV station, Netflix, a future alternative to that, or a future ElReg channel. Irrespective, I want to be in control of available channels/services and that's just not possible right now.
If that can be done through HbbTV then that would be amazing. Ultimately, I just want to be able to add my own chosen repo of broadcaster information (like with XBMC) or enter a custom URL for a chosen broadcaster. With that, it could be fantastic.
Beyond that, full HTML5 rendering must surely go a long way to delivering everything presently required.
Anyway, in the same way as I bought my Humax satellite box, I'll probably buy a set top box which stands a chance of getting custom firmware.
The EPO's record for the case is here:
Opponents are Nokia, T mobile, Vodafone, Ericsson and HTC.
The detailed written decision hasn't yet issued (and will be in German) - expect that to take at least another month or two. When it does issue, it will be in the "All documents" section (link at the top left of the page). They'll probably appeal the decision, so this will go on for at least another year.
The patent itself (English language claims on page 9 of the PDF here): http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=EP&NR=1841268B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=1&date=20100317&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP) requires the mobile phone itself to do the work in prioritising traffic - reads a value off the SIM, gets data from the network, and figures out whether or not the call can be made.
Involvement of the phone and network means that both the mobile phone manufacturers and networks would be affected by the patent.
We've got the same thing at our office (in fact, the bottles look identical to ours, other than the logo) - much cheaper than buying bottled water, and much more environmentally friendly.
My house hasn't got particularly thick walls, but wireless signal penetration from the front of the house (where the router is) to the back is a bit patchy for e.g. mobile phones. 5Ghz goes absolutely nowhere, so I've pretty much given up on it. Add to it the NAS and printer that are in the cellar and really need an unbroken/unbreakable connection to the router, and I've gone for a combination of solutions which seems to be working very well.
Before anybody talks about router antennae and positioning, it's a WNDR3700 (internal antennae), high up on a shelf, and (unfortunately) needs to be located there.
What knits everything together is powerline ethernet - connects the router to the cellar very happily at >100Mbps, so NAS and printer resources are easily available wherever the wireless can get. A gigabit switch in the cellar also gives high bandwidth access to the NAS where necessary for big backups etc.
The other really useful thing has been an Apple Airport Express with an ethernet connection to another powerline ethernet unit - this is at the back of the house and operates as a wireless base station on a separate (non-overlapping) frequency to the main router, but with the same network ID so wireless devices switch between it and the router as necessary. It's also wired into a pair of speakers, so we've got music in the kitchen (and elsewhere - various other Airport Express units).
So we've now got good wireless access across the whole of the house, music across the whole of the house, and router/switch (in the cellar) providing gigabit ethernet connections for cabled devices.
Overall, it's a nice setup, hasn't been too expensive, and has avoided the need for any additional cabling to be installed which would have been a total pain. The only downside is that the wireless guest network provided by the router is not extended by the Airport Express, but that's an incredibly minor issue.
This is the lawsuit:
IMHO, if Boundless have been copying the selection and arrangement of information that is presented in the books, let alone the pagination etc. so that the Boundless books can act as a direct replacement for course texts (so that e.g. references in course notes to content on a particular page, paragraph or section number of a book is reference to the same content in the Boundless book) then they've got a real problem.
That selection and arrangement of information should have lots of copyright in it.
Ultimately, if I've spent a large amount of time and effort researching a subject and writing a book which gives readers a very carefully tailored learning experience then I will have lots of copyright in that book, which is the right thing - if I've done a good job and it's a good book then I will be rewarded for my work with income from sales, encouraging me to do more of the same.
However, if somebody else comes along and copies the book, particularly the structure and content, to deliver the same learning experience (even if they paraphrase things) then they are basically trying to steal my work. If a court does not find them to be infringing my copyright then there is no incentive for me (the skilled author) or my editor (there will also be copyright in the editorial input) to write any more books, and at that point there will be no commercial reward for authoring textbooks, so why should anybody bother?
Alternatively, if they want to independently author their own books (and the critical thing is that they do it independently of my books) then that's absolutely fine - they're not trying to copy my work and it's a bit of competition for me - good old capitalism - and should encourage me to improve the content/price/usability/available formats/distribution channels etc. Perhaps they could try some kind of an open collaborative online system where anybody and everybody can share their knowledge and freely contribute, discuss, and edit the material. Hmm...
Should be interesting...
From an innocent/naive level, this is basically WIPO trying to do its job. So long as North Korea already has internet access, a "treasure trove" of information won't suddenly be made available to North Korea.
However,... if their internet access is limited (it seems to be - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_North_Korea) then it might be very useful. A quick search on WIPO's PATENTSCOPE database (http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/search.jsf) shows that 25 International patent applications have been filed at the North Korean patent office since 1990. I don't know how many local/"national" patent applications there are in North Korea, but I suspect very few. That doesn't exactly require 48TB of storage space, nor does it require a high speed duplex laser printer. And it doesn't exactly require full time use of the new hardware, which raises the question of potential "dual use".
Patent applications get published - tens of millions of them from patent offices all over the world here: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/ (contains all of the publications on the WIPO database and more).
So those publications are already available to anybody and everybody for free - you just need an internet connection.
Any patent application directed to "restricted" subject matter (where national security restrictions etc. apply) will not be published, and so will never make it onto the public database.
I would guess that the storage space on the server means that it either has, or is designed to have, a local copy of WIPO's public PATENTSCOPE database in order to allow staff at the patent office to search it easily, i.e. without needing an internet connection. The only searching they would have to do is presumably to determine patentability of local/national patent applications, not the International ones that WIPO handles.
So I suspect that part of the concern here might be the ease of access to the very large volume of technical data on that database (with 48TB, it might have the plain text/XML plus the TIFF/PDF images, including drawings).
So it's really the "dual use" question of:
1. what they are going to use the hardware for when it's not being used to process patent applications filed at the patent office, and
2. whether they have got a local copy of the PATENTSCOPE database, and if so what use (outside of searching for local/national patent applications) they might put it to,
and whether any of that breaks any UN bans on technology transfer.
I think that the comments about pay-per-view weakening the case for the license fee are extremely valid. I'm sympathetic to the BBC's desire to get an additional revenue stream from pay-per-view, but really do wonder how they can achieve that via iPlayer.
What's the problem? Well, as I understand it (and I could be very wrong - this is just going from my recollections of previous media discussions about BBC commercial activities), the BBC is legally required to do all of its commercialisation via a separate commercial arm - BBC Worldwide Ltd. That ensures that the commercial marketplace for products is not skewed in the BBC's favour, and ensures that it does not use license fee money (which it presumably spends an awful lot of on iPlayer) to disadvantage competitors (e.g. subscription services). If the BBC starts charging for TV programs via iPlayer then you can guarantee that Sky, Virgin etc. will complain that license fee money (spent on the iPlayer platform) is being used to compete with them for online services such as viewing old shows etc.
It might be that the forthcoming YouView platform will allow the BBC (or maybe BBC Worldwide) to provide pay-per-view as e.g. "BBC pay-per-view", *totally* separate from the main BBC iPlayer service and so not breach its legal obligations.
However, the main thing seems to be that the BBC needs to be able to license content so that it can be distributed online very shortly after broadcast, instead of e.g. having to wait for DVD box sets to be released etc. That sounds like more of a commercial issue with rights holders than a fundamental issue with whether or not the BBC (in whatever guise) can offer pay-per-view.
Have a look on LoveFilm and NetFlix - the TV show content is somewhat limited, and they would presumably love to get their hands on more recent shows, subject to the price being right.
Simplest and safest thing for the BBC is to sort out licensing so that programs can be licensed at reasonable rates for online distribution very shortly after broadcast, and for the BBC *not* to offer those online commercial services themselves as doing so would just threaten the license fee.
Last thing - who on earth is going to pay £1.89 for a show?! 10p maybe, but at that kind of price it's a total no-go. To work, it has to be commercially attractive to punters.
This one is just a published patent application, *not* a granted patent.
Here's the publication:
Getting the images is a bit of a pain - they're TIFFs, so your browser will probably need a plugin like AlternaTIFF. Should be available as a PDF from the link below ("Original document" link on the left) in a week or so:
For those that are interested in what happens to the case, use Public PAIR (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) and search for 20120036433 as document/publication number.
Yes there is some minor snagging with the EPG on the Humax, but the additional firmware that oldcodger links to (above) is absolutely fantastic. Personally, I copy recorded TV programs from it directly to Flex Player running on an iPad (no need for format-shifting - just drag-and-drop). The end result is that I can easily watch full quality TV shows on the iPad whilst sat on the train.
For me, apart from the minor GUI tweaks, the only extra thing that I would want is gigabit ethernet instead of the current 100Mbit. Overall, excellent piece of kit.
I've got a DS408 (i.e. two generations previous to the DS410) running very happily at home - it's never crashed and for the non-Linux folks amongst us, it just works, so long as you are happy to stick to the GUI and pre-packaged apps (see the Synology website). If you want something more then somewhat inevitably it probably won't be anything like as simple as installing a program on a Windows/Mac machine.
Re the noise levels for home users, it's worth flagging up that this model has a scheduled on/off feature (my DS408 is set up to turn itself off overnight) as well as wake on LAN. It also has auto reboot after power failure, which is great for when you're nowhere near home.
The four bays might be overkill to some, but obviously do allow for RAID configurations beyond RAID 0/1 and much more storage space. The OS also (I think) supports live volume expansion so you can just swap in larger drives as and when you need more space and the volume expanded accordingly, and you can also change volume type on-the-fly.
I think that ext4 is now the default file system, meaning that drive volumes of much greater than 8TB should be possible, subject to drive compatibility. However, don't quote me on that - if it's important to you then speak to Synology who are usually quick to reply to emails.
GUI is very good, although I found with earlier versions that copying/pasting/moving large numbers of files was difficult. That might have been fixed with DSM 2.3, and I would strongly recommend applying the latest version as part of an initial install (which itself is an absolute breeze). In any event, for most people and most of the time it can be easiest to do file operations on your PC/Mac/whatever desktop, having set up mapped drives etc.
Overall, the Synology DS4xx series is seriously nice.
I'm guessing that this is their "FASP technology" (WO2006/071866):
As for "It sounds like Aspera could have a new application ahead of it; transferring data files to the cloud.", try this one (WO2009/091580):