Nokia Windows Phone Revealed
What WP7 brings to the table is perfect compatibility with MS Exchange servers and MS Office file formats.
By "WP has perfect compatibility with Exchange" I of course mean "MS would make sure every other phone out there would have less than perfect compatibility with Exchange".
So that's really the selling point of WP7, except of course MS can't say that out loud.
Pentagon Says Cyberattacks Can Count As Act of War
I would favor more preemptive and swift action to prevent future attacks like this coming cyberwar
See, there are things where military is really really really inefficient - usually the ones where you have no idea who or where the enemy is.
I.e. imagine that you have an "attack" - let's say someone exploiting SCADA system - coming from let's say Toronto.
This could be:
- A "cyber-attack" from a hostile maple-syrup drinking hockey-watching enemy state, aboot to be followed by an invasion, eh ?
- An act of an individual citizen acting w/o Canadian govt knowledge
- Zombie computer being controlled by someone outside of Canada
And the most important thing: you have no idea which one it is. So to treat this as a military attack is just stupid.
Osama Bin Laden Reported Dead, Body In US Hands
Actually this is kind of amazing: we have wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - the later two having nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever - but the guy who actually attacked US was from our "ally" Saudi Arabia and he was living inside our "ally" Pakistan. In a mansion, no less.
It's great that we finally killed the bastard, but I have to wonder how much of the whole "war on terror" effort is spent on actually killing terrorists vs. doing useless things that create new terrorists.
Microsoft Vehemently Denies Google's "Bing Sting"
So essentially Bing does aggregation and caching of Google's results, exactly the same way Google News aggregates and caches stories from news outlets like NY Times, AP, etc ? And Google is outraged because it's freedom of information when they do it with other people's publicly accessible web sites, but it's morally wrong when someone else does it to their publicly accessible web site ?
Sergey Brin On Google and China
But now that there's an obvious business reason *not* to operate in China (the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government), Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google, the organization, in a different direction.
This is one argument I've never understood - it's not like Chinese government could only hack into companies with physical presence in China. If it's about hacking - pulling out of China won't help Google in any way. If it's about censorship - yeah, really, it wasn't a problem for more than five years, but now it suddenly is ?!? If it's about finding a nice excuse to leave Chinese market after getting beaten by Baidu - well, that at least is plausible.
Spy Satellite Photos Used To Fight Drug Smugglers
How are you going to make it expensive to do something illegal? Are you going to pass a law?
Increase the risk of getting caught for doing something illegal. In this particular case - pass a law stating that every illegal immigrant who reports his employer gets a 5 years of compensation (funded from fines payed by employer) and a fast-track to legal immigration.
China Denies Role In US Grid Hacks
Define "them". China is a country with a large number of pirated (and therefore unpatched) Windows installations. Many of those machines are part of spam botnets and so on. You have no way of knowing who is controlling those machines. If those people could hack into US govt computers, it's pretty damn likely they could hack into Chinese govt computers too, and use those as a relay. The probability of Chinese govt being incompetent in this case is way much higher than the probability of them being both technically competent and malicious.
EFF Says Obama Warrantless Wiretap Defense Is Worse than Bush
Ok on many other points, but, I just cannot even come close to believing this was the motivation. I mean, we certainly aren't benefiting in any manner from Iraqi oil.
It isn't shipped to us for free, nor used really to repay any war costs, etc.
If the war was for oil, and US imperialism to take over that country for oil, I'd have thought we'd at least have seen the oil benefits by now.
The goal of war was not to make oil cheaper for you the regular American. Instead the idea was that several corporations affiliated with Bush administration (i.e. halliburton, Exxon, etc) will get exclusive contracts on Iraqi oil (and as military contractors during wartime, see Halliburton again, Blackwater). Iraq was was not profitable for United States as a country, but it certainly was profitable for Dick Cheney as an individual. So "we" has seen the oil benefits, it's just that you and me aren't part of that "we" crowd.
Ex AT&T Tech Says NSA Monitors All Web Traffic
Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic. That means bit torrents, email (including spam), web traffic (html), tunnels, ATM transactions, credit card transactions, Windows updates, NNTP porn, remote backups, YouTube videos, streaming radio stations and so on. There is just way too much crap flowing over the wires to monitor it all. The NSA, CIA, FBI, US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and National Guard combined wouldn't have the man power to monitor that much data. Please tell me you're kidding. They use reasonably modern computers to extract obvious information s.a. URLs of sites visited (extracted from HTTP header, nowdays this could be done even on a router), search engine keywords (same thing), email addresses (parsing SMTP, again pretty easy), etc. Take a look at what Wireshark could do, for example. There are no humans watching every email/HTTP request/etc. Packet sniffer determines that there is an instant messenger chat, picks up the word "terrorist", flags the IP address, matches IP to a specific AT&T customer and increases a counter in some database which indicates the probability of you being a terrorist. If you live in NYC and decided to visit your relatives for Christmas, and while you were away your teenage neighbor used your WiFi to chat with his friends about Counter-Strike match - do you really believe there will be some human reviewing your case before system puts you on "no-fly" list and prevents you from coming back ?!? This stuff is all automatic, there is some heuristic rule that determines whether you could travel by airplane or hold a job in a bank or buy a fertilizer - just like there is a heuristic rule that helps Clippy to determine if you are writing a letter. It's a fully automatic system with no independent review or right to appeal.
How else do you fight terrorism? What would you suggest (other than that warm fuzzy "leave them alone and they'll leave us alone BS)". How would you FIGHT terrorism. We could sell less weapons to nations like Saudi Arabia, where 15 out of 19 1-11 hijackers were from. If we give them $10 billions in arms sales instead of $20 billion we gave them last summer, terrorist funding will be cut in half. We could alienate less Muslims and instead work with Muslim communities to identify terrorists - British police was able to prevent attack on airplanes thanks to tips from Muslim community in London. Instead of monitoring AT&T internet connections, we could monitor items like guns and explosives - as of today there weren't a single terrorist attack committed purely with iPhones and used DSL modems. We could actually secure access to things like ports and chemical plants instead of trying to identify every single crazy person on Earth that might possibly try to attack them.