I'd even learn to fly and echolocate mosquitos in order to eat them if they were mango flavoured!

As requested: it is not exactly as you understood, although also no the way, summary tells. He says that there MAY be cases, which can be categorised as non freely available, but IF those get identified, there will be a clear and highly precise catalogue of those cases... Well, it doesn't change things much (backdoor is there) but the wording is more palatable (as expected from an experienced liar^H^H^H^Hpolitician)

... with cool name. I like it. Although it seems to be the only thing he's got there. Sure he didn't notice that every Macbook can boot _natively_ into any GNU/Linux, Windows, whatever runs on x86 hardware. Sure he didn't notice that on Linux there are .deb based package managers, .rpm based ones or build from sources options. Surely he didn't notice that there are binaries distributed in Fink, which is exactly apt/dpkg/.deb based. Surely he didn't notice that _web_ development as opposed to e. g. native application development is _usually_ abstracted so far from the guts of the OS that it doesn't really matter what kernel/filesystem/scheduler it is being developed on. Etc., and so on.. but who cares when it is much easier to put up a set of misleading half-truths than do the research and educate oneself?

As is this modded as "Informative" :-( No - it works as described by "KingSkippus" and it happens all too often. The reason I stopped using BCC was exactly a situation like the one described above.

The pure fact that this is modded 5:funny shows how dumb people can be... ;-)

"One concern is security and whether or not a tablet could be wirelessly hacked."

Yeah - whether or... what?

There is plenty of ways to support iOS development without keeping the costly OSX alive. iOS development tools can be made to run on top of something else at probably much lower cost than a single major OSX update. Not going to happen overnight but continuous babbling about OSX being required to develop for iOS makes me wonder if people can't really see anything beyond the surface..

Sorry - I am a ham myself (for many years now) - but he's got a point. The number of licences and the relative ease of acquiring one these days, makes it exactly feel like the next CB, where "everything goes". Again - I am sorry but that is how an older ham sees (or rather: hears) it.

> That creepy guy sitting two tables from you at the coffee shop? He can now read your e-mail.

Can he?

Ah - you wrote "_your_ e-mail", right? I am pretty sure he can't do much of reading of _my_ e-mail based on this particular exploit.

And if _you_ rely on WPA (or whatever) within your (W)LAN to protect you from unauthorised reading of your e-mail, then you should really reconsider your approach to data security.

Where do you find PPC version of *current* Ubuntu?

*Will* be completely different, right? And you *know* it, right? Then may I ask where do you know it from?

African countries needs non-corrupt leadership

Exactly! We have that for ages, so we know what it is like!

Ah - wireless... that means they probably read this article?

Don't we use visible light in optic fibre for some time now? ;-)

Mobile phones emit a couple of hundred milliwatts *at full power*

Last time I checked it was up to 2W "at full power" and indeed adequately less when not needed. I happen to be a ham and also use multiband handheld transceivers with 5W output. Modern ham transceivers are of similar size as phones and have similarly sized batteries.

Still it doesn't change two simple facts: 1) the phone emits order of magnitude stronger field (when the coverage is poor), 2) it does it at zero distance from your body (field strength decreases exponentially with distance from the antena). Combine the two and you have multiple orders of magnitude difference between electronics scattered around the premise, and a cellphone touching your head.

Don't believe? Put one of the stronger transmitters in today's household like a WiFi router a meter from an old TV and check if there is any influence on the sound and picture. Then place on the same old, CRT-based TV a cellphone with poor network coverage (high output power), make the phone transmit and check whether you can both hear and see what's happening to the sound and picture. This is the difference I am talking about.