249 posts • joined 30 Aug 2012
Re: It is an exclusive for a while at least
I said they weren't in the same volume as the iPhone, however they aren't touted as 'extra durable' just luxury.
The idea that it is Apple that has made this an exclusive and set up the supply chains just isn't true. There are phone manufacturers who have been doing this since the 90s and were the pioneers in getting worldwide supply chains set up to use large sapphire crystal displays.
To Quote: "This meant the Hampshire-based British firm had to go out and find its own Sapphire source and create its own supply chain, one that was capable of creating crystals large enough to meet its requirements.
"We found one or two suppliers in the late 90s who we then started working with to get the bits we wanted."
Back to the present day and Vertu now has Sapphire suppliers around the world who are capable of making single sheets of glass large enough to cover the 4.7-inch full HD screen of the firm's latest flagship device - the Signature Touch."
None of it is 'true' sapphire it is all synthetic and is deemed to be both tough and hard.
Re: It is an exclusive for a while at least
Other phones already use Sapphire Glass fro their display, however they don't have the same number of sales as an iPhone.
Sand is the culprit, quite often. A bit of sand which gets on your finger or in your pocket and it scratches glass quite easily.
That is the test of the hardness of the display.
Google de-listing of BBC article 'broke UK and Euro public interest laws'
Where are these "UK and Euro public interest laws" that Google have broken?
I don't seem to find any reference to them on the EU Legislation archive? These laws must prevent Google from removing any links (or not linking to) any articles that would be deemed in the public interest (I presume by the fact they have broken them).
Does this mean that a robots.txt file is also illegal under "UK and Euro public interest laws"? That may be used also to stop search engines indexing information that may be in the public interest?
"An odometer doesn't increase when you are stationary in traffic though does it?"
No but the clock does..
"Is an odometer and a clock in the car also a meter?"
Is an odometer and a clock in the car also a meter? Do these need to be banned?
Heck, they are actually connected to the car and the calculation is done locally - using the driver's head or a calculator!
Not quite true, the Uber app will quote but their fare structure is still based on distance and time and the final price is only after the journey has ended (you could ask for a diversion if you wanted to).
Still doesn't make it a meter as these are a specific type with regulations surreounding them that are installed in the car and calculate locally.
The Uber meter has no car connection and calculates the fare remotely, it just collects distance and time information.
Re: Install Pri-fi
"What's the relevance of this MAC address discussion?"
I was replying on the above post who was talking about tracking via MAC addresses, this is another feature of Pri-Fi - to randomise the MAC address (as well as suppress AP broadcast).
"Oh look the CEO's phone is showing that he has recently been to company B and he was out all day yesterday, I wonder if those merger rumours are true after all?"
"Oh look Julie's phone is showing the Palma Resort, isn't that where Kevin went last week on holiday? I thought Kevin was married?"
"Hey boss, we went to that nightclub last night and Luis Suárez was there and his AP was showing Real Madrid, maybe he's in talks about transferring? Should we print it?"
Re: Install Pri-fi
You can't track someone at a website using their MAC address, how would you know their MAC address?
The only way it would even be possible would be to get the user to download a plugin or software during their browsing session and read it that way, but to what purpose?
If you want a unique ID you would normally just create one and put it in a cookie or get them to login to your site (which then also works cross device).
Something can be disruptive even if it doesn't eventually succeed. A really good company would notice the disruptive threat and react quickly and effectively, using their experience and knowledge which then may make the newcomer redundant. It's when an established company doesn't notice or dismisses the threat, of which there are many examples, that the newcomer can really take off.
So, if Ford produce a driverless car that works as well as Google's but is based more around single ownership/family ownership and a regular car design (retrofitting to their existing chassis for instance) then that may well be a lot more appealing than an expensive bubble car from Google that has shared public ownership (and there is never one around in the rain or on a Friday night). Google's car might then fail but it will still have been disruptive and caused a seismic shift in industry thinking and speed of development.
Re: Silly question...
Light is affected by gravity - that's why there are 'black holes'.
Re: Ughh... bad news
Seeing as there is a reasonable chance of a crashing international plane hitting water why not develop a simple locator that is held in a sealed recessed area of the outer body which has a switch activated when significant water pressure is detected (non-electrical)?
The flap pops open and a floating tracker beacon pops out and stays on the surface.
This would not be able to be deactivated by crew (and due to a pressure opener wouldn't be at risk of causing an electrical fire). The high pressure, only experienced underwater, would ensure non-accidental release and with an armoured housing wouldn't get destroyed on impact.
Re: Remote wipe?
I think, but I might be wrong, is that the feature actually disables the phone even surviving a factory reset/bootstrap. It is there to stop the potential resale rather than just erase your data.
Don't think it was ever free. Outlook express was free, but that was not the same thing at all.
Outlook was, however, included with the Exchange serve licence, as long as you had the relevant Exchange server Cals you could also use Outlook. This is no longer the case and you need to buy Outlook separately (or as part of Office of course).
However, there is not much point in using exchange without outlook and vice versa so not so much of a bait and switch. The main point is that it limits people using Open office for Word, Excel replacements while having Outlook for Email (as there really isn't much from the Open Source community that can match it) as the price difference isn't that big after you negotiate a nice discount.
Re: Is this really so unique?
I am willing to bet that medical records are not routinely passed to accident lawyers in the UK.
However, I am pretty sure they are passed by insurance companies, tow trucks, coachworks, garages etc.
If you are sure that it was someone in the hospital (in the UK) then I recommend you contact the ICO and Health Care Trust immediately to pursue it and catch the culprit.
The article is already slightly Anti-kickstarter and rightly so. The way they can absolve all responsibility from this obvious fraud that they are helping to generate half a million dollars (minus the healthy Kickstarter commission of course) is just plain wrong.
They still have time to pull the plug but leaving scams like this going just damages the long term viability of both Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites.
I reported this project about two weeks ago https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1690998653/magnetic-hoverboard-i-think-yes as it clearly breaches their terms (they have no plans for a finished product, it's just a scam to use as a marketing opportunity for their other products)
If Kickstarter just becomes known as being a fraud site for criminals then it doesn't help anyone, especially Kickstarter themselves so they should get off their ass and create some proper safeguards and policies that provide at least some basic protection from obvious scams.
Doesn't seem so daft?
Operators already mast share (often with a head leaser of one of the operators who then sub leases to the other operators), they also have MVNOs and they allow roaming from other networks on their own network from foreign customers.
There would be a cross network charge which with an equal network and an equal number of subscribers would be cost neutral. However if one operator spends more on building their infrastructure they reap more in cross network charges. Similarly the operator who has the biggest customer base with the smallest infrastructure has to pay out the most.
As a working analogy - ATM/Cashpoint machines. These are installed by a certain entity and then they get a fee for each transaction made by a customer of another institution. Seems to work pretty well, you don't need 15 cashpoints in every village and as a customer you can use any for free (apart from private - chargeable - ones of course). The original installer has the cost of installation and ongoing running costs but they make their money back on their own customers not needing to speak to a human and third party charges.
Just wondering why comments were turned off on the Oracle article. The one where they confirmed they were biting Micros?
Non-embossed cards (in the UK at least) are designed specifically not to be used in manual imprinters as they specifically need an online, real-time authorisation. The will often have "electronic authorisation only" or similar.
Re: Publicity Stunt
"So after proving hes running a company thats an answer to a question that no-ones asking"
So no one is asking "what are we going to do for fuel as oil reserves start to become depleted?" or "how would a dramatic enforced shortage of oil by OPEC affect the economy?" or "if man-made global warming is true how can we reduce our reliance on it especially if taxes are punitive on oil burning vehicles?" or "isn't is ridiculous how expensive it is to run a car in Europe now-a-days?" etc
There are plenty of questions being asked about the future of petrol and diesel vehicles, if you think there isn't then you must have been asleep for the last 20 years.
Electric has the advantage that once cars are "generally" battery powered the raw source of that electricity can be decided by the politicians, the environmentalists, the economists etc. Whether that is more nuclear, wind, tidal, solar, coal, gas, fusion etc All the cars get an automatic upgrade to using that new source at the same time.
Could it be that the actual issue is that the petroleum industry has a little bit too much sway and too much invested to see it disappear? Or that car manufacturers have too much invested in combustion engines and aren't always the quickest to adapt to change especially on such a large risk for them (many European vehicles manufacturers can't even afford the expense of a new regular chassis and wheelbase so they often share a similar platform and have a lot of mergers)?
The main issues with electric cars has been the range, the batteries and the "chicken and egg" lack of chargers en route. If a car has a 200 mile range and there was a decent network of rapid chargers then most people could work to that. Day-to-day commutes would be within range and longer trips could be broken up with lunch or a break at an appropriate location.
Elon Musk at least has the guts to try to address this and has the balls to do it without whinging that the government should stump up all the cash or the industry will fold. He's put his money where his mouth is and decided to give it a shot, it might eventually fall short but the thinking is sound.
Re: This is nice but
Oh come on, do you really think any company would be that Naive?
Firstly if a company was going to spend that much money developing a car using Tesla's patents they would approach Tesla and ask for it in writing that they can use them, probably in the form of a Patent License agreement with no cost. No manufacturer is just going to start using someone's patent based solely on a second-hand news report that it was okay.
Secondly, if a company publicly states (directly) that they will allow others to use their patents then tried to sue for using them then, even in the US there would be little hope of a sympathetic judge.
Lastly, Elon's name would be mud if he then renegades on this and I'm pretty sure reputation is very important for him. Not completely impossible but unlikely to be his strategy (look at Oracle for instance)
Sites rarely have a certificate for all their various domains. They'll just redirect to their default or create a specific secure.xxxxx.co.uk domain to use for secure interactions.
Re: Clarification needed.
You're right the subdomain is only hidden for some sites now I hadn't used it for a while so I turned the setting back on to check. This is a change that they have made as it didn't do this originally. I'm not sure what the list consists of but the 'www' and "m" subdomain will still be hidden when you visit a site (slightly confusing if you happen to follow an m.site.com link as the display will not look correct but the URL will state site.com the same as if you had clickled www.site.com/).
Re: Clarification needed.
The example The Register used doesn't make sense, of course - not only for the reason you stated (they'd actually have to upload a page onto someone else's site and by that point your website and visitors would be fubared anyway and also the fact that they obviously wouldn't use an address of www.google.com/this_page_is_malware_planted_by_a_phisher they would use www.google.com/this_page_is_perfectly_safe (www.google.com/gofind for instance).
The issue was more with subdomains as these were getting hidden so a service like blogger, geocities etc could have a link to sandras_blog.blogger.com but redirect them to geoffs_blog.blogger.com with Geoff being a naughty boy. The address bar would just show blogger.com.
Re: Good Idea, Poor Implementation?
Chrome does do this already and has for a long time
It isn't very obvious though due to the differences being quite subtle. However there was a lot more to the discussion than this which ran for pages and pages.
Re: Site locations
I would doubt it would be a shopping centre as everyone going to a shopping centre normally goes there for a long period of time, however an individual store to encourage a captive, well-off audience for 30~60 minutes would be more likely to see the marketing opportunity.
You caption a picture of an Air Ambulance with a comment about NHS funding. However the Air Ambulance is funded privately by charity donations with only the paramedics seconded from the NHS.
Surely this is just what Android Intents do (although a bit more limiting) and has allowed since the beginning.
All Android Apps can publish certain intents and this allows any mapping application to service any location request or allow an app to use another app to process its data.
Re: Selling the Car
"Can you disable individual phones from the dashboard/display?"
That would make this system a lot more secure, if an individual mobile had to be verified and activate from the car with the ignition turned on. You wouldn't be able to load the app onto any other phone then and use it as the mobile would not be verified.
Re: My name
"Being able to use "any" username, and "any" password, effectively gives you two factor authentication"
Not quite it is two step verification but it is single factor (it is equivalent to a single password that is the combined length of the username+password but sometimes worse if the system individually lets you know if the username is wrong regardless of password).
Two factor could be available if the mobile phone, for instance, had to be verified and unique so that only a verified mobile phone could be used along with a (username/)password
Re: "or face 6 years' porridge"
Criminals often get a choice - plea bargaining is common. Even choosing to admit guilt early can knock a large amount off a sentence.
Re: Crime doesn't pay...
The extra 2 years is if he doesn't pay on time, he'll still have to pay the money.
"The only way they can guarantee their own service is by taking bandwidth away from others."
At this stage this is not exactly how it works. Now I am a supporter of net neutrality, however this at the moment isn't destroying that (companies could already pay to be hosted in the LINX exchange in the UK for instance to take advantage of their peering arrangements)
The deals these guys are doing should in theory increase bandwidth to all services for users (in the short term). They are getting private pipes from the ISP to the CDN of Netflix or Apple so that the high bandwidth traffic from these sources does not consume bandwidth on their regular internet pipes.
If Comizon has a 100Gb link to 'the Internet' for its subscribers all traffic is brought down that but Apple and Netflix could consume say 10% of that (and therefore reduce bandwidth for other services by 10%).
However, if they then add a 10Gb private link direct to Apple's CDN and a 10Gb link direct to Netflix then the 10% on the 100Gb link can be freed up for other services and Apple and Netflix can be sure that when more than 100Gb of data is being requested on the regular pipe their services don't suffer (Based on the road analogies, they are building a new straight highway running alongside the existing one, with no on-ramps or off-ramps between Apple/Netflix and Comizon.
Once it gets into the Comizon network they are claiming that the traffic is treated the same as the other services and that there is no prioritisation. The subscriber also has their 20Mb link to Comizon that will recieve the Netflix or Apple traffic along with all the other traffic that might be on the line. You would think this would be beneficial for Comizon so maybe the payment is just Apple/Netflix having to pay for the private link and maintenance of it - or maybe it's a split payment between them, whereas in the past the ISP paid for the direct link?
Either way the worry is that when deals are done between individual ISPs and Content Providers eventually the lure of being able to charge a premium for their content within the Comizon network is too great, or that the regular shared link will no longer be upgraded in favour of private links or even that some services are only available with decent quality from certain larger ISPs without a law stopping it.
It is creating a private internet between a select few that the subscriber will have to pay extra to access (even if not directly) that is the issue.
Shareholders want their share price to increase - that's why they invest in them.
If the business profits grow it is a key indicator of business value and so share price rises. Continual profits can always pay out dividends (for the companies that do) but if they make less profit (unless there is a good reason for it such as a massive investment in an exciting new project) than last year this could, among other factors, affect the value of the company and therefore a reduction in share price. No-one wants a decline in their share value so investors will jump ship.
Every year the pressure is on a company to be growing and therefore relevant. Obviously, above inflation growth is unsustainable ad infinitum but there's nearly always a bigger piece of the pie you can try to have until you max out that pie and have to find another pie to take a piece of (hence companies like Amazon diversifying into groceries/cloud/hardware etc).
"The reason they do it, of course, is to lend an air of scientific credibility to their results."
Interesting Fact: Everest was measured in 1856 at exactly 29,000 feet. However to avoid sounding as though the measurement was just an approximation and therefore would not be seen as an official 'exact' height the figure was changed to 29,002 feet - although it has subsequently been revised by 27 feet in the mid 1950s it was surprisingly accurate for the time.
..."a proper testing and code inspection phase..."
And yet they were unable to spot something as obvious as a product from a well known vendor not being able to do anything at all and not even being submitted by said vendor.
Unusable definition of 'proper' testing!
"will he now have to go through another multiple of cases to force Bing, Yahoo, etc take down links to an identical article?"
Will make no difference now as due to the Streisand Effect any search for his name will now have hundreds of news links talking about this ruling, each one repeating the original reason of his 'embarrassment'. Any attempts to suppress those would probably have a new raft of news stories discussing the suppression of the suppression of the original story ... and ad infinitum.
If he truly wanted to hide his details then effecting a ruling like this was not a good way to do it (I think a super injunction would be needed) so I guess he just wanted to prove a point.
Re: Who owns the data?
I am not one to say what is specific by law in Germany as you did not state that what you were quoting was specific to Germany and I am not inclined to look up German Law but stating the DPA on The Register you would expect it would apply to the UK Data Protection Act which makes your points definitely not apply under UK Data Protection Laws.
For instance in the UK you are quite welcome to e-mail your CRM databases your newsletter if they have a relationship with you, without their explicit permission. You are not allowed to buy in databases from elsewhere for potential leads for non-business individuals unless they have given consent though.
You can also identify someone by name quite readily without "a waiver" under many circumstances and use personally identifiable information without a waiver. For instance if someone sent in a letter of recommendation saying how great your company was, you could pin it up on your wall in the reception without needing to ask explicit permission. It would be polite to ask but not necessary by law.
Re: Who owns the data?
So much wrong information in that post, that I wouldn't know where to start. It is comments like this that end up with service personnel stating "can't, data protection innit".
Re: Here transit
Google has always had some transit information but this is a fully comprehensive and redesigned interface.
It has more complete information than Nokia including domestic ferries however Nokia includes live timetabling information which Google currently doesn't (only timetabled).
The BBC story on it has a lot more details and compares it to the competition.
Re: @PaulR79 "Never click links for banks etc in emails"
" If you are alert you can check, if you've not got a dialling tone the line is still open."
Ahh, but they play an artificial dialling tone down the line until you press the first digit. Another way to check is to dial a different number and see if that "goes through to the bank" or just see if a human answers when you call - as no bank ever answers its phone until you gone through at least twenty layers of menu options first.
Re: @PaulR79 "Never click links for banks etc in emails"
Banks do this all the time. Ever had a phone call from your bank that starts "I just need to ask you some security questions to confirm your identity"?
Also (in the UK) with the 3Dsecure standard. Notice the web address that you get redirected to is not your bank, or visa/mastercard, or the original site. Yep it's just a 'random' address with the word secure in it that you have to trust is not the site you were on trying to phish your information (or someone else inserting themselves in the middle).
When you look at the OTT requirements of the PCI standards and compare it with the insecure workings of the bank it makes you wonder if it's "one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us".
"the average web user is going to become further and further removed from the actual workings of the web"
That started with DNS and then later with multihomed clients in HTTP 1.1 - no longer can you be sure of typing in your trusty 18.104.22.168 address to get to google search you get abstracted out to google.co.uk and don't get to even see the original IP.
However most people would think it is a good thing, but the web will continue to evolve into abstracting the inner workings away from the user as it transitions into a simple consumer tool.
But why are they a scam?
Yo and I might consider them a scam, but what defines that? The post office do the same thing, they will charge you to apply for an EHIC card because they also offer a "check and send service" the same as these companies.
There are also visa agencies across the world who will process visa applications for you for a fee when you could get them cheaper or free elsewhere. The difference is they provide a service where they know the easy way to do bulk applications, not get hit by further bureaucracy from banana republics, get visas quickly or get 'enhanced' visas to visitors.
Many people will use these services and pay the premium knowing about the alternatives because they do sometimes provide a valuable service.
So should Google ban a legitimate service? Should they decide which ones they feel provide sufficient extra value? Should they ban the Post Office from doing this service?
Or should they just wait until a court/trading standard etc decide they are illegal and then remove them?
"Thin end of the wedge"
Yes, it's an abused cliché but this really could be the thin end of the wedge.
If there is no real competition and you have to pay to get a quality connection to your customers all the big firms will have to start paying the ISP to compete. How long before you get whizzy Bing results and tortoise slow Google results due to artificial throttling.
It will end up as an extortion racket, as more large firms with big traffic pay for the higher speed connections and all the other sites get slower and slower. Next you get a phone call from Commizon&T telling you that for a 'small' fee your customers can enjoy a lovely high speed link to your site, one that your competitor doesn't have (shame if it got even slower after all!)
Every ISP will want a piece of that pie and we might end up with a two tier (or even multi-tier) web.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great