118341
submission
Anonymous Howard writes:
After Apple's launch of iTV, there have been some reports of people worried about how hot the actual device is. Digital Trends actually went and did a heat test, including thermal images with the iTV next to a MacBook Pro and LaCie external hard drive. The conclude that the iTV actually gets up to 111F at its hottest, and averaging 104F! In sleep mode, the iTV is still 97.8F. That is amazingly hot.
103866
submission
Stony Stevenson writes:
Microsoft has launched a marketing campaign that lets any student from an Australian university buy the Ultimate edition of Office 2007 (usually costs $1150) for only $75. A discount of about 93%. But when users go to the site, Microsoft Live OneCare pops up saying the site is a potential phishing scam.
From the article: When entering the site, some users have reported receiving a warning from Windows Live OneCare advising that the www.itsnotcheating.com.au site is a suspicious website.
The warning reads: "Phishing filter has determined this might be a phishing website. We recommend that you do not give any of your information to such websites. Phishing websites impersonate trustworthy websites for the purpose of obtaining your personal or financial information."
A Microsoft spokesperson said the company was unaware of the warning but pledged to amend it as soon as possible.
102688
submission
b3gr33n writes:
Yesterday the Copyright Royalty Board announced new fees for Internet Radio broadcasting:
"Earlier today, the Copyright Royalty Board, the group overseeing statutory licensing for US-based internet radio stations, announced the new royalty rates for streaming radio performance rights. The board rejected the arguments made by webcasters and instead chose to adopt the proposal put forth by industry-backed SoundExchange, a royalty fee collection agency created by the RIAA."
http://www.save-internet-radio.com/2007/03/02/save -internet-radio/
We listen a lot to internet radio. It brings in local stations that have poor reception and has introduced us to music around the world. In the end we've bought a fair amount of CD's based on our listening. Many of the stations like Radio Paradise are small family run operations. There is no way they can afford these fees. The Save-Internet-Radio website reports that curiously enough, broadcast stations do not pay these fees. Is that true? Is this an attempt to squelch yet another form of free media?
102634
submission
geogeek6_7 writes:
The Copyright Royalty Board has sided with RIAA lobbyists and decided to move internet radio stations' royalties to a per-play system. According to calculations by RAIN, the seemingly benign change comes at a high cost to existing internet radio stations: most stations' royalty costs will be over 100% of their revenue! Independent radio stations, like RadioParadise, say they will go out of business unless a "percentage-of-revenue" system can be negotiated instead.
94604
submission
yorugua writes:
From the report: "Considering the publicity that has surrounded — and, despite super new security-focused Service Packs, continues to surround — Windows security issues, Microsoft's determination to demonstrate that Linux is less secure than Windows shows a certain chutzpah. The company has however had some support here; Forrester, for example, provides some numbers that can be used to support the contention that Microsoft flaws are less severe, less numerous and fixed faster. And although there's a general readiness among users to believe that Windows is a security disaster area, there's also a reasonable amount of support for the view that Linux would get just as many security issues if it had anything like Windows' user base.". PDF available at http://regmedia.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_w indows_vs_linux.pdf . Let the flam^H^H^H^Hdiscussion begin.
94494
submission
An anonymous reader writes:
Researchers at Symantec, along with Sid Stamm and Markus Jakobsson of the Indiana University School of Informatics, have uncovered an almost trivial means of hijacking web browsing.
The attack involves little more on the victim's part than simply visiting a web page.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/105032/researchers-hig hlight-a-router-route-to-pharming.html
94490
submission
Doc Ruby writes:
Welsh activists have released after an 8 year court battle a Russian study that shows increased cancer linked to eating Genetically Modified potatoes, supporting independent research by Arpad Pusztai:
Alan Simpson, a Labour MP and green campaigner, said: "These trials should be stopped. The research backs up the work of Arpad Pusztai and it shows that he was the victim of a smear campaign by the biotech industry. There has been a cover-up over these findings and the Government should not be a party to that."
Mr Simpson said the findings, which showed that lab rats developed tumours, were released by anti-GM campaigners in Wales. Dr Pusztai and a colleague used potatoes that had been genetically modified to produce a protein, lectin. They found cell damage in the rats' stomachs, and in parts of their intestines.
While the trials have flaws, those methodological defects seem to downplay an actually higher risk of cancer:
Half of the rats in the trial died, and results were taken from those that survived, in breach of normal scientific practice.
94488
submission
94486
submission
An anonymous reader writes:
You may have heard of the humour website SomethingAwful.com. Apparently, for all of their long history they've been having a problem where their website is listed far down Google's results (often last) for searches related to the site (such as the names of features and articles on the site). For example, when I google for "Photoshop Phriday", the site isn't in the first ten pages of results, despite the fact that Google has indexed the relevent page. In fact, the first result is a noproxy.us proxied version of the relevant page, and the rest of the results are blog and forum entries referring to Something Awful. (Results are apparently better on many non-English versions of Google, however.)
It's far from clear what's causing this; the site's PageRank is apparently fine. Attempts to contact Google have fallen on deaf ears and dumb autoresponders. The site was even recently redesigned in the hope of fixing the problem, with no luck so far. Is the world's most popular search engine really this broken, and how much money are people bringing in from knowing the black magic to work around it?
