Sure Pune is near Bangalore, just about 850km near. Mumbai at around 150km and twice (if not more) the population of Bangalore isn't worth mentioning.
Nah, it's just my crap skills at including links should have been http://www.nq.com/vault
I have no problem understanding that the idea something is "encrypted" without further definition doesn't amount to much, though I'd argue that even with weak encryption it's still not being applied, since it's only actually encrypting a header not the file, so at best that's "partially encrypted"
What's more important though is what would a reasonable man understand the product to be - it's calling itself a vault and it's claiming to encrypt stuff, I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion that means something more than the trivial scheme apparently employed.
http://www.nq.com/vault- scroll down a bit under "NQ Mobile Vault Features." subsection "Photos & Videos" - "They’ll be encrypted..."
I'd say that was a claim that it'll encrypt them.
The normal problem is that the majority working with spreadsheets as the summary suggests never do enough of it to get good or understand what's bad.
I remember Y2K and being handed a ruck load of foxbase code a team had written to make work for Y2K, since it was now ITs problem to sort it all out. The easiest thing to do with much of it was scrap it and rewrite it to do what they actually thought it did rather than what was coded.
I don't think they were obliging operators to sign roaming agreements with other operators, so you'd only enter into agreements with carriers on a fair basis.
Wasn't one of the complaints that when it came to removing things like child porn, they removed it entirely, whereas for copyright infringement they just removed the specific link and left other links to the same content in place.
By doing the two differently, they certainly left themselves open to the charge that in fact there "relatively good job" was in fact knowingly superficial.
It seems we have both, but mainly welded apparently they are stretched to some how reduce the effect.Notes on summer delays from Network rail
Many DDOS rely on using "infected" computers of the masses, it appears to me that the targets as big corporates are only one aspect of this case. Misuse of many individuals equipment (and who knows what else these infections do), use of excessive bandwidth which could be costing someone somewhere (for the potential zombies being used , individuals on non-unlimited plans could be paying for excess bandwidth personally).
So to paint this as helping Sony/MS rather than the general social ill it is, is disingenuous.
Not to mention, computer misuse laws have existed for years, and the government haven't made any sort of spectacle of this, I don't believe they've commented on this in any significant way.
And I'd think most of those ideas suffer various problems too. Most ideas trying to solve social problems end up over-engineered and even more so when trying to iron out the problems.
There are plenty of people with mobile handsets which number other than 1.
Those with 0 for example, either through battery being dead, stolen, lost, quick run to the shops without picking up a phone or simply choose not to have a phone. We seem to now be blocking them from using the car. Well I guess we'll need to engineer some sort of override to allow for that? Now the system without the override is a worse experience for most people, but being the same law abiding, socially caring people who wouldn't text whist driving anyway, they won't use the override except in a genuine situation right?
More than 1, well I guess that only one is blocked so no problem texting etc. as we go. I guess we could implement the cell site thing to ensure all the phones in the car connect to that right? Well what about passengers in the car etc. Guess we need some vision systems so the car can also see who is operating the car and the phones?
And whatever you do you can bet those who are willing to break the law still will, they'll find a way of getting around it. So you still need to find ways of actually enforcing the law anyway...
That still seems to support the basic underlying proposition though. Something which had appeal to the little guy ended up leading to use of that which ultimately led onto a a successful business initially at least based around that product. If MOS has kept it's key staff involved and developed the line further who knows where that could had led.
No, the linked article says they are better known for their Exynos based products, this board was supposed to have the broadcom chip.
"none of them have made use of the same Broadcom BCM2835 SoC as the Pi, so none of them (until now) have been software compatible."
And the labeling on the picture shows the chip to be used.
Amazon do, there is an area for you to improve your recommendations, where you can simply tick items not to be used for recommendations.
Don't think I've bothered really though, it should be more seamless than me having to go and hunt it out etc. simply easier for me to ignore the recommendations.
I would assume the parallel research showing that those who end up paying our against non-trolls also reduce spend later having lost a lot of money.
The link is the losing of a patent suit (or having to settle) etc. rather than patent trolls.
The real problem is that the patent system is open to abuse by everyone not merely trolls. It's expensive to be on the receiving end of a patent lawsuit regardless of if you are in the right or wrong. The well known issues with Patents been issued on broad ideas rather than actual inventions etc. Al this leads to the potential to be sued increasing, the costs huge and ends up as a deterrent to innovation.
The original purpose of Patents to create a period of exclusivity to regain the expense of research, tooling (and other capital risks), are good. These don't tend to work well in many areas, software being obvious where the costs are primarily research and in many cases it's pretty debatable as to the genuine cost of that, the capital risks are generally pretty small, not to mention the rapid pace of development making patent terms generally too long. NPE's similarly the primary cost is that of research, they don't take capital risks to bring it to market, why should they then be afforded the protection?
In short NPEs the problem per se, it's the whole patent system which needs a significant overhaul to refocus on it's actual purpose, to reward those willing to take risks on innovation.
Perhaps it is poor journalism, perhaps apple can easily do this. It doesn't really matter much, the point is that there are apparently people out their suffering from this problem and despite talking to apple support can't fix it in 30 seconds as you suggest.
Now personally I don't have the mentality of, something doesn't work exactly how I want it to, therefore I'm going to sue, so on that basis alone I really hope this doesn't fly.
That however doesn't mean there isn't a genuine problem out there, which to many non-technically literate people out there who won't be able to solve this. Many won't know the difference between iMessage and SMS, many won't know about menu options they need to set before getting rid of the phone (assuming they had it to do so, it wasn't stolen, lost, broken etc.). Many will find their friends sending them texts and them not receiving them, they won't immediately (if ever) realise the root cause and may will think it's a problem with their new handset, rather than related to their old.
So should their be a lawsuit on this, No, should Apple be being more proactive about a general fix which people don't have to think about, Yes - indeed the people I know who are into Apple products always tell me how easy it all is, this sounds far from that ideal.