I own a Nexus 7 2013 (Non-cellular, WiFi only) unit.

Two weeks after accepting the latest OTA update, my tablet froze on the lock screen and would refuse to accept any key presses on-screen. Forced a reset via the power button, and got the described symptoms (Boot loop). None of the bootloader options allowed me to get it to boot all the way.

I guess that I must have been a little frustrated at this point, because I held the tablet so hard that it gave slightly (held in Portrait with my hands on each side and fingers pushing from back to front gently, but enough to cause mild screen distortion). After doing this a final restart allowed the device to boot normally. I have since carried out the same procedure with three other examples of the same model of tablet (OK, so one of them was the LTE variant) and seen it resolve the same symptoms in each case without any adverse affect (other than a look of mild horror on one of the owners' faces until I handed it back working!).

The only thing I can think of (and I haven't bothered to crack the case to check, so this is literally just a guess) is that the touchscreen connector may not be as sturdy as it could be, and that the device will fail to boot if it doesn't detect a properly working touchscreen connection.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should try this, but if you're going to crack the case to replace the motherboard anyway, try re-seating the connectors (particularly the screen) and reassembling it first before going as far as replacing any parts and see if it sorts the issue out for you!

Reading comprehension 101:

He said "never ever install anything that has been out less than 6 months and is not on its third patch.

In other words, he'll use things at patch levels less than 3, but only once they've been in the wild for 6 months or more and hence any bugs are likely to have been identified and resolved in one of the patches (even if that patch has a number less than 3!).

This is Slashdot. Non-stories belong on the front page around here!

Having read TFA (yeah, I know... ), there are a number of questions that arise:

1) What the heck are they smoking in Tory HQ?

2) Did any of them consider running this by someone from even the party's own tech-support, let alone anyone form the Met or (for bonus points) GCHQ?

3) TFA states that this will apply to "Hardcore" porn. Who will be the arbiter of what constitutes hardcore?

4) Is their handling of websites selling POMs (Prescription-Only Meds) without a prescription to be considered a suitable yardstick against which to gauge their handling of this "new threat" (i.e. you can expect it to take between 2 and 5 years for them to have access to the site blocked or the site shut down (even where the domains are uk-registered, where the servers are UK-based, where the domain owners have already been convicted numerous times for the same activity, and where a substantial portion of the legwork in identifying the hosts has already been done by the person reporting it to the MHRA))?

5) Are they going to declare VPNs to be illegal, as they can be used to trivially circumvent geo-blocking (or are they really suggesting that the websites be forced to comply with this scheme even for connections originating outside the UK?)?

6) How will they classify sites where porn is not their core business, but where there is porn-like content?

7) Why can't we just encourage parents to actually parent? People keep on moaning about the "nanny state", but then expect the state to act like a surrogate parent to their kids (whilst at the same time, creating rules that make it increasingly difficult for schools to enforce anything remotely resembling discipline).

8) How about we propose an alternative solution that it took me all of two minutes to think of (and I haven't had a full dose of caffeine yet, so there's probably a few holes in it!)? This suggestion will take some changes to commonly deployed technology to make it work, but the changes aren't anything that hasn't been achievable with existing technology for years (just not in most home environments). Mandate that residential internet equipment be configured either with dual WAN ports, or with the single WAN port capable of carrying up to two subscriptions, and with at least two WiFi network interfaces. The idea is that a residential subscription provide two "streams", one open to the 'net as normal, the other carrying a filtered internet feed (much like the internet access commonly used in schools). One subscription goes to each WiFi network (and, optionally, segregation of the LAN Ethernet ports). This could be achieved using technology already trivial to obtain (although would require reconfiguration at both the ISP end, and either a substantial rewrite of the firmware or deployment of more "capable" kit to customers).

Seems to me that it would be easier to just ask you if you pledge allegiance to Optimus Prime, and if you answer in the affirmative, block your access?

Seems like a good idea... Let's develop it a little further, but stop just short of advocating full remote control...

Give the Flight Deck crew TWO PIN codes (each), one for general use, the other a "duress code" which:

1) Unlocks the door (overriding the lockout)
2) Sends a distress transmission to the ground (but without making those onboard aware of it)
3) Changes the transponder code to one of the existing emergency codes (or an agreed upon new code)
4) Forces the autopilot on in a new, more "assertive", mode that:
a) can't be disabled
b) reduces altitude (in a controlled fashion) in case of O2 deprivation
c) redirects to the nearest airport capable of receiving this aircraft type (bonus points for automatic landing capability) and sends a signal to warn the airport to expect them and have emergency services on a higher state of alert
d) can only be overridden by two parties, one of whom must be on the ground
e) once within ILS beacon range of the selected airport, allows for a pilot-controlled landing (but retains a veto over any obviously deliberate attempts to crash the aircraft)

Not likely to be cheap to implement, and false alarms would be inordinately inconvenient, but possibly still more investor-/press-/corporate-lawyer-friendly than the status quo...

Caffeine levels are a little low, though, so I've probably missed some glaring hole in the idea.

Or, how about this to take your suggestion a little further?

Give the flight deck crew TWO PIN numbers, one for general use, the other a "duress code" that initiates an alert transmission to the ground, changes the transponder code to one of the relevant emergency codes and sets the autopilot in a more "assertive" state where it:

1) can't be disabled
2) diverts to the nearest airport capable of receiving this type of aircraft (bonus points for automatic landing capability!)
3) reduces altitude (in a controlled fashion) in case O2 deprivation is involved

This way, even if there are bad actors involved, in- or outside the cockpit, their ability to deliberately crash the aircraft, into a populated target or otherwise, is going to be seriously reduced. The inconvenience of a false alarm is likely to be far more press-/investor-friendly than the alternative.

Then again, I've only given this idea a couple of minutes thought (and currently have a little too much blood in my caffeine system!), so there is probably at least one glaring hole in it that I have yet to spot!

I dunno... Phoning random victims and scamming them?

OK... So I have a somewhat warped sense of humour!

Yes, but at the same time a resounding no!

Whether "talking to children/adults/whoever" works is dependent on a range of things:

1) Are you approaching it from a positive mindset? If you talk to people expecting them to ignore what you say, you are far more likely to find them ignoring you.

2) Are you "preaching", or trying to be informative? If the former, what you tell people will often be heard with a degree of skepticism and subsequently disregarded.

3) Have you always taken the "talking" approach, or have you historically taken the "controlling" approach and are trying something new? The former is more likely to be successful than the latter (although it does, to an extent, depend on how you are introducing the latter).

4) Are you the only one in their lives taking the "talking" approach? Particularly with kids in a family setting, consistency is key here.

5) Are you trying to "scare them into good behaviour"? If so, give up... it won't work!

6) The "Do as I say, not as I do" approach will not work. The approach of "I'm older/more knowledgeable/whatever than you, therefore I don't have to live by the same rules" will get peoples backs up. Of course, there will be areas where the activities of others (particularly kids) should be restricted more than your activities, but where this is the case it is essential to make this clear up-front, and explain the reasons why (and ensure that these reasons are understood). Otherwise, you will be seen as a hypocrite, and ignored.

The above being said, however, I would agree that, particularly with the very young, talking is unlikely to be sufficient in isolation. Back it up with monitoring (but be up-front and honest that you are doing so... silently monitoring them without their knowledge will only result in resentment), and include regular reviews of what is found in the monitoring (both "positive" and "negative"). IF you do this, however, monitor EVERYONE'S traffic in the household (otherwise, point 6 applies!). This also gives you the opportunity to set an example by way of logs of your own activities.

Above all else, make sure it is clear that they can talk to you about anything (and I mean ANYTHING). Be approachable. Be prepared for them to see some things that you might not want them to, and to subsequently have an age-appropriate (but honest) discussion about them and make it clear that you expect that this will happen to start with, so there is no point covering it up because you won't be angry unless they try to hide it (and stick to this!).

It is also worth making clear that if you are not filtering, and your child has friends over to visit, it will reflect on them very badly if they use the opportunity to bypass the parenting style of their friends' parents by showing them things they wouldn't have access to at home. Explain that it may be tempting to "show off" how you have greater trust in your kids than other parents do, but that abuse of trust will have consequences (be sure to make these consequences clear ahead of time and stick to them). It might also be worth letting the other parents know of your differing approach... If, however, you do this, make sure that you are not using an approach of "I'm a better parent", but rather just informing them of the different approach and the potential that the temptation to abuse it in front of friends may be too much for your child the first couple of visits and to be prepared to have some questions raised by their child).

Maybe that's why he made it clear in the summary that this figure relates to a previous blog post he had made about his previous supplier, which was AT&T, not T-Mobile.

Actually, I guess the last one was more of a tongue-in-cheek dig. The quote stated that calls are being recorded for "quality assurance". Would I be wildly misinterpreting his intent if I were to guess he was saying that this is a lie because of his perception of a low quality of service from those he spoke to over the three contacts (i.e. the "quality" wasn't "assured", in spite of the recording of calls)?

Thanks for reminding me... Haven't visited the main /. site in a long time. I only normally browse via mobile device, so I get the mobile site that hides everyone's signatures.

I assume that you have opted to criticise the sig because you can no longer find fault with the body of the comment itself?

Think it through...

1) Drive F/W gets infected.
2) Drive infects OS and UEFI on boot.
3) You detect malware, but don't realise it's in the F/W of the drive. You disinfect the drive and reboot.
4) You notice the malware is still evident, but can't find any trace of it on the drive. You detect it in the UEFI and flash that to get rid of it.
5) You notice it's STILL there, so you assume it must be so deep in the UEFI that you can't get rid of it (which many would consider far more plausible than it being in the DRIVE F/W!). You therefore replace the whole PC, but swap the disk over as you believe the drive (which you have now "securely" wiped) is safe.
6) Guess what's now infected!?!

OR (more likely) you infect an external hard disk and find that you're still spreading malware from machine to machine throughout the PCs of your company/family/friends/whatever, even after you have "securely" wiped it.

I'm not sure whether this is the same in Russia, but here in the UK, just because your phone is COMPATIBLE with other operators' networks, doesn't mean that you can just switch networks if you bought your phone through one of them. Even if you have come to the end of your contract (which are almost always set up to ensure that you have, over the life of the contract, paid FAR more than the value of the subsidy applied to your initial purchase of the phone), you will still need to get the operator you acquired it through to "unlock" it to allow it to work on competitors' networks.

Obviously, if you buy your phone outright from an independent vendor, this does not apply.

That is why I was replying to the comment I replied to, not that of the GP. The post I replied to was referring to McD setting restrictions on an intermediary between themselves and the customer (and comparing it, rather appropriately, to the actions of Google as described in TFS), and highlighting how it differed from the GP's analogy of McD setting restrictions on what they offer direct to the customer (this time offering another appropriate comparison, this time to Apple/iOS).