Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 304
So I guess you won't ever buy another PC or graphics card after this becomes standard?
So I guess you won't ever buy another PC or graphics card after this becomes standard?
From that, I'd guess 80% of the market can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
From that, I'd guess 80% of the market is willing to trade the slight drop in resolution for much smaller file sizes.
...and your distance from the set.
When HDR comes along, you'll see the difference, regardless of resolution, screen size, and distance.
Umm, no. There was an April fools joke about Cyanogen being "powered by Microsoft", but this is new news, not an April fools joke. They are including MS apps in Cyanogen OS, but not CyanogenMod.
Cyanogen isn't "replacing" Google apps with Microsoft, they are including Microsoft apps in addition to the Google apps. At least for now anyways...
That's what I want to know. Why on earth does do call centers even have access to the full SSN? I could understand the last four digits, as that's oftened used to verify the identity of the caller, but there's just no reason I can see that they would need the full number.
If they were doing what you suggest, why wouldn't they just release their u-boot source?
- He links to a GPL'ed project named "u-boot". He then works from the assumption that this must be the same exact software as is used by Ubiquiti, who couldn't possibly have any in-house projects named "u-boot" that would boot a Ubiquiti device. No, that's just too far-fetched. Some proof of it even being the same software would be in order. Even if there's some documentation from Ubiquiti themselves, it would be something that would at least tie them together, rather than falling into the category of "strange coincidence".
So you think they wrote their own bootloader for their router, named it the same as a well known bootloader that's used in lots of other routers, and then when people request the source (including one of u-boot' copyright holders) they wouldn't just say "it's not *that* u-boot, it's are own proprietary bootloader and we're keeping it closed"? Grasping at straws much?
Your scenario would make sense if this was just a one time thing, but the issues with Ubiquiti have been going on for many months.
Your theory that one employee or one team screwed up might fit if this were just a case of a single customer requesting the source and the employee or team mistakenly saying no, but that's not the case here. This has been going on for months now, with multiple contacts to the company. Even the copyright holder of uboot sent them a letter last July threatening legal action if this doesn't get resolved, and they've ignored it for 9 months now. That's far beyond a single person or team making a mistake, or a miscommunication, now you're in the territory of a company willfully violating the licence.
It means they didn't find any backdoors, and the four vulnerabilities that were found weren't critical (despite what the summary incorrectly says).
From TFA:
"Microsoft is changing how Do Not Track (DNT) is implemented in future versions of our browsers"
In fact, the only mentions of IE in TFA are where they are discussing the previous behavior.
Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread-spectrum communications in 1942. It's used in WiFi, but I wouldn't call that "inventing WiFi".
While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
