Is this in the US?
If so, let us know who. I may rent a mailbox there and subscribe then just use the free 3G dongle. It's much cheaper than my other 3G option.
This move strikes me as being more like Jack of All trades, master on None.
Yes... exactly, just like the smartphone itself (Consumer Reports, for example, rates NONE of the current smart phones as have very good or excellent voice quality). People want this. Most people don't need high powered 3D gaming platforms, number crunching, or to be able to recompile a kernel, or do anything but the most simple video and photo editing. My current phone is so slow, I wouldn't possibly want it to act as my desktop - but in the future, new hardware, full desktop use (keyboard and mouse on a large screen), then it would make no difference.
What amazes me most is the failure to notice the modulation frequency and ti's phase lock to local power.
Non inverter (all older) micrwaves use a 1/2 wave voltage doubler so the magnitron is only on for 1/2 the AC cycle. Google Microwave oven power supply to see a typical schematic.
For unexpected frequencies, a non linerate in RF from arcing in the door seal can cause odd order harmonics. EG splattered food on the door seal area.
It's worse than that. If they were ACTUALLY interested in fixing the problem, they would want to have someone who would actually understand the disclosure. At least the lawyer would ask if there was a technical write-up he could pass on to an engineer. However, the correspondence published showed no interest in the technical information whatsoever except for making a vague threat should it be released.
Their intentions are quite clear.
Funny you choose that analogy. Pretty much everyone who wants to already knows how to crack the locks of any car and drive away with it. It's a good thing we know about that so we can make sure to be insured and take precautions.
You know, it's possible to disclose that a vulnerability exists without disclosing how to exploit it. The letter from the lawyer also states that the firm is interested in discussing this further but was rebuffed by the "researcher". How are they supposed to know if the exploit is real or not if the "researcher" in question refuses to disclose the PoC to their lawyer. I'm pretty certain that a single phone call resolved the "are you working on their behalf" question. At that point (verification) he should have simply given the vendor the PoC and a few more days before putting people at risk.
Had the vendor shown any actual interest in addressing the issue rather than burying it, they probably could have gotten an extension. Instead, they chose to squash any inclination to good will by prattling on with vague DMCA threats.
If the nature of the attack isn't released in detail, how does anyone learn from the mistake? As for the details, what good does it do to tell the lawyers? Might as well tell the mailroom guy. If they were serious about learning from their mistake, they would want him to discuss it with an engineer. Perhaps if the disclosure is public, one of the engineers might hear about it in a coherent enough form to actually fix something.
They made specific claims about their security product that have been determined to be untrue, what's your solution? Let them keep selling weak security to high security facilities?
Amusingly, fortnight is a well defined term still in reasonably common use in many English speaking countries. There is no ambiguity.
I suppose that's an apt analogy since the judge wrote the ruling in contemporary English as well with an equal lack of ambiguity.
Considering the number of archaic words one finds in some legal documents, you might be hard-pressed to notice that your contract was re-written into Ye Olde English.
"Ah, the old "the system will never be perfect, so we might as well not try to improve it" argument."
Sure but this is not an improvement. I am all for increasing taxes for school and frankly even for more federal aid for areas that have low incomes but a centralized system for all funds will have a negative impact and is unworkable.
But for all practical purposes Tokyo is about 70 years old.
What can I say?
I say "Sorry...but NO".
I mean, it is bad enough I gave them a CC number way back when to connect to the iTunes store (even though I've NEVER bought a song through them, nor an app)....but that's quite enough information on me.
I don't plan to give any DNA to anyone for the foreseeable future.
Both the government and private companies have WAY too much information on me to begin with...I'm not voluntarily going to give them more, especially on this level.