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.

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://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.google.com%2Fgoo...

"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.

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

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.

Hmm, I guess that "Buying from Apple" "Unlocked iPhones" section on their store support (http://store.apple.com/us/questions/iphone) was put there by hackers.

It's the carriers that want the lock. Apple couldn't care less, long as they see the revenue for the device from someone.

In any case, the problem here is in regards to the handshake, to handle NAT or other end-to-end traversal issues. Pretty much every protocol that wants to be peer-to-peer in a world with NAT has that issue, especially SIP (ergo, STUN. Nevermind how many SIP devices have no clue about IPv6, which is going to be another problem here soon). The VirnetX patent apparently covers some of how to handle that, and since their implementation apparently tripped over something in the claims, now FaceTime has to skip the direct attempts, and go via a relay.

Uhm... http://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ If you're in the XBL, it'll tell you which list comprising the XBL you're in. Usually that means the CBL, which has a fairly instant delist process for listings, unless the problem keeps coming back.

Actually, transit providers are one of the groups that can't reliably apply BCP38 or RPF. BCP38 and RPF is very easily applied at the edge, where you know specifically the IPs involved, since they're either connected or statically routed. Now, when you get into things over BGP, it gets dicey. You may see traffic over a BGP-managed link from an IP that isn't involved in the received prefixes, but yet still belong to the specific peer. Is this an error? No. Is dropping the bits on the floor because you're not seeing that prefix an error? Most definitely. Not announcing a prefix over a link is a common traffic engineering practice, so this isn't an uncommon scenario. Another option to work around that would be to have a prefix-list with all of that peer's possible prefixes and build an ACL off that, but that's also not always tenable when you're potentially dealing with 1,000s or 10s of 1,000s of prefixes for the larger networks. Nice thing is, at this level, usually you can bust out the sFlow/NetFlow-fu and find out where the spoof is coming in from, and then whack it at that point.

But looking at the OpenResolver project list, when broken out by ASN, it really looks like a huge amount of those open recursors are CPE gear with WAN-facing DNS services, just based on the ASNs. China Telecom (AS4134), Uninet (AS8151) and Turk Telecom (AS9121) accounted for 3.5 million (15%) of the recursors alone.

Same here. There's even USB drive enclosures which let you select an ISO from the disk, and then present themselves as a CD/DVD drive as though that disk image were directly inserted. Far, far easier to load up a 2.5" drive with a ton of disk images, and just carry the enclosure around for system repairs, instead of a slew of optical media.

But Microsoft trademarked their store design too, and had it granted in 2011. This looks much like return fire, and not an opening shot.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85194406&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Unfortunately when I was there, we didn't have a chance to get out to Dachau, but did go through the Documentation Center in Nuremburg. Exact same thing. No punches pulled, just straight up "Here's what happened, why it happened, and why it should never be allowed to occur again." I was kind of surprised, and very glad to see it just laid out like that. A dark period of human history, and the best way to deal with it is to let it stand on its own.

But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.

Great example would be German museums dealing with the events surrounding their involvement in the World Wars and the Holocaust. You go into any of those, and while they talk a lot about the Nazi Party, National Socialism, Hitler and the rest, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone would think any of it is an endorsement. Everything I saw really had a tone of: "My God, we screwed the pooch BIGTIME. Let's put this all out here, so maybe people won't let it happen again"

Granted, the atomic bomb isn't quite as clear of a moral area, since while it did kill many, many people, it also ended the war much earlier than was likely without it, and therefore all the casualties that would have entailed didn't occur. Instead of glorifying a WMD, it can help foster discussion about them, and past them.

In iOS6 all of those requests now throw up a confirmation dialog. IMEI requires use of a private API, which would keep the app out of the store.

*BZZT* Thank you for playing. The answer we were looking for was: "What is May 22, 2012?" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/weve-acquired-motorola-mobility.html

A patent troll is usually called that because they didn't produce anything using the patent in question aside from a lawsuit. Apple here is using patents they are actively using, and believe that are being infringed by Android. Considering Motorola is going for 2.5% of sale price of iPhones for use of standards patents covered by FRAND, this is at least a more reasonable figure. It's also quite possibly a means of leveraging a cross-licensing deal so neither side winds up paying the other a dime.

Ultimately, they're doing what most sane businesses would do. If you had a design you felt was innovative enough to patent and you spent a ton of R&D on, and you saw a company producing something that you believe is infringing on your ideas, would you just sit back and let them run with it? Or do you like doing free R&D for your competition?

Which also happen to generally be items associated with how tablets looked like prior to the iPad.

Funny enough, those also line up with a bunch of other tablets, which sell rather well, and for companies Apple isn't suing. Like: The Nook, the Kindle, the Kindle Fire, etc., etc.