If Apple wants to know how the FBI cracked its phones, it's not hard to figure out. Just follow the same trail the FBI did.
First, hit up the Chinese government and offer them buckets of cash to gain access to Chinese businesses.
Second, head over to Foxconn, with official documentation.
Third, watch closely as Foxconn details how it can manipulate the components it sends to the US in its phones (note: this applies to all Foxconn phones).
Fourth, lie to everyone about how it was done.
It's no secret the Chinese have had backdoors to our electronic devices for decades. Several chip makers have pressured the US government to stop importing their (govt system) chips because it was impossible to determine how the backdoors were implemented.
So why did cable have a better-than-usual fourth quarter? Charter, Time Warner Cable and Comcast have all been deploying faster speeds and new cable set top boxes, which appear to be luring back some customers that had previously fled to satellite and telcoTV alternatives. I'm not buying this for one second.
The only reason growth restored is the oligopoly rule which states "If you want our top of the line service, you'll have to get a bundle. It's not available as a stand alone product."
AT&T has a 72Mbps connection in its U-Verse lineup. However, if you want only this, you can't get it. It's only available to (qualified customers) and with AT&Ts bundle of cable (phone optional, not required).
The biggest insult comes in the form of the generous 20% discount you can receive off your monthly cable bill if you also switch to AT&T's wireless plan.
In short: give them all your money, and watch as the company throttles the crap out of your high speed "choice".
For the most part, Techdirt has been up front with alerting its readers the site requires disabling AdBlock, leaving the choice to the user.
It's been working, though I can see this being tedious to include in every article, especially since the issue is growing.
A suggestion: atop the page, denote links coded in red point to sites demanding ad blocking be disabled. In addition, add tooltips/jQuery popup to alert the same.
This way, authors don't have to worry about adding the disclaimer in each and every time.
Personally, I wouldn't link to them at all nor would I mention the site by name. If information came from the NYT then I'd write it as: "A source from a major news publication published an editorial on..."
Because if they're going to treat their readers like this, then they're effectively treating everyone like this, and all for the lousy price of $0.0001 per read.
Hardly worth the price of admission and if more sites stand up to stop linking to these sites even if such content doesn't require removing adblock, then that's going to drive the point even faster.
Conde Nast needs to be taught a lesson and perhaps this is the best way to show value isn't something companies control.
Vote: no links to any site that demands ad block be removed even if said content isn't blocked.
Of the millions of CenturyLink High-Speed Internet customers, a very small fraction has exceeded the download usage limits provided with their monthly plan. It is for this reason that CenturyLink has made the decision to place download limits on residential plans.
We threw the baby out with the bathwater because someone peed in your neighbor's pool.
It’s pretty egregious for a corporation to try to bully a news organization into deep-sixing comments from its own readers. I laughed at this, literally. Not to say Gawker takes part in what I'm about to do, but my Magic Internet Pencil™ has to be used:
It’s pretty egregious for a news corporation to try to bully a news organization into deep-sixing comments from its own readers. All I did was add one word, and damn, how perfect it fits other articles by Techdirt where news sites are trashing their own comments.
Yeah. Nothing says customer appreciation like Apple's "You're $700 phone is now a piece of shit because we think you had it repaired at a service center where we don't get a cut." response to affected phones.
pecifically the Playstation 4 and Xbox One, are both designed specifically with ways for gamers to record gameplay and share those recordings. Okay, now that the tears have stopped flowing from laughing so hard, time to get down to business.
In what damn planet does a person reside to believe the XBox One was specifically designed to record gameplay and share those recordings?
First up, as an XBox One owner, the actual mechanism to record the video is clearly an after thought, where a bunch of brain-dead designers sat in a room and asked the question "Of all the console buttons we have, how should we make it the most annoying to record video or take a screenshot?"
For you non-owners of the 30% App Cut One, the answer is by double clicking the controller's power button quickly, then quickly using the D-pad to select either video or screenshot.
In case you don't understand why quickly was emphasized, the next time you play a game on any console and hit the controller's start button and note what happens to the game. Better yet: the game pauses, as it should. Thus, if you don't quickly make your options, your video consists of the gorram pause screen.
Moving onto the other asinine statement is the upload content provider we're forced to deal with, and trust me when I say this, I'm not alone to say THE CONTENT PROVIDER FUCKING SUCKS.
That provider is Twitch, and the name should ring a bell to fellow Techdirt readers, because this is the same content provider who strips music from video uploads, because all that time you took to edit your finely produced and edited video (now that you can truncate the pause screen) is cut by Twitch.
In fact, the entire ability is clearly a "We hate the idea of gamers sharing" that people can't even use their own music for their videos (though I could clearly see how this could be "abused", despite the effect having the "Wow! Great song! Who made it?").
I also enjoy Wil's commentary about all things digital, but I also get the feeling behind his words is a flock of lawyers who guide him on what he can and should say.
Because you can bet your ass one day, someone will see Wil playing a board game and take the video down.
If this never happens, the next obvious remark would be "How much did you get paid for this cleverly disguised advertising"?
That's the bullshit world we live in, and despite Techdirt's repeated articles of how it's clearly getting worse, Wil's practices are now an instructional video on what NOT to do, especially on a media that can reach billions around the world.
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets on the Twitter Services available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same."
... is to know people waive their rights when using third party services, so any threats of "infringement" can be laughed off with a cocktail made of the tears streaming from the "victim".