Re: Hmmm
> buy any other TV with an HDMI input, and plug in a $50 Android dongle
Or a $35 Raspberry Pi...
2711 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
Amusingly enough "mac" as in "MacBitch* kinda sorta means "son of", or so I'm told.
"Next year we will do one of our existing son lines in the US"
Think of the children...
That's still better than relying on chinese labor to make your sons, come to think of it. Or so momma says.
> I hit one that limited me to *8* characters! Seriously? What were you thinking?
At my place of work we have to use passwords of exactly 8 chars. No more, no less. At least it's case-sensitive, but stil, given that cracking someone's account gives you access to everything work-related, (including pay etc) that's a bit weak.
> @Pierre you really haven't a clue - if the site was properly written it would "degrade gracefully" either by UA detection, which takes a lot less than 5 seconds, or by client-side feature detection (in action since HTML >= 3.2).
You know, the first thing with "having a clue" is "understanding what the discussion is about".
"5 seconds" is the time it takes me -or anyone with half a clue- to change the UA string from the client side, allowing me to get whatever content I want from a website with a borked UA recognition.
"never" is when I can get content from a website that relies on a borked feature detection.
"Done properly" the server should just send the content and not try to be smarter than it really is.
Please leave the "user experience" to the user, thank you very much.
"Neither, however, would explain Microsoft singling out a specific browser."
What the Eff?
"done properly then detection provides the best possible experience for all browsers."
most certainly not. You're playing Microsoft's game here. I suggest you read the definition of "standard", and work from that.
feature detection is not any better than looking at the UA string. It's actually a bit worst because changing the UA string takes a whole 5 seconds while there is no real way from the client side to fix a borked feature detection. From a theoretical point of view both techniques are despisable and contrary to the whole "spirit" of the 'net. Website content should not be browser-specific or platform-specific. There is a standard, adhere to it (yes, I know the standard is looking more and more like the Ftrankenstein monster, but that's no reason to actively push towards more fragmentation).
> ...is presumably manufacturing-speak for "we have to chuck most of them in the bin".
That is very precisely what "low yield rate" means, there is no secret shameful agenda behind that. Manufacturing processes are not perfect, there is ALWAYS some waste, i.e. some units don't pass the quality control. When most of the units pass the quality control you have a "high yield rate". When the process is too fiddly a lot of units end up in the bin and you have a "low yield rate". That increases costs. Chucking part of the production in the bin is an integral part of EVERY automated manufacturing process.
"Which MAC? Wireless or Fixed? If it is wireless they this is a serious security flaw. If it is a the fixed Ethernet MAC on the home side its impact is nearly zero."
That can't be faulted. We usually call this kind of user/machine systems the "gorm-free zone" ("the zone" for short), for obvious reasons. IT professionnals of that grade are in constant demand. I wish I could make it to "the zone". I would get a higher salary, to start with.
This is a SERVER-specific malware that -for now- peddles MSWindows-targetted crap. If you are not operating a webserver this is a complete non-issue for you. If you are administrating Debian-based web servers (as I am), AND you suspect unauthorized physical access then you might want to check your systems.
As for me I'll quitetly drift into my dreams tonight with the reassuring certitude that my systems are reasonnably safe; much safer than the competition's. But to each it's own vuln, as MS salespersons say ;-)
I guess that in a tagetted, spy-like scenario as the one described, the easiest way would be to put the nasty in a "legit" package by hacking the distro's official repositories (like what happened with FreeBSD recently). Actually that raises another question: does it run as a module (immediate effect, but easier to detect and eradicate) or does it require a reboot ( as a lot of Linux servers are only rebooted for kernel upgrades anyway that would make the malware mostly useless, but harder to detect/eradicate in the one-in-a-million case in which it would actually become active)?
Clever lobbying by Redmond is the only one I see.
If the difficulties they have really are the ones presented as a reason for the switch, I wish them good luck getting their staff used to the ribbon AND the new file format (plus, some formatting is lost, too, as I recently found out). So basically they are going to run in exactly the same problems (perhaps a bit worst even). But at least it's going to be expensive...
> Actually you'll find that about half of Samsung's phones (including some GS3s) are made in China. Assembled by some other outsourced manufacturer - not Foxconn, which someone else who does the same thing whose name I can't remember off the top of my head.
If you say so. That seems reasonnable. It doesn't change anything to my point anyway.
> Remind me what did Michael Dell say about apple again , I forget! :S i'm going to keep you post for posterirty!
You clearly forgot. What did Michael Dell say about Apple? The real quote, not some interpretation. You know, "for posterirty".
Not what you thought, huh?
(If that can help you finding tangible arguments against Dell -as Apple apologists generally struggle with these- I for one dislike the cheap unreliable USB controllers on desktop machines, and more generally the way the Dell machines are built, but the beancounters seem to like the price point).
For "posterirty", Michael Dell ships a LOT more machines than Tim Cook does. Perhaps unfortunately. I am no Dell lover, definitely not. But that's the way it is, and no reality distortion field can make the Apple bigger than the Dell. Well, Wall Street can, for what it's worth.
> their products are still selling extremely well (certainly for a single manufacturer).
Apple is not a manufacturer by any stretch of the imagination. Actually all their products carry the mention "designed in Cuppertino, CA, USA", "designed" being the keyword here. But your argument is wrong on many other levels: Android outsells iOS by a huge margin, and you are right, this is partly because Apple is the only iOS vendor while Android is used by many.
But Samsung-branded handsets hugely outsell Apple-branded ones, too. And Sammy actually does "manufacture" their stuff.
Actually Sammy manufactures most of Apple's handset's innards. To take a rather drastic -and somewhat simplified- shortcut, to make an iDevice Foxconn assembles Samsung-made parts under Apple's supervision.
Apple does have a "HUGE cash pile" (as you put it), but that's almost entirely shareholder's money (AKA ghost money). Come a significant dip in stockholder trust and Apple is down the drain. Samsung has physical assets, physical stocks, and a myriad of customers all along the food chain, from kit makers to end users, encompassing kit designers like Apple. All Apple has is a high share price.
Before I get flamed by rabid fanbois: I'm not judging merits, just stating facts.
> Apple appears to be winning having now settled with HTC.
Apple don't appear to be winning. They irreversibly lost in Europe already (before the courts, mind you), and are about to lose in the US too. Settlements have been used in FUD techniques (most famously by Microsoft) but that only works when your adversary wants to avoid a lengthy, costly and uncertain legal process. Samsung is already involved in the legal process, and seem to be winning. Apple can't scare them with an unrelated settlment.
> Maybe they are worried because they could owe a lot more than the £279 million HTC paid out.
That doesn't make sense. If Samsung were worried about that, now would be the perfect time to negociate: in the aftermath of their Euro win and before the retrial in the US, they are in a very good position to negociate. Only, why would they want to?
> Practice makes perfect as some might say.
Right. To be honest (as hard as that may be for a filthy Frenchman like me), the only time I had real trouble with a funbag-container was with a deliciously feminine Northumberland girl who happened to need tailor-made garments (with industrial-strength fasteners). "Northumberland" has had a sexy ring to it for me ever since...
"Sounds like someone has been searching for highly subjective colloquialisms on a certain set of "crowd sourced" websites. A little more reputable than Urban Dictionary, but not by a whole lot."
Dead wrong. I was born and raised in France ('til I was 28, if you must know), and I now live in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. I think I know a thing or two about how chesticles are colloquially called by my fellow frenchmen. And I like to think I'm also quite up to date on the Quebec lingo versions.
As far as credentials go that's a bit better than what you have to offer. No offense intended, but I still fart on your general direction just to fit the stereotype.
> wouldn't the developers themselves have to fight Ravensburger, as Apple aren't 'infringing'?
IANAL either but the way Apple operates (as an "umbrella" for the app "ecosystem", given that they are the gatekeeper) makes them liable as far as common sense is involved. They do claim that their licenses extend to app developpers. That is not unreasonnable, and it is part of the justification for the 30% tax on sales. As stated in the article, Apple also agressively attacks everything that is too close from their own trademarks*. You can't have it both ways. Besides, that's actually a good thing for independant developpers, for once. I say let's keep it that way.
* including the completely unrelated "iPoop" shovel, remember.
"It's interesting that you think disabled people fit into this little stereotype of hobos and ex-prisoners, Pierre."
I do not think (too tiresome). These outfit are litterally staffed by minimally-trained ex-prisonners, ex-hobos or disabled people. They even make a big fuss about it. That is their very raison d'être.
It's interesting that you think I meant otherwise, Lexxy.