Re: Didn't everbody with a clue ...
This made me think. Google didn't exist 20 years ago. How did we ever manage??
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
or it is possible to read the data off the flash chips and attack it in a VM until the password is brute-forced.
I don't see how it could be possible to stop this from happening. If a system exists that allows to enter a 4-digit code and decrypt the device, then surely, it is possible to reconstruct that system so that it does not erase the memory after N attempts.
The only way I can see to prevent this from happening is to protect the device not with a 4-digit PIN, but with a decryption key that is so long that trying all solutions would take centuries. But I frankly doubt anybody would want to type something that long every time they want to check their email.
Something that Google could have done is offering links to multiple services. They actually do that when you look up stock quotes like https://www.google.com/search?q=amzn; you get a box showing the data, but if you want more detail, you need to click on one of the small links below, choosing between Google Finance, Yahoo Finance and MSN Money.
It's interesting that they do that for stock market data but not for maps. I'd be curious to know why. Maybe it's because Yahoo Finance has more users than Google Finance, while Google Maps was probably #1 by an overwhelming margin for a long time.
The ten years do not mean that Google has ten years to pay; they mean that Google did not pay enough tax for the past ten years, and they have to pay the total amount now, or at least very soon.
Actually, they certainly have to pay interest on that sum, so it would actually benefit the government if Google took a long time to pay.
Leap of net neutrality from "carriers shall not charge some content more" to "poor people shall not get free partial Internet" = astounding
With all due respect to Andreessen, there's very little difference between "charging some content more" and "offering some content free". Whether people who get it are poor or rich.
Now, whether the benefits outweigh the issues in this case is disputable. But the leap is not astounding, and it is in fact not a leap.
I tend to dislike arbitrary constraints on the use of products. For instance, it took many years for the whole industry to settle on USB, and it's hard enough to reach such a result, but then Apple specifically made sure that only iPods could connect to iTunes, and not the competing MP3 players…
Also coming to mind: HP selling printers cheap and ink for an arm and a leg, and using cryptography techniques to make it difficult for others to build compatible ink cartridges.
That said, I wonder how they plan on enforcing it. How would they notice if somebody modifies the product to run on Google hardware?
I'm not clear on what the decision of the UN panel was taken? Considering that nobody is forcing him to stay there… Having breached his bail, it seems pretty normal that he would be arrested if caught, without even mentioning the Sweden thing.
One way or another, I doubt the UK cares about that UN ruling…
I wonder how it is to be in the jury in the Eastern District of Texas. What do they do to get that kind of record? Is it judges that are giving biased instructions? Do local newspapers defend the place as the last bastion where patent holders can have their rights recognized? Or does everybody simply know that the lawsuit industry is bringing money into a region which would otherwise be bare and desolate?
That's rubbish. Google is an advertising company, so the 'economic activity' he talks about is selling advertisements, which happens in the UK (and France, Germany, US,etc.).
Are you the type of person who thinks that Sales is making the real money, and the company would be so much better off if only you could get rid of cost centers like Engineering and data centers?
It might work fine for massive companies, but what about a small business in say Germany making just a few sales into the UK, would they register for, and pay for an accountant who understood, UK taxes? Or just say 'lets not bother with the UK' (in German).
This is of course the reason why the single market was created: it allows small companies to sell anywhere without incurring the massive fixed cost of declaring tax in every country where they sell.
It was not, or at least not openly, created so that global corporations can shop around for the smallest tax rates and sell everything "from that country", even though they also have operations in every country to which they sell to.
A solution would be: if a corporation owns operations in the country of the customer, it must declare its income there. I believe there are precedents for similar rules about Controlled Foreign Corporations.
The only proper way to do it is to calculate the value of the advertising shown to people inside the UK.
It might well be easy for Google to compute this; but it's definitely not what the law says they should be paying. That depends of where Google is selling from, or where the salesman is seeing the customer, but certainly not where the user seeing the ad happens to be.
Well actually no, that wouldn't work. Because countries that do not play nicely and make corporations pay a reasonable amount are not invited in the EU. It's taken a little while, but Ireland is actually getting in trouble for the generous tax deals it has offered big corporations. It is considered an illegal subsidy. The rules kind of work, it just takes a while.
It feels to me that there are two issues.
On one hand, big businesses like Apple pay very little tax to the UK because they claim to sell everything out of Ireland. From what I've read, this is a perfectly straightforward application of the free trade agreements, possibly morally dubious but absolutely and completely legal!
On the other hand, big businesses like Apple pay very little tax to Ireland because of accounting and tax loopholes that would make a knot theory expert pale with envy.
The EU here is examining whether Apple shouldn't pay more tax in Ireland. Even if they achieve their goal, this does not necessarily mean that they will start paying tax in the UK.
A lot of businesses also compare the available support.
As a general rule, Amazon's is considered excellent, while Google typically elicits the question: "What support?"
Google used to be "one of the big three" cloud offering; it is now often considered below "the big two". My understanding is that support is one of the main reasons.
“All they have done is turn up the heat for these black hats to get some bugs in Tor sooner rather than later. The shelf life of any bug they may have found or will find might become a lot shorter.”
His argument is that, because maybe vulnerabilities are going to disappear soon, bug hunters have an incentive to find vulnerabilities now, before it's too late? So the diminishing value of the vulnerability increases the interest of hackers?
More in the second half here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5d5_1361980465&comments=1
There is somewhere a huge life-timer carried by four elephants on the back of a turtle, and the sand has settled in the shape of a landscape with a tall mountain in the center. A man wearing a hat emblazoned with the word WIZZARD is sitting on the edge, and an Orangutan is climbing up the sand clock using three hands, the fourth one is holding a book.
SO THESE QUANTUM MECHANICS SAY THAT THIS EXISTS WITH A VERY SMALL PROBABILITY, AND THEREFORE IT MUST EXIST SOMEWHERE, RIGHT?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019