Re: "the assembled press were told, inferring that we should rejoice"
I am sorry that we can't catch every error while under pressure, but we do try. You are quite right, and the article has been tweaked. Thanks.
C.
3533 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
"how is that you glossed over NFC, dual-core processing, a much better screen resolution with motion mprovements and more choice in customization"
If it means anything, this was mentioned in Andrew's previous piece on the new Lumias, published this evening.
No doubt a full review will cover such stuff.
C.
The article does say malicious JAR files were involved - certainly other people infected tell of Java activity in their system tray before the rooting occurs.
I double-checked with Trevor on this point - because there is little gained in attacking a technology without basis - and he said the thing was originally detected as malicious jars - which spontaneously ate themselves. Flash was not installed on the PC at the time; Firefox, Chrome and IE were completely up to date. Acrobat wasn't in the browser. Those last two plugins are alternative vectors for delivering the malware, leaving just Java. And the mystery .jars.
C.
"It's probably just rose tinted glasses, but the Reg seems to be getting worse for this"
I'm not sure I can imagine a Reg that isn't rude about a large corporation. If you want to understand where the Apple teasing comes from, bear in mind that a number of Reg hacks are Apple users and we've suffered and enjoyed Cupertino kit over the years.
Plus, have you seen how much Apple charges for RAM? How is that not a tax?
"The other day they were going on about a Samsung Cameraphone that wasn't even a phone"
Which one was that? Did you mean the Samsung SH100 camera-with-Wi-Fi? There's no mention of it being a phone :-)
C.
Yes, oops. I did intend to fully qualify the USB stick quip by referring to what we'll be carrying in our pockets in the future. Brain fart in the morning. Apologies for the stupid oversight.
Chris W (not Chris Mellor).
Point of order, point of order! Jesus phone is in the bottom drawer at the moment, Chocolate Factory is heading that way. Open sourcers aren't freetards, those are other people entirely.
Some things are here to stay though, like! the! yahoo! headlines! I'm! afraid! In fact I think I saw some rumour the other day that yahoo might ditch the !
I was distraught.
C.
Someone once branded me a News of the World journo and I took it as a compliment.
In all seriousness, we've always used boffin and we always will. It's a term of endearment. You have to be seriously clever to be a boffin, though, with some kind of doctorate in a real science.
Otherwise you're just an egghead.
C.
Yeah, we had spotted that - which is why the story is about Android v iOS than Samsung v Apple.
Although Samsung was up 29pc on 2011, Apple was up 47pc, even though Apple dipped from Q1 to Q2 this year - that's the backing behind Gartner's view that people are holding out for the iPhone 5.
However that doesn't change the fact that Android grew and iOS stayed static.
C.
"Yet another misleading, sensationalist article by which appears to be doing so by deliberately conflating turnover with corporation tax"
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, or so the razor goes. The article has been amended.
C.
"it was also already said that the same plist file also lists other models WITH optical drives"
I'm not sure how that makes a difference; the point is some file has listed USB booting so OBVIOUSLY Apple is going to ditch optical drives. I think the cynicism is clear.
(As for the HardReg dupe, Chris's angle is on the storage side rather than possible new expensive laptops.)
C.
UK law is pretty simple on this: everyone involved in the process of publishing a defamatory statement to a third-party is technically liable for libel. There is a defence in the schedule to the Defamation Act that exempts, say, ISPs from being liable for libel committed by their users over their networks. The same defence is used by websites that allow unmoderated comments.
So if you want to sue a newspaper for libel, you can sue the writer, the news editor, sub-editor, the revise sub-editor, the production editor, the editor, the publisher and anyone else who participated in the story. Usually, though, you go after the money: the publisher.
Similar goes for websites: the comment poster, the web master, the host, etc. Having Wikipedia based in the UK makes it easier for a claimant to pin down those in the chain - but not having a server in the UK doesn't make it immune to proceedings in England, it just makes it harder to get someone into court.
And as for Twitter, that was a criminal investigation by the police into threats made over electronic communications. Libel is a civil matter and totally different.
PS: For those suggesting adding "I think" to a sentence makes it immune to action, consider the case of a music concert reviewer who was successfully sued for an opinion that wasn't substantially based on the truth.
C.