CloudTalkin

About

Username
CloudTalkin
Joined
Visits
103
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,435
Badges
1
Posts
919

Reactions

1.3KLike0Dislike414Informative

  • Apple sued for alleged infringement of wireless communication patents

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    killroy said:
    Ok what does the mobile carriers and the FCC have to say. And the frand rules.

    FRAND is the acronym for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. FRAND is the acronym for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. It generally arises in antitrust cases where an owner of intellectual property rights (IPR) refuses to grant a licence or refuses to grant a licence on FRAND terms.

    Based on a cursory search, none of the patents in question are Standards Essential Patents (SEP), so FRAND licensing wouldn't be applicable in this case.  FRAND terms are  usually in cases where SEP's are being debated.  Again, a quick glance says this case has no SEP's so FRAND isn't applicable.  The FCC has nothing to say in a legal matter that isn't under their purview.  AFAIK, this issue isn't.
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguy

  • AT&T merging TV and TV Now into a single, non-contract service

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    lkrupp said:
    AT&T keeps thinking that their customers like them. 
    Then explain their continued growth in subscribers. Explain their continued success.

    So we have the “Only stupid people use AT&T”, “Only Stupid people use Verizon”, Only stupid people use T-Mobile, "Only stupid people buy Apple products” cult members. Just because you had a bad experience with AT&T does not mean everyone does. Same goes for Verizon, T-Mobile, and Apple. It’s funnier than hell to read the rants and rages against <insert demon corporation>. In my case it’s “Only stupid people buy Firestone tires” because of a bad experience forty years ago. I have no idea why Firestone is still in business after what happened to me.
    I can explain their continued growth in subscribers.  There is none.  I mean, unless you count customer loss as "negative growth".  AT&T subscriber numbers have only shrunken.  
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/att-loses-another-600000-tv-customers-as-it-seeks-buyer-for-directv/ ;
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/struggling-att-plans-tens-of-billions-in-cost-cuts-more-layoffs/

    I can also explain their continued success.  Surprise to no one, it ain't what you think it is and I'd hardly call it success.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/12/att-reportedly-struggling-to-sell-directv-at-anything-but-a-huge-loss/
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/att-plans-thousands-of-layoffs-at-hbo-warner-bros-rest-of-warnermedia/

    I can even provide plausible reasons why their customers probably don't like them. 'Cause of things like this:
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/att-raises-directv-prices-again-amid-customer-losses-and-possible-sale/
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/att-has-trouble-figuring-out-where-it-offers-government-funded-internet/
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/att-gave-fcc-false-broadband-coverage-data-in-parts-of-20-states/
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/02/att-lost-1-2b-by-preventing-time-warner-shows-from-airing-on-netflix/

    Using your example, Facebook must be the greatest company in the history of companies.  /s


    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Hyundai in talks with Apple to produce 'Apple Car'

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    Tesla's stock value is about a third of Apple's, even though Apple makes (nearly) ten times as much profit as Tesla. Using those profit numbers, that suggests that Tesla is roughly three time overvalued.

    Tesla can't pay cash for any other car company, since most car companies are worth $60 billion. Tesla would have to pay with a stock swap. However I believe no car manufacturer's CEO would accept Tesla's stock since it's overvalued.
    First off, if Tesla is really making 10% of the profit of Apple, that's very, very impressive (and shows that this market is certainly worth Apple's interest).  Also, it's that's true it makes sense that Telsa's market value is so high--as much as I hate to say it.  A few years ago Tesla wasn't profitable at all.  So to go from that to making tens of billions of dollars are year in profits in a few years puts them on a remarkable growth path.  Stock prices aren't based on today's profits, they are based on (primarily) expectations of future profits.  So if they can draw a line showing that their profits will be a third of Apple's or even higher in a few years, then having a market value that high makes sense.

    Look at it this way, Amazon's stock price was sky high during the years when they were losing money every quarter, and now they completely own ecommerce.  In retrospect, it's hard to argue for those rose-colored-glasses-wearing early Amazon investors (of which I was not one, nor am I a Tesla investor).
    Just so you know, you're arguing against my man's hyperbole.  By very creatively rounding up, I was able to credit Tesla with $6.5B in profit.  I removed almost $5B from Apples profit so they'd be left with $100B.  Tesla and Apple use the same fiscal calendar so comparing them is easy.  Even doing drunk accountant, cock-eyed math I can't finagle a 10x difference in their profits.  

    I personally doubt they'll ever come close to a 3rd of Apple's profits.  Too much competition has entered the market.  Telsa' is no longer the top selling EV manufacturer in Europe.  They aren't even in the top 10 anymore.  Last column.
    92FED03B-13CF-4A74-83F4-BAD59D871634png
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • DHS advises companies to avoid Chinese hardware and software services

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    matrix077 said:
    genovelle said:
    Interesting. China huh? Nothing about the massive on going widespread Russian breach that had been going on for 9 months undetected. Could it be that they are being directed to focus on China while ignoring all other threats. Even as the attack is happening in real time, they are focusing on China. No one else finds that to be odd?
    Or it’s simply because the US rarely buy computer hardware and software from Russia. 
    jeez..
    That's a pretty uninformed response.  I rarely agree with anything genovelle posts, but in this instance their quote is 100% right.  We're making all kinds of noise about what China could possibly-might-maybe-sorta kinda do regarding our economy.  Yet we're conspicuously ignoring the actual and possible ongoing breach from Russia that focused on our tech and government.  Ars Technica has an illuminating article about the breach. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/12/only-an-elite-few-solarwinds-hack-victims-received-follow-on-attacks/
    Excerpt: " Of the 18,000 organizations that downloaded a backdoored version of software from SolarWinds, the tiniest of slivers—possibly as small as 0.2 percent—received a follow-on hack that used the backdoor to install a second-stage payload. The largest populations receiving stage two were, in order, tech companies, government agencies, and think tanks/NGOs. The vast majority—80 percent—of these 40 chosen ones were located in the US." 

    This has nothing to do with where we buy computer hardware and software.  It's about actual infiltration vs narrative building FUD.  Jeez.
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac

  • Cellebrite and other iPhone hacking tools purchased by U.S. public schools

    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin
    lkrupp said:
    A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
    I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
    This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem.  The student gave consent for their phone to be searched.  Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved.  Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued.  At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.  

    Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district.  A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause.  Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property.  Due process rules in that instance.  If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.

    As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent:   In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators.  And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
    Whether the student felt pressured is not germane.   We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone.  In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted.  No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property.  Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance.  As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made.  Both instances were legal in that particular situation.  

    Morally, I think it's pretty f'd.  My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval.  They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime.  If asked, do as requested.  Their personal devices... nope.  My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance.  Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
    Not germane?  That's ridiculous!
    No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person,  into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent.   And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.  

    The school violated rules of ethics and of law. 
    What a great example for its students to follow!  /s
    The school violated no law, but feel free to point out which one you think they did.  You won't be a able to find a violation but, feel free to look.

    So no, not germane.  It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head.  More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid.  Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story?  It will disavow you of your notions of what happened.  I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted:  This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools.  In fact, it's not even an example at all.  The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school.   https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite?  There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
    muthuk_vanalingam