Posts by R 11 212 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jul 2009
Perhaps you missed the word 'accidental' in the article.
The app is a game that involves rapidly tapping the screen. Can't you see why, on occasion, some users might accidentally tap an advert?
Have you really never clicked an advert by accident? If you have, how would you feel if you were then billed for your trouble?
Opera came tops in that 'security analysis' and even they dismissed it as tosh:
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/11/10/cenzic-security
There's no published methodology. Everything points to them simply counting the number of 'vulnerabilities' that have been fixed. So Firefox, being open source and publishing everything comes out tops, while I.E. which only has to count the vulnerabilities found by others which Microsoft are then forced to (eventually) patch.
You can assess your security risks off of that report if you wish. I'm just glad you don't work for me.
It'll cost more than 330 in the UK because you need to add VAT. 17.5% on 330 is 57.75. If it's available unlocked in the UK, 400 might be the price point. If you can buy from Google in the US, the postman will deliver a bill for the import duty and VAT.
I'd imagine the trackerball is there because you don't want your fingers all over the screen at the same time as you are reading. On an iPhone, when you finish reading what's on the screen, you have to disrupt your view by scrolling with your finger.
They've only just noticed this?
My spamassassin config has had rules in place for Live space sites since late last year. This was being discussed in spamassassin groups in October 2008.
http://old.nabble.com/Windows-Live-Spaces-spam-td20052676.html
I'm not sure where eSoft have been for the last fourteen months.
Google voice is unlike any other telephony service I've used as it requires you to have a phone to use it.
Complaining about Google doing this is like complaining about UK operators with unlimited calls, but excluding calls to mobiles.
Would you be happier if Google just charged the actual rate for the call?
It's not at all like network neutrality. Typically the charge for sending traffic to one US state costs the same as sending to another state. There certainly isn't a hundred fold difference.
The situation you seem to desire would be like Google setting up in the Midwest with other operators legally obliged to connect to them and also to pay Google per kb of data transferred. It makes no sense and Google shouldn't be forced to curtail a valuable application because a very small number of firms exploit rules that were designed to protect rural communities, not benefit big business..
It's not Bollocks on the simple grounds that you need to have a telephone service to access Google Voice - they don't provide a phone service. Indeed it's nothing at all like any service provided by any of my phone (fixed, cell or voip) companies.
This is nothing like net neutrality - ftp data doesn't cost more to transport than http. Calling these rural areas does cost more. Google offers a free service, with free calls. Bizarre rules in the US mean some calls are grossly more expensive than others.
AT&T are terrified by Google Voice and will do anything to destroy it.
The Atom will happily playback HD content as long as it's coupled with a decent graphics card to do the hard work. Google 'Nvidia Ion'.
Given there's no mention of the graphics card I'm guessing this is an all intel setup in which case you're correct - it will be less than ideal if you have HD content.
I use an eeebox with an atom chip and intel graphics for a very very nice XBMC server. It only plays SD content, but then that's when most my content is. It'll also happily play anything off the iplayer. Next year I'll probably replace it with an Ion setup, keeping the very low power consumption, but significantly boosting the playback capabilities.
I understand the RHEL limits the number of RHEL VM hosts you can run on one license.
Fortunately Suse Enterprise doesn't do this. It's licensed on a per server basis, so a 2 CPU usage can be used for a 2x quad core server running a dozen SLES VMs. That can amount to a significant cost saving.
Apache would respond the same way if the software opened port 80. I have no idea if the software runs on *nix, let alone in the same manner though.
I can see why the software might want to start a webserver a-la vnc, but using port 80 seems bizarre. Not to mention it would imply the software uses an unencrypted data stream, at least via the web interface. Given remote support could often involve entering passwords, that seems like a glaring omission.
There's a surprising number of people here who apparently manage tens of thousands of desktops yet, astonishingly, seem unable to script a firefox install.
I manage nothing like that number of desktops, but I install Firefox and its updates by script without ever visiting a physical client machine.
Sure the additional costs of supporting a second browser are valid, but the idea that Firefox is difficult to deploy is tosh. It could be easier. Group Policy support would be nice, but even without that, it's trivial to get it and its patches as they are released onto user desktops.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
