Posts by Lou Gosselin

Google open sources $124.6m video codec

This is great news.

An open and free codec makes the most sense for the global interchange of media.

Still, the skeptic in me says "wait and see". There's no guarantee that following events will follow a common sense approach . It wouldn't be the first time backroom wheelin and dealin overrides public interest in the interests of personal profit. Also, as much as I wish it weren't so, the state of software patents is such that it is statistically improbable that On2's technology does not unknowingly infringe on other patents

Siphon Wars: Pressurist weighs into Gravitite boffin

@Frumious Bandersnatch

You're right about the partial vacuum, a "total vacuum" doesn't exist even in space. But my point was that the only reason a vacuum doesn't form is because of air pressure.

"And you've failed to account for the weight of water above the tube in the higher container."

The force caused by gravity on the water outside the tube cancels out the force on water inside the tube at the same height, therefor there is no net force difference for any of the liquid below water level.

@I thought reg readers were smarter than this!

Utterly shocked that the correct posts are getting down voted...

The voice in my head keeps saying "if you explain it again, people will understand. Tell them to consider the sum of force vectors acting on each leg. Start with just the downwards force of gravity, and then with upwards force of atmospheric pressure. Now explain that water does not work like a chain since it has no significant tensile strength..."

But I'm going to have to be content with the fact that some of us can understand basic physics, and some of us can't.

I guess it's time for myth busters to come in and solve yet another elementary physics problem.

I thought reg readers were smarter than this!

This type of authoritative feedback is shameful...

"The atmospheric pressure does not need to be present."

"Asside from the difficulty of whatever liquid you used evaporating there would be nothing to stop you siphoning in a vacuum."

Despite the confidence of the authors, these quotes are very wrong.

Gravity accounts for downward force in both legs. It's true that the weight of the liquid in the longer leg is greater than the weight in the shorter leg. However gravity is NOT the force which pushes (pulls?) the liquid up!!!

Whether the siphon is started by sucking or any another means, gravity merely causes a vacuum to form at the top. If and only if the atmospheric pressure on the shorter leg is stronger than the force of gravity, then the liquid will be pushed up into the vacuum.

Whether the atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity or some other means is not relevant to the functioning of the siphon.

If the pressure is completely removed, then there will be a total vacuum both inside and outside the siphon. With no force to oppose gravity (ignoring capillary effects), then the force of gravity will pull the liquid down both legs with no siphon possible.

I'm baffled as to why more people didn't learn this in high school physics.

Dev goes 'Wild' with H.264 Firefox

@I for one...

I agree entirely about software patents being damaging and stupid. They erode the efficiency of software development and result in increased costs for no tangible gains.

However I'm not optimistic about progressive reform...it's all the money.

Adobe tilts at windmills with image apps for iPad

@Trevor Pott o_O

Was with you 100% until your anti-linux argument.

I don't want ibm, ms, apple, adobe, or anybody making decisions about what I can do with my hardware/software. Just put it out there, give it a price, and let me get my work done without some third party telling me how I must do it. All of them are guilty of this to various degrees, but not the linux distros.

I entirely understand that "open source" is not the most important factor for most users, but even without that benefit, most open source software still offers far more favorable end user terms.

With linux, individuals or businesses can use the OS/code however they please internally. The only restrictions apply when an entity starts distributing derivative code. Even then, many open source project owners are willing to sell the code under a separate commercial license. I hope, in retrospect, that you'll recognize this dual licensing approach as more flexible than a commercial only license.

Also you mentioned that you don't care whether a driver is open or not, however is seems you've overlooked the point that a closed driver is not portable. It may prohibit us from running the OS & hardware we want to, and from upgrading in the future. Take this real scenario: I have a set of universal power supplies which only comes with 32 bit x86 drivers, I cannot interface to them from my embeded PPC machines because the manufacturer won't bother compiling drivers for PPC architecture, and does not release source code allowing the user to do so.

With that in mind, open source means that even users who don't use the source code will still benefit from the availability of more choices.

Apart from that, I agree with the rest of your comment.

Apple = bad for all developers

Most people will not like agreeing with an adobe spokesperson, but he's right.

I'm surprised he even acknowledges the dislike people have for adobe.

"You shouldn't care about this stuff because you love or hate Adobe. You should care because these issues affect your choices as a customer & a creative person."

That's spot on.

Apple's notorious policies have one thing in common: they're designed to put apple, and only apple, in the driver's seat. Crippling developers and power users just seems to be a side effect.

Non-Flash video surges onto the web

Survey

Reading comments on other "apple versus adobe" articles, the debate seems polarized in one dimension. However in reality the apple/adobe conflict covers two dimensions. I'd like to "depolarize" the topic a little bit and post a survey using two dimensions instead of one.

Flash:

1. No should be able to run flash, it needs to disappear.

2. I think flash should be available to anyone who wishes to use it. I prefer not to use it.

3. I think flash should be available to anyone who wishes to use it. I personally will use it.

Apple:

A. I agree completely with apple's terms and conditions, they are fair for end users and developers.

B. I disagree with apple's terms and conditions. Their policies restrict my choice as an end user/developer.

My answer is 2B.

Bear and Monkey smack Apple with patent suit

Reason for patents.

"it does seem that patenting summarization and emphasis in UI design may not fully be in harmony with the US Constitution's stated reason for patents: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.""

Software patents in the US have never promoted the progress of science or useful arts. Quite the opposite, they inhibit them. Never the less, software based (UI/algorithm) patents are favored by the big businesses which seems to be the sole basis for policy making these days.

Big businesses can push through any policy no matter how draconian, the DMCA is a prime example of "public" policy gone wrong.

Foreign IT pros in USA get paid more than Americans - study

Logical

"Either the study is wrong and they aren't comparing like for like skills, or it's proof that American companies favour H1-B applicants over American employees so much that they are willing to pay more for their employment, for whatever reason, which is just another way of saying it depresses the wages for American employees."

You are right, it's either one or the other.

I think there is one way H1Bs may be intrinsically superior to their domestic counterparts. They have the natural ability to understand each other without strong foreign accents getting in the way. This could be a significant factor for any company that has decided to go the offshoring route.

Not true.

"Foreign IT professionals working in the States on H-1B visas don't cause a reduction in pay for Americans, according to a new study - because they actually get paid more than US citizens with similar qualifications, not less."

The first statement fragment is blatantly false. Supply, demand, and price are parts of the natural equilibrium described by the law of supply and demand. One cannot affect one of the variables and not the others. Increasing supply faster than demand, which is stagnant, means that overall pay has gone down compared to what pay would be with no increase in supply.

'Tamper evident' CPU warns of malicious backdoors

Interesting approach

I'm not sure why an adversary capable of altering cpu hard/firmware would be unable to also alter the protection mechanisms, but assuming the technology is somehow foolproof, it is interesting.

It seems to me that an advanced attacker would be more likely to alter the system bios, which is more powerful, easier to do, and require no special hardware. Code under System Management Mode isn't even visible to the OS.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/hackers-find-new-place-hide-rootkits-252

The security model for many organizations simply breaks down at a hardware level as they have no way to verify the soundness of the hardware they acquire. Our vendors can tell us it is safe, but in reality we simply have to blindly trust the hardware does only what it's supposed to do. I don't see this development changing the status quo.

Feds seize $143m worth of bogus networking gear

@Have an icon.

"They wouldn't be bloody counterfeit in that case then, would they? The very point of counterfeit products is that they are *not* labelled correctly as third-party products."

You are correct, however you seem to have read this out of context.

I was merely countering the post which implied that counterfeit goods are stolen.

Maybe the poster simply misspoke, however the statement "Err counterfiet is stealing plain and simple." leads me to believe he genuinely did not understand what counterfeit means.

@Err counterfiet is stealing plain and simple.

"Err counterfiet is stealing plain and simple...just cos you're nicking stuff of a big corp..."

You're implication that counterfit goods are stolen is not correct, they're simply fakes.

Granted, the counterfitters may be breaking trademark laws as well as well as misrepresenting their products to customers, but they didn't necessarily "nick" anything.

"what if they are countefeit brakes parts for your car? happy with that? or if joe blogs airlines decided to save a few quid and use knocked off parts to replair the planes....Are the parts the exactly the same or from a dodgy batch using inferior components. who knows?"

As long as they're not mislabeled or stolen, and the customer knows what he's getting, then there's nothing wrong with a market for third party products.

Consider:

Third party ink cartidges, generic drugs, computer equipment, no-name food products, car parts, etc...

@Genuine kit also manufactured in china

That's just it, who knows if Cisco is outsourcing to the same suppliers who are making the counterfeit versions.

I have brand name computer ram, which is identical to no-name ram right down to the part numbers. Both were obviously manufactured at the same place, only some of the parts were destined for brand name status.

As far as security goes, outsourcing our technology implicitly opens up numerous attack vectors.

While it goes against the current corporate culture, there's no security substitute for competent in-house development and staff.

Applesoft, Ogg, and the future of web video

@Problem

"Except it isn't, you download one of the many FREE MP3 encoders..."

Just because you can download an encoder or decoder from source forge, doesn't mean you are not infringing on the patents.

It would be useless for thomson to go after poorly funded open source projects, and ridiculously inefficient for them to go after individual users. These are the reasons why patent holders generally only prosecute larger entities for "infringing their IP" and rarely enforce them directly against end users or small developers.

But make no mistake, you are still technically violating the legal monopolies granted by patents even if consequences for you as an end user are very unlikely.

Should we justify a tyrannical patent system on the basis that it is poorly enforced and that many of us have gotten away with using open source software without paying the license fees?

@What's all the whining about?

"If you don't want to pay the toll, build your own damned bridge (without copying from anyone else, mind!) Or use another, cheaper, rival, bridge and play the two against each other."

Maybe you don't understand the differences between copyright and patents. Once an algorithm is patented, new implementations of that algorithm may not be used. This is true even the developer had no knowledge or influence from the original patent.

Programming is like math. Thousands of developers, working in the same domain, trying to derive an efficient algorithm in the same problem, are bound to have some overlapping algorithms.

Bringing patents into the mix means developers owe royalties on algorithms they themselves have derived and written into their own implementation. This is synonymous to telling a writer there are certain ideas they may not speak about unless they pay the royalties.

@psyq

"Second, H.264, MP3 and AAC are as open as it gets - they ALL are fully documented and available from ISO/ITU directly (or your country standards body) with open source reference C/C++ software being available as well. When those patents expire, they will be fully public domain - much more "free" (as in freedom) than some GPL-ed stuff."

The difference is that GPL uses copyright laws, which are more reasonable as they don't preclude others from implementing similar algorithms. Software patents do not offer freedom because the holders can demand royalties and dictate terms on when the algorithms may be used, even on implementations not owned by them. When patents do finally expire, the public is only entitled to is a useless patent document written in legalize.

"The fact of the matter is - yes, complex audio and video codecs ARE based on patented technology more often than not."

True, any significant piece of software risks patent infringement.

"And there is NOTHING bad in that and NOTHING preventing them from being open for everyone to implement and use, with reasonable and non-discriminatory cost model."

You are incorrect, several years ago I wanted to write and sell my own consumer multimedia software. There were plenty of shortcomings, particularly in the area of multichannel audio capabilities, which I wanted to target. However the more I researched it, the more it became apparent that patent royalties would take out the majority of my revenue. When I saw that patent holders would make most of the profit off of my work, I concluded that it just wasn't worthwhile.

You can defend software patents any way you please, but in the end you can not deny what they are - a legal monopoly.

"It is only the freetards of this planet who are trying to spread FUD about the well-proven international standards like H.264. Sorry guys, technology has a price - someone worked very hard to invent it. No, those companies WILL NOT give it away "for free" so Apples and Googles of this would would use it to make money."

Companies can charge what they please for their products/services, but why would they need to threaten their competitors with patent suits if their products were worth buying? It seems like they genuinely fear competition on a level playing field and would rather not let the free market play out.

Enough software patents already

Software patents are a restriction on my freedom of expression. It's unbelievable that a society, which thinks itself to be civilized, would attempt to monopolize the original code I can write, use, sell, etc, from my text editor.

Software patents only encourage parasitic behavior. Royalties are effectively consumer taxes imposed by private entities. However there's no benefit to the public the way patents were originally envisioned, no benefits at all.

Clearly software patents can not scale. The software industry is lucky that software patents are rarely sought by, or enforced on us small fish. The majority of people don't realize that this is the only reason the software industry still works at all. If everyone tried to obtain an exclusive patent on every original algorithm they've written, the magnitude of patents would skyrocket even further and the compliance overhead alone even before royalties would put us all out of business.

It doesn't take much intellect to see why software patents are wrong, but unfortunately opinions are easily swayed by kickbacks in the direction of anyone who would have the power to fix things.

How do we destroy software patents once and for all?

Lights out at Lala - Apple shutters music service

@Most humans?

I mentioned this above, since mp3s are a better representation of the wave form. Bit for bit mp3s have far superior fidelity than CDs.

Assume for a moment an audio waveform could be captured (or computed to) arbitrary accuracy. The mp3 encoding of that waveform will certainly be better than the "raw" encoding of that waveform when both are encoded at the same bandwidth.

The problem lies in the fact that CDs are compared to very low bandwidth mp3s encoded from CD, frequently downloaded from the web with bit errors.

Under this scenario, mp3s will always offer poor quality.

@Mark2410

"remember there is two channels, cds run at 1.4mbps"

Yes, how embarrassing...

@Fidelity

"round shiny things where the music had some fidelity all the way to 11, as opposed to the crappy sounding MP3s out there now."

Actually the comparison between CDs and MP3s is unfair for two reasons:

1. Similar bit rates are never used.

CD = 16bit*44000 samples/sec = 704kbps

MP3 typically between 100-200kbps

2. Most MP3s are typically encoded from a CD source.

The fact is they are both lossy formats with respect to the original waveform.

The wave lost fidelity when encoded into "raw" digital format, and then lost more fidelity when encoded as mp3.

Steve Jobs: mystery patent pool to attack Ogg Theora

@Patents Schmatents...

The likelihood of any arbitrary new code infringing someone's patent pool is so great that it's practically futile for any software engineer to try and avoid them. Most companies just fly under the patent radar until suing them is profitable.

"Theora *is* covered by patents - the ones owned by On2 and irrevocably licenced to the community. Since surely the existence of a patent on something theoretically excludes the same thing being patented by someone else"

In the US, the validity of patents are unknown until upheld in court, not when they're granted. Also they can cover incremental "inventions" without being exclusive to other patents on the same technology.

As is typical of software patents, there is a very good chance that On2's technology could infringe someone else's patents even though On2's work may be completely original. If that sounds like a contradiction, your not thinking like a lawyer.

"But even these patents - and the MPEG pool too - are *software* patents. Which means they stand a good chance of being ruled invalid in the near future."

Unfortunately in the US, software patents are permitted. Patent reform is badly needed.

@Cowboy Bob

As a US developer, I think your statements are a little unfair.

Many of us in the american software industry strongly oppose the regressive nature of software patents and recognize the harm they cause world-wide.

However we're not the one's who have imposed this chaotic system, it is the corporate lawyers and lobbyists who are responsible. Those entities are the very same as the MNCs who continue to mount well funded campaigns every year pushing to pass software patents in europe and elsewhere.

I think it would be a mistake to let one's guard down, since it could happen outside the US too.

Data Locker 1TB AES-encrypted external hard drive

@so...

"why wouldnt i buy a normal drive and use truecrypt?"

Believe it or not, this does offer more potential security.

Truecrypt (and similarly any software offerings) requires that the OS is secure. It may not be secure for two reasons, 1) code vulnerabilities may be the norm rather than the exception depending on your OS, 2) even a secure OS can be modified to run a trojan.

Assuming this kit doesn't have any vulnerabilities or back doors, which isn't far fetched given it's very limited I/O capability, then one can have more confidence than when using software encryption.

Of course, it would be possible for any physically insecure device to be modified such that it is no longer secure. There is also the issue of trusting the device manufacturer and supply chain before it's in one's possession.

The truly paranoid should use multiple levels of encryption.

Sony sued for dropping Linux from PS3

RIP Other OS

It was a great initiative, allowing the end user to maximize the capabilities of their gear.

It was a cool feature while it lasted.

Apple in shock public attack on Adobe

@So, Lou...

"Are you really suggesting that Apple owe Adobe a living?"

Bit of a straw man argument isn't it?

I specifically said the fact that it's adobe makes it far easier to turn a blind eye to apple's own actions, which are clearly bad for all developers. To the extent that apple censors apps that users do in fact want, apple's actions are also bad for some end users as well.

I appreciate apple's presence in that it increases competition, hopefully bringing down prices for other devices. However I do fear the competition may adapt apple's market control and manipulation strategies - a scenario where by everyone would loose and consumers and developers both are stuck with proprietary non-portable solutions.

Re: MS signed apps?

"MS did decide to only allow "signed" application on their OS few years ago (if I remember correctly it was WinXP)"

I hadn't heard of that, and find it hard to believe. MS knows legacy/third party apps are its lifeline, and ceasing to run those apps would eliminate windows as a candidate for most businesses.

There's actually nothing terribly objectionable about the OS demanding signed apps, so long as the end user holds the keys. This could improve the security model. However when someone else holds the keys, one must implicitly trust the keymaster and give up any control they'd otherwise have as an owner.

When it comes to kernel drivers, this is exactly what MS has done, starting with Vista. Arguably this was done to stifle open source innovation rather than secure the OS.

Due to the negative feedback I keep getting on this topic, it would seem many users don't care that their platform locks them out, however as an active developer the lack of control for owners is a major turn off.

@Nonsense

"That is, of course, nonsense. Anyone is free to have any business model they wish....They had better make sure that their claimed features work - which they failed to do before selling the Flash converter."

Um, perhaps their claimed features did work and apple changed the terms under their feet?

It seems a lot of people are willing to forgive apple's actions because it has its sights on an easy target, adobe (yes we all have reasons for hating them). While I don't care much for the victim here, I still find apple's attitude towards developers despicable.

EU plans IP address snatch to battle cybercrime

Unworkable.

An IP address black list may sound dandy to someone who knows nothing about networks.

If global revoking of an IP address is desired, it makes no sense to do this anywhere other than from the originating ISP (they cannot really expect millions of routers, web sites, and ISPs to give a toss about their black list?).

If they execute the block through the originating ISP, then it makes more sense just to block the account and recycle the IP.

IP addresses simply do not represent specific computers, much less individuals.

Nokia: digital SLRs are doomed

obsolete

Obviously the phone cameras will never make traditional cameras obsolete on a technical level. Read in this context, Anssi Vanjoki's statements look pretty idiotic. It is wrong, insulting even, to characterize the camera phones as equivalent in quality.

However from the marketing viewpoint, the market for cheap & poor quality, yet convenient, photography is probably outgrowing professional photography gear by a large measure.

Another thing to note: my current cell phone (a nokia as it were) has a camera on it, but not because I wanted one. The store had zero models in stock without a camera. Anyone using cell phone sales numbers as evidence of customers demand for camera phones would need to consider non-availability of non-camera models.

iPhone users suffer summer appointment chaos

Re: Re: Apple should fix that!

Excellent catch, however your examples are still using AM/PM. Shouldn't we drop those conventions too?

Apple should fix that.

Finger pointing aside though, DST is more trouble than it's worth. It should be boycotted, who's with me?

Chinese go beyond binary with ternary molecule

Existing software could still work

In theory, the trinary nature of RAM/CPU wouldn't have to affect software.

Most software we write these days don't care about number bases at all.

It would be reasonable to run existing Java applications in base 3.

The whole x86 architecture could be ported to base 3 internally such that the software doesn't see the difference.

Certain opcodes, such as SHL, ROR, which are base 2 would be less efficient, but still possible on a base 3 (or base 6) machine.

Mind you, keeping the x86 architecture alive is a terrible waste of man power.

Steve Jobs bans all apps from iPhone (or thereabouts)

@state of denial

Agreed,

The no-translation clause may have been specifically crafted by apple to exclude adobe kit, but it clearly applies to these projects as well.

On the other hand, as the author said, the clause is meaningless since apple will do whatever it pleases anyways. It may permit certain translated programs and not others. This is about opportunism rather than technical merit. If the translation software were not made public, it's doubtful that apple themselves would even know whether an app was translated or not.

What’s new and improving about IT today?

Outsourcing

I'm glad this article was written, as it brings up some important issues. I'd like to focus on the outsourcing in particular.

"...the attitudes of more forward-looking (and indeed profitable) organisations, we found some very interesting correlations – not least, that these were more likely to outsource their IT to third parties"

Outsourcing (and offshoring) various functions has been heralded as the way to move forward, and to maximize profit. Consider unit of work W, which costs $X inhouse and $Y out sourced. A CEO looking at the numbers may determine that $Y is the best deal, and start outsourcing functions with full support of shareholders. Indeed, his choice has saved the company money and in doing so made it more competitive. The CEO's actions were logically justified in terms of corporate profit.

However I believe there are hidden macro-economic costs that are not being factored in. For one, the lost of internal expertise has long term implications. Also, there are only so many jobs which can be out sourced/off shored before the job losses cause an economic meltdown.

Economists keep pushing us to outsource more and more. We no longer have the expertise, capability, or infrastructures in place to manufacture textiles, electronics, components. For those in the US, take a look around your home/office and try to find a single component from the US. At best, it was "assembled in the USA".

We've been coping with this strategy by becoming better educated and commuting further for work. But today, even the higher education jobs, such as in IT, are undergoing large scale off shoring initiatives. Those with higher education degrees are being laid off in droves. There are no higher jobs to migrate to.

In conclusion, much like the tragedy of the commons, outsourcing and off shoring in particular do appealing to the CEOs who want to maximize their personal gain, it's a short sighted approach in the long view.

I can only hope that some day corporations will be held to a higher standard of responsibility towards the public/workers who built them up.

Adobe man to Apple: 'Go screw yourself'

@No interpreted code

There's nothing inherently wrong with interpreted code, it's useful for adding scripting/macro capabilities to many types of apps and games.

But this argument about "interpreted code" misses the bigger point, that apple is attacking cross compilers in general, even when they produce code which is run natively.

"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine"

Surely the end-users don't care what language a program is written in. In fact it's likely that apple itself wouldn't even know the original language of an application is without excerting resources to find out.

This course of action by apple proves beyond any doubt that no rule is too ridiculous when it comes to killing multi-platform development. They want porting efforts to be as difficult as possible. Human anti-innovation at its finest, I say.

iPad security broken in less than 24 hours

Re:Yes an appliance, Re:But...

"t's NOT a computer, any more so than your TV or your remote control....Do you hack your toaster? Jailbreak your fridge?"

You are correct in that apple are marketing this device strictly as an appliance.

However, it would be silly to argue that the device isn't capable of much more than what apple allows it to be. And it's clear these limitations are artificially imposed, as opposed to the other devices you mentioned which are already used to their full hardware potential.

Continuing with the remote control analogy: ipad:remote control :: unlocked ipad:programmable remote control.

All things being equal, the locked down / non-programmable devices are clearly inferior since the unlocked / programmable versions are a super-set of them. In apple's case this is almost inexcusable since the unlock capability requires no changes to the product at all (other than removing the restriction).

I think any true techie would be lying in claiming that they didn't yearn to be able to ssh into their ipad against apple's wishes.

If apple provided ipad unlocking instructions and an "at your own risk" statement and warranty disclaimer, I am pretty certain there would be a large user base that would unlock their devices "legally". With the iphone apple's done the exact opposite, releasing patches which deliberately bricked unlocked devices.

With this in mind, it's pretty clear that apple's makes it's decisions around marketing rather than technical aspirations.

"You complaint sounds typical of the folks that do not understand that some products are focused on doing particular tasks, and are not supposed to be all things to all people."

One can say absolutely the same thing to defend any product with shortcomings, but instead of generalizing about "the folks that do not understand", sometimes a negative remark can be a genuine criticism.

Developers turn sour on Apple iPad

Multitasking

Slightly off topic, but:

"The last portable computer I had that didn't multitask was a 386 Portable PC"

Actually multitasking on the intel platform was possible on 386, which had fully functional protected and V86 modes to separate applications. It also had the necessary interrupt handling to allow the OS to switch processes preemptively.

However in those days, DOS wasn't up to the task of running applications in parallel. I guess one could say the same thing about the ipad, the hardware is ahead of apple's os.

I'd be temped to get one with linux installed.

Firefox plans fix for decade-old browsing history leak

@Hardly important

"So JavaScript has to be injected in a page and then a list of predefined URLs used to establish the colouring assigned by the browser based on page history."

Almost... One merely needs to visit a website containing the javascript to be affected.

For example, theregister.com web developers could test whether cnet.com was in your browser history.

Get a grip

"Many proposed fixes threatened to bring browsers to a crawl or prevent users from knowing whether they had previously visited a website, trade-offs Mozilla, Microsoft and other browser makers have largely considered unacceptable."

Yes, I know...The security threat is real. CSS Styles can be made to resize text based on whether a link has been visited or not, and javascript is capable of measuring the size/properties of an element to detect whether the user has visited a link.

However the "visited" history feature is not that crucial a feature in the first place. It could easily be reset across browsing sessions without impacting general user experience, or it could be disabled across domains, or it could be disabled entirely.

Many of us configure to browser to clear history automatically anyways, so nothing lost.

Since they're determined to retain the feature, then I guess changing the color only is an acceptable compromise.

Apple understates iPad demand

Terms

"your card will only be charged after your order has shipped."

Surely that's not what they meant literally? That leaves open a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through.

MS sees Windows 7 leap, but XP workhorse refuses to die

Vista and 7 DRM kernel

My reason for preferring XP is that it's the last windows that does not lock the owner out of the kernel. Vista and 7 kernels are both configured by MS to prevent the legitimate owner from installing custom drivers (self developed or open source).

I will avoid any OS which gives MS control over the policy of how my computer is used.

Windows Phone 7: Microsoft's exercise in self restraint

Not for me.

I may not be a typical consumer, but the lock in and lack of end user control that apple has forced onto it's customers is rather a step backwards. I'm repelled by apple's approach to consumer devices, and I'll be equally repelled by whatever company takes a similar stance.

In the cell phone market, I'm disappointed but not surprised at the dominance of closed platforms. Should the closed tablets take any significant market share, I will be both surprised and disappointed.

Tories go nuclear, promise to prop up carbon price

What's with the charts

Should be in color.

'Racist' job ad sparks investigation

Well

Sure, it's illegal, but if they're going to discriminate anyways, the fact might as well be known up front.

The lesson this company will learn will be to either hide their intentions all together, or to squirm around the discrimination laws by requiring a skill only indians could have. Aka "10 years experience with the indian language".

China tells Google to obey law even if it's leaving

Surely google must know they cannot win.

China simply doesn't need google. The company does not provide any "must haves".

If google leaves, the condition was surely a cover. Google knew china would not change for them.

Google, Facebook cop for preposterous patent potshot

@Getting just stupid..

Actually it's been stupid for a long time, and it is getting worse.

When corporations have the power to dictate the law of the land, common sense is no obstacle. Many stupid practices have come about citing corporate interests as justification...

It goes way beyond ridiculous software patents. There's the corporate bailouts, offshoring of local jobs, unfair tax subsidies and laws, bad quality standards, deceptive contracts/advertising, elimination of customer rights (DRM). It's not just the bad corporate apples, these are standard practices that are justified in the name of corporate profits. The fact that at least 50% these profits are funneled to the wealthiest 1% of society seems to be off the political radar.

Not that I'm surprised at any of this, politician and corporate interests tend to go hand in hand.

Google flips switch on mobile YouTube banner ads

@Adblock user

It's always a surprise to visit a web site on someone else's computer (without adblock) and see how bad the ads have gotten. Yikes! It's intolerable! Thankfully, adblock is very effective.

Young people are lazy, think world owes them a living - prof

Standard of living

We have to live and compete in whatever market we find ourselves in. It may be true that no one is "entitled" to jobs or a paycheck, but at the same time isn't it important to recognize a problem when the standard of living between generations is dropping per unit work. Even older workers are struggling through this period.

There is no denying that costs have skyrocketed, everything from housing, food, medical, car, education, etc are alarmingly expensive (no 10c Mac-N-Cheese in my lifetime). At the same time income has been very flat for most of my career. My first FT job offered only 5 vacation days for the first two years. Unlike for previous generations, when the US actually manufactured stuff, this generation is watching jobs disappear overseas. And what about benefits? Most new workers will never see the "three legged stool". If soc sec is underfunded by the time I retire as expected, I'll be left with a pogostick.

My point isn't merely to complain, but to state that it's understandable that younger workers are not content.