Comment Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube? (Score 1) 236
Because they want to stick it to Apple. Whereas Netflix opted to eat the 30%, Google would rather recoup it. Additionally, whoever wrote the article is being a little disingenuous, since Google takes the same 30% on app and IAP sales. They can just ignore that for Red as it's their store, their service.
Comment Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube? (Score 2) 236
Alas, Google takes the exact same 30% on apps and IAPs. They're just willing to eat it on their own platform for their own service.
https://support.google.com/goo...
"For applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price."
Everything loves jumping on Apple for the 30%, but misses that it's the norm.
Winklevoss Twins Get Closer To Launching Their Bitcoin Exchange 93
Comment Headphones? (Score 1) 720
Comment Install Malware Get Hacked (Score 1) 87
So, installing malicious software means your information can be accessed? SHOCKING.
Tesla Model S Has Bizarre 'Vampire-Like' Thirst For Electricity At Night 424
Comment Re:I recommend non - MMO (Score 1) 555
Man, here I was hoping helm's deep would reinvigorate LOTRO. And yes, I had even pre-ordered it.
At Long Last: IceCube Spots 28 High-Energy Neutrinos 109
How an Astronaut Falling Into a Black Hole Would Die Part 2 263
Comment Re:Easy answers (Score 1) 251
Comment Re:Easy answers (Score 2) 251
Comment Re:Easy answers (Score 4, Informative) 251
Comment Re: He is not an expert... (Score 1) 303
Uhm, the OS doesn't crash when the rendering engine sees that. The app, if it's using the system libraries to render it, may. App-level crash, no obvious vector to leverage the issue to do anything further. It's really more in the realm of annoyance, since apps crash for plenty of other reasons too.
Here's everything fixed up in the 10.8.5 update release last week: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5880
Comment Re:Tough, Apple (Score 1) 180
RIR allocations to ISPs are premised on users getting entire networks versus a single address. That by itself should ensure end-users get larger than a single IPv6 address. Whether it's static or not is irrelevant for cases like this, just that it's a public IP and therefore directly accessible (barring the non-packet mangling stateful firewall).
Now, if the ISP will charge for a static IPv6 prefix, versus whatever their provisioning system hands out, who knows? For many services, they won't care, since with all the NAT we've had to deal with over the years, those services have central registries they update when they come online, or can be handled via some DDNS updates.