You can swim in Lake Erie
The tourist agencies in New York, PA and Ohio even encourage it!
482 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Aug 2007
A webcam seems like the most obvious accessory that you'd want with an internet connected TV, so it's typical of the shortsighted approach of all the other major TV manufacturers that you can't have one at a reasonable price - $150 for the Logitech TV Cam isn't exactly an appealing option for something that you might only use occasionally. Building a camera into the TV might help people convince themselves that they need this TV, even if they end up never using that feature.
The price is high, but not outrageous for the label conscious, and they'll have no problem selling enough at that price for the media to gush about how Apple is redefining the TV.
Do they repopulate it from other sources (IP address, browser fingerprint, flash cookies, etc)?
If it's that straightforward, why isn't it addressed in the privacy policy, which only addresses privacy management for users who log in, while explicitly acknowledging that you can be a user of the services without logging in?
If Apple sells 100,000 TVs, the media will hail it as ground breaking success that will change TV watching as we know it.
If exactly the same TVs, with exactly the same technology, were released by any other company, they'd only be covered in the specialist AV press and they'd have almost zero impact on the man in the street.
Apples power to influence our world is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - the same products, released by somebody else, won't have the same impact.
Kodak didn't make awful digital cameras - their Easyshare cameras took better pictures than their Fuji Finepix and Canon equivalents in the mid-range, but they never managed to get their marketing right.
And 5 years ago was too late - these trends were apparent 7 and 8 years ago, when the Easyshare software than came with these cameras could do exactly what you suggest, but most people were still on dialup, and uploading 20 x 1MB wasn't exactly a selling point.
Imagine you have to buy a "blue" TV to watch channel X, and a "red" TV to watch channel Y. Think that'd work?
Why do TV companies think creating lots of tiny little niches is a good idea? It'll just mean that the vast majority of their potential customers will ignore those niches.
10% of a standard that works on every single TV will be worth a hell of a lot more than 100% of a niche that is only available on 10% of TVs.
ESR's one year apart won't help much - you'd start out with FF 10 in April '12, after 2 months testing, and then updates would stop in March 2013, with the release of FF19, but you wouldn't be able to deploy it until you'd had 2 months to test it.
Every 4th major release would make more sense, so that Enterprises could jump every 9 months, instead of every 6 weeks.
But you're right, we'll know that Mozilla is serious about Enterprise users when they include GPO support and MSI installers.
Video on Demand clients, like the iPlayer in Britain and Verizon's recently announced XBox Live service in the US are probably much more likely to be used on consoles than full on DVR functionality. (Except for the fact that Microsoft won't allow the iPlayer on the XBox, because they don't want any any useful add-ons to be available unless the end user pays for a subscription).
Apple doesn't need to sell TVs in the same volume as Panasonic, Philips, LG or Samsung to be successful. They only need to sell enough to convince the mainstream media that all the "smart" people have an Apple TV. Look at the iPhone - it was a "huge success" with only 1% of the cell phone market. That was enough to convince people that they had to have what would have been a niche product if any other company had produced it.
if there was a viable market for them. It's as simple as that.
The $10-$15 premium for Windows starter is paid for by a lower return rate - a 15% return rate on a $250 linux tablet makes it more expensive to manufacture than the same hardware with Windows and a 5% return rate. And like it or not, end-users are more likely to encounter some show-stopper on a linux machine, if only because they can't call their brother or their niece to sort an issue out for them. When a bump in the road becomes a show stopper, the machine get's returned.
I've been pretty satisfied using a BES connected Blackberry for years now, so I've never needed to install the Blackberry Desktop software, but about 6 months ago I tried to install it to transfer settings when I got an upgraded handset. Every time I try to use it, it grabs 100% of one CPU core and locks up. A search on the web indicates that this is a very common problem, but nobody has a reliable solution. I installed the software on another desktop and it worked OK, so there's some sort of a conflict, but the Blackberry software doesn't give any indication, it just locks up.
Then a couple of weeks ago, I got a call from someone who has a BIS connected Blackberry, who needs to use Desktop Manager to sync contacts and Calendar. But the Sync fails with a complex error message. After tip-toeing around this thing for a couple of hours (I didn't want to break the guys e-mail setup), I found a post that explains that a contact that has an address in the e-mail2 field, but a blank e-mail1 field will cause contact sync to fail. Sure enough, we find and fix a contact with exactly that problem, and the synchronization goes a bit further. More searching turns up an explanation of how to modify a .ini file to turn on verbose logging, and then scrolling to the end of the 11MB log file (about 40K per contact), deleted the last contact listed in the log file, and now sync completes OK.
Seriously - instead of saying "Can't synchronize John Q Smith - corrupt e-mail address", it says "Sync failed". It knows which contact it was working on when it encountered a problem. It knows why it couldn't synchronize that contact. It just refuses to tell the end-user that information until they edit a hidden setting file in a hidden directory.
FFS, is it any wonder the thing has bugs!
Why not just make a version that doesn't include this "optional" crap that a tiny, tiny number of customers are even equipped to use. In the long run, Adobe would be doing themselves a favour if they provided a "Reader Lite" version that supported 99.9% of the real world PDF documents, and let the people who need Universal 3D support install the "full fat" version with all the bells and whistles.
Price will be the major factor in whether Win8 succeeds on tablets. If Win8 tablets are priced in the iPad range, they probably won't sell - if you're going to spend $500-$600, you might as well go for the "safe" option. At $250-$300, they'll have to offer some significant advantages over Android tablets.
Homegroup integration with smooth virtual application presentation from the existing Win7 machines that most people already have, that "just works" at the level of technical knowledge that most users have, but Microsoft would have to do a much better job of communicating that functionality to potential customers than they usually do.
An article that mentions Microsoft and Open Source in the same headline, and nobody has commented on it after 8 hours?
(Or has the moderator just filtered out the typical, and utterly predictable, anti-Microsoft spew from people who either haven't actually read the article, or haven't understood it because it doesn't conform to their biases? Pity they couldn't moderate out the bias in the article itself, but then it wouldn't be El Reg, would it?)
The USA World Cup was in 1994 - there'll be players at the next world cup who weren't even born then.
The Qatar decision demonstrated the utter corruption of FIFA for anyone who cared to look at it.
How do international sports committees get to be personal fiefdoms - Mosley in Formula One, Blatter in FIFA, the various scumbags who float to the top in boxing?
Did you bother to read the article, or did you just respond based on the headline? So far, there isn't any evidence of sloppiness with certificates. A publicly accessible web server was hacked, and, as a precaution, they've taken all of their websites offline.
If you punish companies for being open about the fact that they're investigating to see if there really has been a breach, then you'll be encouraging them to act like Diginotar, and keep things under wraps as long as possible!
The fact that MIPS are not just providing the hardware, but are associating themselves with it would also suggest that it might not be a total lemon. At least you won't expect them to be actively promoting their association with it if peoples first impression when picking it us was "what a piece of crap".
You left out: The thousands of other applications that people download from download.com that have been hijacked in this way.
My sister wouldn't know nmap from a hole in the ground, but I told her to install vlc so that she could play the videos that she recorded on her phone. I even sent her a link to videolan.org to download it. Unfortunately, they sent her back to download.com, and now it's my fault that her "google is all messed up".
Get over yourselves - it's an updated version of a QR code on a Charity poster. You don't complain that Oxfam is dystopian because they put up posters in Tube stations, rather than importing real live starving babies from Africa when they do a famine appeal, do you?
Charities are already soliciting donations by SMS short code, (even though the service provider will take between 30% and 70% of the donation) because there's an audience that will make an immediate donation that way, but will never get around to signing up for a pledge any other way.
There's nothing particularly dystopian about the example in the Microsoft demo - it's an example of how mobile technology allows a user to react at the point of solicitation, rather than wait until later when they may have forgotten or been distracted. Whether having an "interactive" poster will actually make passers-by more or less likely to donate is something that we won't know until the technology is more commonplace.
What makes you think that the likes of Oracle or Adobe want to hand responsibility for their updates to Microsoft?
And can you imagine the shitstorm of criticism that Microsoft would receive if it only supported updates from big software companies, and didn't include updates from your favourite bit of software? Or if they allowed every software developer on earth to use their infrastructure to deploy patches, can you imagine the complaints about how Microsoft was gathering all this information about who had what software installed.
I can see the benefit of a universal updater - but I can see why Microsoft doesn't want the hassle.
The detector isn't going to be installed in cars. If the junction is equipped to detect red light jumpers, it can notify "smart" cars in the vicinity to watch out.
Stopping the jumper's car might seem like a good idea, until they sue you when they get rear-ended because their car stopped under your control.
I'm pretty sure there are more HP laser printers out there than there are NAS devices. And the "beauty" of this particular attack, as I understand it, is that it can be achieved with DNS poisoning - the claim is that the printers look for updates and install them without requiring intervention from a user. Most NAS devices probably as vulnerable to this kind of attack.
Up until recently, most cable companies in the US required a technician visit to install a cable-card, and the charge for that service could be $50-$100, plus time off work while you waited for the technician to turn up.
Earlier this year, the FCC ruled that cable cards had to be supported in exactly the same way as the cable-companies own DVRs - if the customer could pick up a DVR at the store and install it themselves, the company had to allow the customer to pick up the cable card themselves, and call in whatever activation numbers were required to get it working.
This has been a boon for the hobbyist who wants to use the Ceton InfiniTV or SiliconDusts HDHomerun Prime, cable-card receivers with 3 or 4 tuners, but it must also make it easier for Tivo who had been calling for this change for years.
The Referrer header usually includes the Query String, so taking the search terms out of the Query String is the only way for Google to get them out of the Referrer header (which is generated by your browser, not by Google).
The original article doesn't make it clear that SSL is irrelevant to changed behaviour - indeed, if most browsers follow RFC2616, and don't send a Referrer when following a link from a https to a http site, the change in the query-string doesn't matter, because the target site won't see any referrer information at all.
In fact, it's possible that this is just an efficiency tweak - there's no point in wasting cycles and bytes including the search terms in the querystring if it's not going to be used because RFC2616 says that the browser should discard it.
Before the iPad was released, the $300 netbook was the phenomenon that everyone was talking about. A $500 device couldn't compete, and you'd need at least that much hardware to achieve a tablet style device.
People seem to forget that the initial price point for the iPad was almost as amazing as the device itself - an initial price of $1000 wouldn't have surprised anyone. But because the iTunes store provides an ancillary revenue source (that no other tablet maker can count on), Apple could afford to do something they don't usually do - set a rock bottom price that would be literally impossible for anyone else to make any money competing against it.
www.dub.aero and www.snn.aero point to the websites for Dublin Airport (DUB) and Shannon Airport (SNN).
SITA should have set up redirections for all registered airports if it wanted the .aero TLD to have any value.
By the way - http://www.airbus.aero/ points to Melbourne IT - exactly the same as http://ac/
So perhaps it's not surprising that it wasn't "successful". I mentioned it to my brother-in-law who has an interest in genealogy, and he found issues of a local paper that stopped publishing in 1871.
That's part of the problem with this particular type of content. The number of people who would pay for access is relatively tiny, whereas the larger number who might find it interesting occasionally probably won't visit quite often enough to generate advertising eyeballs.