eastbayted writes: Amid the buzz surrounding Google's rumored plans to release a mobile phone, the Daily Wireless has posted an interesting article citing eight reasons why the search behemoth may very well be planning to build a nationwide wireless network. Among them: Google has made hefty investments in dark fiber; it's already offering free wireless in Mountain View and has offered to do the same in San Francisco; and it's fighting hard to maintain Net neutrality.
An anonymous reader writes: According to this story from Central Connecticut State University the Prius takes more energy to manufacture than a Hummer, requiring 50% more energy to produce. In addition, they calculate that the Prius costs $3.25 per mile over it's expected lifespan of 100,000 miles compared to $1.95 per mile for the hummer.
An anonymous reader writes: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=451 Apple continued to claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X but came a month later and patched their Wireless Drivers (presumably for vulnerabilities that didn't actually exist). Apple patched these "non-existent vulnerabilities" but then refused to give any credit to David Maynor and Jon Ellch. Since Apple was going to take research, not give proper attribution, and smear security researchers, the security research community responded to Apple's behavior with the MoAB (Month of Apple Bugs) and released a flood of zero-day exploits without giving Apple any notification. The end result is that Apple was forced to patch 62 vulnerabilities in just the first three months of 2007 including last week's megapatch of 45 vulnerabilities.
Radio Silence writes "Infringing videos on iFilm could undermine Viacom's case against YouTube. Although it's arguably not a nest of infringement like YouTube, iFilm appears to host more than a handful of videos for which its corporate parent Viacom does not own the copyright. More importantly, Viacom isn't engaging in the kind of proactive infringement identification practices it expects of YouTube, which may cause problems for them in court. 'if Viacom isn't willing to take the same steps with iFilm that it wants YouTube to take with copyrighted content, Viacom may have a harder time making its case before the judge presiding over the case. "It would have some persuasive value with a judge if YouTube says 'look, they're ranting and raving about all this infringement occurring on my site and they're not doing anything about it themselves,'" said copyright attorney Greg Gabriel.'"