Honest: It's A Software SlingBox

Honest Technology has developed what it calls a software version of the SlingBox, a tool to pipe television content over the Internet remotely to users.

Sony 80GB Digital Photo Album

PMA 2006: Sony has announced a new photo storage hard drive unit that can store up to a whopping 80GB of images. The HDPS-L1 is about half the size of a regular DVD player and supports seven types of flash media cards.

The definition of a review

As a result of numerous enquiries from dpreview visitors we have become aware that there is increasing confusion about what constitutes a 'review' and the differences between reviews and previews on this site and the Internet as a whole. This confusion doesn't help visitors looking for qualified information when choosing a camera, and the misuse of the word 'review' is beginning to tarnish the hard work put into reviews here and on other sites. After discussion with Dave at Imaging-Resource and Jeff at Digital Camera Resource Page we have jointly developed some standard 'editorial definitions' which clearly lay out what readers should expect from articles titled 'preview' or 'review'. This standard will be adhered to across all three sites (although in actual fact we three have been following these standards since the beginning).

If The Trade Press Can't Get This Right... Copyright And Patents Are Different

It's understandable that not everyone gets the difference between various types of intellectual property. It's pretty common to see people confuse copyrights, patents and trademarks. However, you don't expect to see it in a technology trade publication where both the writer and the editor should obviously know better. However, PCWorld has a story up about Sony's ongoing patent lawsuit with haptics firm Immersion. However, throughout the article (and even in the headline), it's referred to as a "copyright" dispute. The article even specifically says: "Immersion sued Microsoft and Sony for violating its copyright on handheld game controls." There are plenty of important issues to be discussed concerning intellectual property and how it impacts innovation and the technology world. Having respected news sources confusing matters by making such simple mistakes doesn't help.

Security Through Begging

Last summer, the surprising news came out that Japanese nuclear secrets leaked out, after a contractor was allowed to connect his personal virus-infested computer to the network at a nuclear power plant. The contractor had a file sharing app on his laptop as well, and suddenly nuclear secrets were available to plenty of kids just trying to download the latest hit single. It's only taken about nine months for the government to come up with its suggestion on how to prevent future leaks of this nature: begging all Japanese citizens not to use file sharing systems -- so that the next time this happens, there won't be anyone on the network to download such documents. Beyond the fact that this is unlikely to have any effect (at all) on file sharing in Japan, it has nothing to do with the actual security breach. It wasn't the use of a file sharing system that was to blame here, but the security setup that allows an outside contractor to hook up his personal computer to the power plant's network without doing any kind of security check whatsoever to see if (a) his computer has malware or (b) his computer has file sharing software -- while leaving top secret documents available for his computer to access. If this is how government officials react to such leaks (taking forever and completely missing the root cause of the problem, while suggesting a solution that is impossible to implement), it's almost amazing that such leaks didn't happen sooner.

Quick, I Need Some WiFi To Take My Medicine

The latest attempt at improving modern medicine is apparently an implanted microchip that can be controlled wirelessly from outside the body to release medicine into someone's bloodstream. The system is supposedly more advanced that other internal drug delivery systems, in that it can be controlled from outside the body using some form of wireless connection. The idea is that the system could better monitor what's actually going on inside the body, and releases doses accordingly, rather than the slightly less scientific method of "take two of these, and call me in the morning." Of course, the opening of the article discusses the wireless connection on the device, but it's not entirely clear from the rest of the article what it does or how it works. Still, if there were fears a few years ago that hackers could hack your pacemaker, just imagine what they could do if they could control what medicines were released in your body.

Video Game Company That Does Everything "Wrong" Gets It Right

tk writes in to point out that video game company Stardock did everything "wrong" according to many who try to sell video games: "they use word of mouth marketing, has no copy protection (the serial is needed for updates) with a (relatively) cheap price and they listen to what users want." Despite all of these "mistakes," however, the results suggest that such an approach worked. As tk notes, "they have managed to gain the top spot in Walmart. Best Buy, EB, and Gamestop are ordering stocks above their sell-in orders." The source of this info is the company itself on their own forums, so some may question the accuracy of it. It would be nice to get confirmation (or proof that this is incorrect). There is also an interesting follow up to this story. Since the company decided not to use copy protection, some are claiming that they want the game to be "pirated." It also apparently upset employees of a Starforce, a company who doesn't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to providing copy protection for video games. Stardock is now accusing Starforce of pointing people to cracked copies, in an effort to hurt the software provider for not using copy protection. As the company itself points out: "Our software gets pirated. We don't like it but piracy is a fact of life. The question isn't about eliminating it, it's about reducing it and trying to make sure that people who would buy your product buy it instead of steal it. Our primary weapon to fight piracy is through rewarding customers through convenient, frequent, free updates. If you make it easy for users to buy and make full use of your product or service legitimately then we believe that you'll gain more users from that convenience than you'll lose from piracy."

CIA Agents Not Feeling So Lucky: Internet Reveals Cover Stories

In the information age, it appears, coming up with a decent cover story while being a CIA agent is increasingly difficult. In fact, some enterprising reporters used some free and fee-based internet services to uncover all sorts of information about CIA agents and CIA-owned locations. The article is a bit vague in how they worked all this out -- but you have to imagine that's on purpose. However, the basic conclusion is that the CIA needs to recognize that doing a bit of sleuthing online gives a lot of people a lot more to work with than they had in the past -- and cover stories can be much more easily checked out. The fact that they're just now realizing this is a bit worrisome.

What? There's A Downside To DRM?

Copy protection and DRM aren't wonder toys. What protection -- if any -- they provide content suppliers comes at a pretty significant cost. A Yahoo exec ruffled some feathers when he said the company would be better off selling music without copy protection, and several people in the industry are wondering if copy protection is really worthwhile, noting that it's probably not stopped any piracy, but has also hindered sales. While it's easy to reject copy protection out of hand on ideological grounds, it's also hard to make a good business case for it. You're making your content less valuable, and limiting the audience to which it can be sold. The industry needs to figure these things out, and quickly, or a solution will probably be foisted on them. Consumer groups in Norway and the UK have lodged complaints about iTunes, the iPod and its DRM, and the French copyright law that's being discussed could force proprietary DRM systems to open up so consumers could listen to their music on any device they want.

Amazon Offers Up The Platform That Google And Yahoo Should Have Built

For years and years we've been talking about the idea that the trick to "owning" the internet is to become the platform of the internet. It seemed like Google was moving in this direction when word of Google Base first leaked out, but the actual offering turned out to be a whole lot less. It was trying to be a product, not a platform. Yahoo has been slowly, slowly, slowly opening up APIs, but seems so worried to take the real plunge that it's almost too little to mention. It got to the point that we thought some of the more innovative stuff in terms of really being open was coming out of a tiny startup we had present at our Techdirt Greenhouse event over the weekend -- even knowing that such a small company faced a huge challenge trying to stand up against Google and Yahoo. In fact, Openomy's discussion question this weekend was focused around how could they compete against those two. Perhaps those guys from Chicago were looking in the wrong direction. Word is leaking out tonight that it's Amazon that's leading the way with the open platform. This isn't about storage, even though that's what most people will talk about. This is about being the file system and database on which web apps are built. That's much more powerful than just storage. Forget the head fake of Amazon getting into contextual advertising. Combine this announcement with the announcement a few months ago from Amazon subsidiary Alexa opening up their search platform, and start to imagine what developers could do if they can simply plug into an open online file system/database and an open search engine -- and then just build an app on top of that. It's like Amazon just provided much of the database and middleware someone might need to develop a web-based app. Of course, there's a lot of marketing that needs to be done between here and there, and convincing everyone to jump on that platform may not be easy (and who knows, the terms of service may be problematic). That's, in part, because people just don't think of Amazon in this way. However, if Amazon really can convince people that it's providing the basics they need to build the next generation of web apps, Amazon just became a much more interesting company -- not by copying Google and Yahoo, but by going beyond them and doing what both companies have yet to do.

Chinese Censorship Story Of The Week A Hoax

Recently, two Chinese bloggers found a clever way to capitalize on the recent firestorm about internet censorship there. They set up a hoax -- shutting down their sites and posting a message about being forced down by government censors. Only after the story spread (it was picked up by the BBC and even the cover of Newsweek Asia), did they reveal that the joke was on the international press for demonstrating what kinds of stories from China they want to report on. Any reporter or news agency can fall for a hoax, but censorship stories, and censorship stories relating to bloggers in particular (like the recent BoingBoing dustup), are hot right now. While it can be debated whether it's navel-gazing or not that the press (and in particular the online press) places such emphasis on online censorship, it shouldn't be ignored that there are regular violent crackdowns on other rights that warrant attention as well.

People Think Talking From The Toilet Is A Bunch Of Crap

Americans still have some way to go to catch the Germans, but apparently nearly 4 out of 10 people think it's okay to talk on a cell phone in the bathroom. While that may seem like a lot, it's actually down from 62% in 2003, the last time the company did this survey. Surprising as well is that 11% of people thought it was okay to talk on the phone in a movie theater in 2000, but just 2% find the behavior acceptable today. You'd almost expect people to become more forgiving about when and where people use their phones as they become more pervasive, but of the five places covered in the survey, only phone use in the supermarket has become more acceptable since 2000. Of course, one final question doesn't seem to have been included on the survey, asking people which places they don't think it's okay to talk on the phone, but do it anyway.

What's Your Problem? Apparently, It's Misusing Trademark Law

Nick Burns writes in to point out the latest misuse of trademark law -- not just for profit, but as a publicity stunt. As has been discussed way too often, trademark law is supposed to just protect consumers from confusion (that is you can't sell some other soda and call it Coca-Cola, as that will confuse people). It is not to give the trademark holder complete control over the use of the trademark -- which is why we can mention Coca Cola and not get sued. Unfortunately, in this age where so many people are trying to expand intellectual property rules simply for profit, rather than to support what they were originally intended to support, we hear all sorts of silly stories. Usually, these stories are about companies or lawyers thinking they can extract some extra cash from someone, but this latest one is an extra creative misuse of trademark law: it's completely being used as a publicity stunt. It starts with a woman who has some little known, little watched public access TV program, where she's trademarked the phrase "What's Your Problem?" Apparently, a recent episode of the TV show Boston Legal used that phrase in commercials showing on ABC (owned by Disney). The woman is now suing ABC/Disney for misusing her trademark, as if anyone in the world would somehow be confused into thinking Boston Legal was associated with her show. About the only reason to do such a thing is to try to get extra publicity (which apparently worked), but with stories like these clogging up the court system it's a problem for everyone.

Judge Says He'll Make Google Cough Up Some Info For Feds

Well that didn't take long at all. While he still hasn't released his official decision, it sounds like the judge hearing the dispute between the Department of Justice and Google over whether or not Google needs to turn over a random sample of searches and URLs has made up his mind. He's going to split the difference and require Google to turn over some data, though it's not entirely clear how much. Apparently, Google's original effort in basically suggesting the government was clueless wasn't particularly convincing. In court, the company took a somewhat different strategy -- apparently focusing on the fact that Amazon's Alexa now offers open access, so the government researcher can get all the data he needs from there. Even the judge admitted that he was worried the result of this case would force Google to hand over data to researchers involved in all sorts of lawsuits -- and thus, it's expected that he'll have the government compensate Google for the work needed to supply the data. Already, though, the ACLU (which is on the other side from the government in this case) has said that it, too, will need to get data from Google in order to respond to the government's case. While it seems unlikely that any of the data revealed gives up any seriously private info, this does seem to open some worrisome precedent-setting doors that could lead to problems in future cases. Update: A different take on today's events claims that Google and the DoJ had already reached a settlement on handing over the data before today's hearings -- and the hearings were just a facade to make everyone look better.

Touching Your Earpiece Violates Driving-While-Yakking Law?

There are plenty of places that have so-called "hands free" laws, requiring drivers to use a hands free kit with their mobile phone while driving. Leaving aside the debate (and there is a big one) over whether or not using an earpiece instead of holding the phone is any safer, it appears that in some areas, they take the "hands free" part extremely seriously. A man who was using an earpiece while driving, but who was touching the earpiece was fined for violating the law. After all, he was holding the phone piece up to his ear. At least that's what the judge decided in the latest appeal to the fine. The judge noted that the guy "was using a mobile telephone which was hand held," thus violating the wording of the law. The guy in question isn't particularly happy, and is thinking of appealing again.

Exploiting Tragedy By Blaming Technology

Earlier this week, an 18-year-old deaf girl in Austin, Texas, got hit by a train as she walked along some tracks, and was killed. Likely because of her role as Miss Deaf Texas, the case has gotten some national media attention, and has been featured on the front page of the CNN web site. Today, there's another story there, with the headline "Deaf beauty queen was text-messaging when hit by train", followed with a lead that further infers the text messaging had something to do with her death. Forgive me for explaining the obvious, but it's pretty much completely irrelevant that the girl was sending or reading text messages when she was struck -- from behind -- by the train. Remember that she was deaf? Her death resulted from a tragic set of circumstances, but CNN has to blame something, apparently, to keep people's interest, so why not the text messages?