UPDATE: Wolverine's X-Men: First Class Cameo Revealed!: "Well, looks like the rumors were true! While the cameo sounds like a fairly small, light hearted one, it should be interesting to see exactly what role Hugh Jackman's Wolverine plays in the movie and whether there are any hints of him being the one mutant Matthew Vaughn is planning on introducing in the sequel!
UPDATE: Now that the story has been leaked, we know what the scene is, and Hugh definitely IS playing Wolverine. Here's the cameo as described by the guys at Bleeding Cool...
Half way through X-Men: First Class, as Professor X and Magneto are travelling the world looking for mutants, they come across Wolverine, played by Hugh Jackman, in a bar. Before they can get a sentence out, Wolverine, without looking at them tells them to 'Go fuck yourselves.' They leave.
The character’s appearance gets a laugh, his attitude and language gets a double laugh, repeating on itself, through the"
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Another step in the browser-based desktop revolution
Another step in the browser-based desktop revolution: "Posted by Rajen Sheth, Group Product Manager, Chrome for Business
Two weeks ago at Google I/O, we unveiled the first Chromebooks, a new kind of computer built and optimized for people who live on the web. Chromebooks are fast, secure and easy to manage. With a monthly subscription that includes a Chromebook, a web-based management console and 24/7 support starting at $28 for businesses and $20 for schools, Chromebooks will delight users, reduce IT complexity and save money.
The best part is: most organizations can use Chromebooks today because they’re already using web-based applications, or they’re using browser-based apps and virtualization technology to remotely access any remaining desktop apps. In fact, a recent survey we commissioned found that two-thirds of companies could switch the majority of their employees to an exclusively browser-based computing environment like Chromebooks by using a combination of web apps and application virtualization.1 To this end, we’ve worked closely with Citrix to bring application virtualization to Chromebooks.
Today we’re excited that Citrix has announced the general availability of Citrix Receiver for Chromebooks, based on HTML5 standards. This is great news for businesses and schools that want to take advantage of a modern browser-based operating system while preserving access to their existing desktop applications. At I/O for instance, we demonstrated Citrix Receiver running on Chromebooks and accessing a virtualized version of Adobe® Photoshop® right from the browser.
Now Chromebook users can not only access the huge number of business web apps and browser-based applications behind the firewall, but through Citrix Receiver they can also access an exhaustive set of desktop applications. This means that organizations don’t have to repurchase or rewrite existing applications when moving to Chromebooks, and they can offer Chromebooks to a wider range of users. We’re working to make the browser the platform for business computing, and we’re happy to be collaborating with Citrix on this transformation. Learn more about Chromebooks.
1Google-commissioned 2011 Hall & Partners online survey of over 400 IT decision makers.
"
Two weeks ago at Google I/O, we unveiled the first Chromebooks, a new kind of computer built and optimized for people who live on the web. Chromebooks are fast, secure and easy to manage. With a monthly subscription that includes a Chromebook, a web-based management console and 24/7 support starting at $28 for businesses and $20 for schools, Chromebooks will delight users, reduce IT complexity and save money.
The best part is: most organizations can use Chromebooks today because they’re already using web-based applications, or they’re using browser-based apps and virtualization technology to remotely access any remaining desktop apps. In fact, a recent survey we commissioned found that two-thirds of companies could switch the majority of their employees to an exclusively browser-based computing environment like Chromebooks by using a combination of web apps and application virtualization.1 To this end, we’ve worked closely with Citrix to bring application virtualization to Chromebooks.
Today we’re excited that Citrix has announced the general availability of Citrix Receiver for Chromebooks, based on HTML5 standards. This is great news for businesses and schools that want to take advantage of a modern browser-based operating system while preserving access to their existing desktop applications. At I/O for instance, we demonstrated Citrix Receiver running on Chromebooks and accessing a virtualized version of Adobe® Photoshop® right from the browser.
Now Chromebook users can not only access the huge number of business web apps and browser-based applications behind the firewall, but through Citrix Receiver they can also access an exhaustive set of desktop applications. This means that organizations don’t have to repurchase or rewrite existing applications when moving to Chromebooks, and they can offer Chromebooks to a wider range of users. We’re working to make the browser the platform for business computing, and we’re happy to be collaborating with Citrix on this transformation. Learn more about Chromebooks.
1Google-commissioned 2011 Hall & Partners online survey of over 400 IT decision makers.
"
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Sarkozy's false-flag E-G8 attracts withering scorn
Sarkozy's false-flag E-G8 attracts withering scorn: "Nicolas Sarkozy's false-flag E-G8 project has blown up in his face. The French leader convened a meeting of 'digital thinkers' that was supposed to be a kind of levelheaded discussion of how to 'civilize' the Internet -- Sarkozian code for censor, surveil and control. But the very people he hoped to woo spotted his project's hidden agenda straight away. The E-G8 White Paper is sharply critical of the exercise, and a coalition of civil society groups used the occasion to call on world leaders to fight censorship and surveillance and establish Net Neutrality.
France attempts to 'civilize' the Internet; Internet fights back
Internet governance and civil society groups issued a statement charging that the 'e-G8 Forum is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors... Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate.'
The French Internet activists at La Quadrature du Net have been even tougher. Governments 'have entered an alliance with some of these companies, united in the fear of the new capabilities afforded to individuals by the Internet and computers,' said spokesperson Jérémie Zimmermann.
So when Sarkozy took the stage of the e-G8 this morning, suspicions about his true motives were already rampant. And he did little to dispel them.
France attempts to 'civilize' the Internet; Internet fights back
(Image: François Revol)
Monday, 23 May 2011
No Movies For You!
No Movies For You!: "
"
Image Credit: Sysgear.org
I have not written an opinion piece in a long while, mostly because I usually cover my opinions when we have a 'Rayge Against the Machine' segment on AGTN. But this morning, I find myself dusting off the old opinion button here at AG, because of the fact that those of us, (pretty much everyone reading this blog), who have rooted devices will not be able to rent movies on the shiny new offering from Google in the Android Web Market. If you have not heard as of yet, Google has released the following statement in response to people trying to play movies on rooted devices:
You’ll receive this “Error 49″ message if you attempt to play a movie on a rooted device. Rooted devices are currently unsupported due to requirements related to copyright protection.
At first, I was totally understanding of this this block that Google has placed. At the end of the day, Google is a company out to make money, and they have partners that they have to both appease and protect, so that the model can be supported for the long term. But then, I started reviewing my I/O notes, because something was niggling in the back of my head. That something was the fact that I could swear that I heard a Google executive say from the stage that a device they were hawking was going to be fully-rootable. Which got a cavalcade of applause, including my own.
Sure enough, it happened, the statement was made. Now, granted, it was made during the Chrome OS keynote, but it is there. One of the major reasons that many of us are Android users, and tech savvy geeks are flocking to Android is because you can have full access to your device, allowing interesting development and tinkering. To hear now that a major new service that was a big part of the Android keynote during I/O is not going to be available to rooted users? Well, that makes me pretty unhappy, and frankly, I think Google has screwed the pooch here.
How can you extol the virtues of a platform that is semi-open to it's users and to potential customers as a selling point, then turn around and punish them for doing exactly that? We live in the age of piracy now, not information. Yes, I am aware that piracy is rampant, yes I am aware that movie companies are losing money and yes I am aware that Android devices allow these things to happen. My problem is with the fact that Google itself has pointed to rooting as one of the big advantages of their devices, which it still is in many respects, but now has closed a door in the face of the users that jumped at the chance that was given them.
My problem here is that Google has not curbed piracy in the least bit, but has actually contributed to the problem. Piracy is a simple notion. People want the content, application or functionality. Many times, they simply cannot afford it. Solution? Go download and crack it. Google has now taken away the ability to legally rent movies from the Market. Solution? Go download the movie using newsgroups and throw it on your device. Which is happening, I guarantee it. Instead of the movie industry realizing that they have got to change their tack about how to approach the piracy issue, they simply throw the handcuffs on all the companies who are trying to provide new conduits to their product.
By forcing Google (and this is my assumption here, I can not make any other sense of this decision) to close the theater doors to rooted devices, the movie industry has shot themselves in the foot, yet again. Have they seen the numbers that Apple is generating with their movie and songs sales? Astronomical. Have they seen that Android now dominates the market? I think they have, which scares them because they do not understand the notion of root status on a device.
Hey, if you are going to take the time on a rooted device to try and rip a mobile copy of a movie, I think you have a lot of time on your hands. To be honest, I have not heard of even one person that I know in the community doing this. I am not sure if they think that we are all sitting behind computer in our mad labs trying to steal movies like Salt or Kick-Ass.
Google, I blame you for not making a stronger case to your partners about the realities of this issue. Shame on you. Do no evil. I learned that from going to church, but have heard you extol that virtue time and time again. In this case, I am not sure if you have not screwed the pooch for that statement.
Executives in the movie industry, you are stupid. Flat out. You lack imagination which is shown in your horrible re-hash of movies and anything that lacks true creativity. Do we really need another American Pie movie? You are still under the assumption that the way you make money is to force people to a movie theater. You still think the way to control piracy is to throw handcuffs on. You will never stop piracy, but you sure can curb it by offering different avenues for purchase of your product, and keeping the price reasonable. You will make much more money in the longtail of selling than you are losing in piracy right now. Give pirates a choice of spending $.99 - $3.99 on their devices to rent a title, and you are going to see a drop. It will never be gone, it is just not in human nature.
And the funny part? There will be a workaround soon. There will be some sort of cloaking that the community is going to figure out, and this whole thing is going to be some stupid farce anyhow. A cloak that will be possible because of our open, rooted devices.
No Movies For You! originally appeared on AndroidGuys.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!
You May Also Enjoy...
- Google Announces Two New Streaming Media Services at I/O
- Android Dev Learns How Far is Too Far for Ad Revenue
- HBO Go Streaming Coming to Android Devices May 2
"
Cinema chains dimming movies "up to 85%" on digital projectors
Cinema chains dimming movies "up to 85%" on digital projectors: "
The Boston Globe reports that AMC, National Amusements, and Regal cinema chains are leaving 3D projector lenses on for 2D movies. This means that the projected image is polarized and far dimmer than it should be. The chains won't acknowledge that they're doing it, but one quoted insider says its an 'unspoken' corporate policy.
Given that your HD TV set shows it just fine, and your living room doesn't smell of weaponized butter, aren't they driving customers to piracy? Try this for irony: one reason operators hate changing lenses is reportedly because of crippling DRM on Sony's digital projectors, which 'will shut down on you' if a mistake is made when resetting the system. So, they just don't change them, because serving a ruined product is better than serving no product at all.
"
The Boston Globe reports that AMC, National Amusements, and Regal cinema chains are leaving 3D projector lenses on for 2D movies. This means that the projected image is polarized and far dimmer than it should be. The chains won't acknowledge that they're doing it, but one quoted insider says its an 'unspoken' corporate policy.
Given that your HD TV set shows it just fine, and your living room doesn't smell of weaponized butter, aren't they driving customers to piracy? Try this for irony: one reason operators hate changing lenses is reportedly because of crippling DRM on Sony's digital projectors, which 'will shut down on you' if a mistake is made when resetting the system. So, they just don't change them, because serving a ruined product is better than serving no product at all.
"
Apple upgrades leave bitter taste
Apple upgrades leave bitter taste: "
The latest version of iTunes has left Mac and iPod customers fuming because much of their highly expensive hardware no longer works ... as Rupert Jones discovered
A pricey but stylish MacBook laptop, a variety of iPods and now a wallet-busting iPhone 4 … I've bought them all. So why is Apple now penalising me and thousands of other loyal customers by effectively declaring that our computers are obsolete?
If you go out and buy an iPhone 4 or the latest iPod shuffle, iPod nano or iPod touch, you won't be able to use it unless you have the latest version of iTunes (iTunes 10) on your computer. No problem, you think – it's simply a case of downloading it from Apple's website. But I've just made a rather unpleasant discovery: "older" Mac computers are unable to run the latest version of iTunes. And I'm not alone; it's a problem that has sparked fury among Apple users across the world (see panel right).
Yet my MacBook isn't ancient: it's only about four years old. And it's not as if I'm trying to hook up one of the latest devices to a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. What adds insult to injury is that if I had a 10-year-old Windows PC, I wouldn't be experiencing these problems. I'd be able to happily download the new iTunes. But my four-year-old Mac? 'Fraid not.
You'd think there would be a simple and free solution to this, bearing in mind this is a free download we are talking about and that we are Apple customers who have just shelled out on the latest Apple products – but no.
It seems we have been left with gadgets we can't use, unless we pay more money for a software update. To make matters worse, I and many others have been told we must track down and buy the update, called Leopard, which is not only hard to get hold of (Apple's UK retail stores no longer stock it) but expensive (£120 new on Amazon). I suspect what Apple wants us to do is throw our hands in the air and go out and buy a new computer (one of its own, of course).
We first noticed something was amiss about a fortnight ago when my nine-year-old daughter, Flora, bought a new £39 iPod shuffle with her pocket money, and I treated myself to an iPhone 4. I connected the shuffle to our computer, but a message came up saying the iPod "cannot be used because it requires iTunes version 10.0 or later". So I downloaded iTunes 10, but then another message popped up: "Open Failed … This package type requires Mac OS X 10.5." It was the same story with the iPhone 4. Flora is pretty cheesed off about not being able to listen to the Black Eyed Peas and Rihanna on her new gizmo.
I thought it was just us, but when I went online I found web forums packed with unhappy Apple owners complaining they have been abandoned, and that this is all about 'forcing' us to buy new computers.
On the Apple website's support forums, one thread alone is now running to 19 pages of complaints and comments, and has racked up more than 139,000 views. Here's a typical comment: "Just bought a new Nano for my daughter for Christmas, and it is not even compatible with v[ersion]9 iTunes. Since I have Tiger 10.4.11, I cannot update to v10. Thank you Apple. Now my daughter's gift from Santa cannot be used on my iMac, which is only three years old …"
Confused and bemused, I booked an appointment to see one of Apple's in-house 'geniuses' at its store on London's Regent Street. She examined my laptop and told me I could solve this by buying Leopard (not its successor Snow Leopard, she said) but that before running it, I would need to 'back up manually all the data – put it on to an external hard drive'.
I rang Apple's UK 0800 number and asked how I could obtain Leopard. The friendly chap told me he should be able to get it for me, though it would cost £87. I said I'd think about it.
It just doesn't make sense to me that Apple supports Windows XP, made by a rival company, but won't support a slightly older version of its own operating system, and won't offer some kind of free solution to those people who are continuing to swell Steve Jobs's coffers by buying his new products.
Apple was this month named the world's most valuable brand, with an 84% increase in its estimated value to $153bn (£93bn), so maybe it could channel a sliver of that cash into helping its forgotten customers.
It is probably already very apparent that I am not a "techie". Some people will doubtless be quick to respond to my complaint by saying that computers and operating systems have a finite lifetime; that laptops are designed to be replaced after three or four years; that Apple isn't a charity. Some will say it's my fault for failing to check technical specifications before handing over my cash – though many of those affected were given their products as gifts.
With the prices Apple charges for its computers, I don't buy the 'disposable' argument. And my MacBook is hardly a pensioner of the computer world. I thought one of Apple's selling points was that its products don't require much technical know-how to set up or use. Why should I have assumed Apple was going to cut me off from iTunes if I got one of the newer devices? My fifth generation iPod classic works perfectly with my Mac, and my iTunes library has all the bells and whistles I could ever need.
Apple's media people didn't want to say much. They told me: 'If you are a Mac user both iPhone 4 and the latest iPod shuffle require Mac OS X v10.5.8 or later. This is clearly labelled on the back of the iPhone 4 box … it is also clearly labelled on the back of the iPod shuffle box … if you decide not to upgrade to Snow Leopard [eh?], then you have 14 days from date of purchase of your devices to claim your refund.'
When I pressed them, Apple's people suggested yet another possible solution to my woes: the 'Mac Box Set', which costs £122. I was told Apple's operating system has simply had more revisions over the past four years than Windows.
I seem to have been told lots of contradictory things, and it all adds up to extra expense and a whole load of hassle.
I see from the Apple website that Snow Leopard will be succeeded by a new operating system, 'Mac OS X Lion' (version 10.7), this summer. Does that mean more of us are going to be relegated to the scrapheap?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
"
New Potential Details Regarding The Avengers Revealed? Skrulls Debunked?
New Potential Details Regarding The Avengers Revealed? Skrulls Debunked?: "Yet again sourced from the devious IMDB, a user has posted plausible details regarding Marvel's highly-anticipated superhero ensemble flick The Avengers. Foremost sourcing his material, 'I or a very close friend is close to the production and just recently watched a scene between Mark Ruffalo, Sam Jackson, RDJ, and Scarlett Johansson,' he further states he doesn't know everything about the film, but rather interesting tidbits. With a spoiler warning, check out what he has to say.
Agent Coulson does NOT die as some previous rumors claimed (He's not a Skrull either).
Captain America's new suit looks amazing from what I or my friend have seen/heard :P. Similar to his costume in Captain America: TFA but the gray straps on his upper torso are gone, the blue is a darker yet more vibrant blue, the star on his chest is bigger, and the red stripes on his abdomen area are actual stripes on"
Agent Coulson does NOT die as some previous rumors claimed (He's not a Skrull either).
Captain America's new suit looks amazing from what I or my friend have seen/heard :P. Similar to his costume in Captain America: TFA but the gray straps on his upper torso are gone, the blue is a darker yet more vibrant blue, the star on his chest is bigger, and the red stripes on his abdomen area are actual stripes on"
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Custom DroidArmy: These ARE the droids you’ve been looking for
Custom DroidArmy: These ARE the droids you’ve been looking for: 
Maybe it's my fanboyism kicking in, or it could just be the fact that I recognize something awesome when I see it, but either way, you have got to check out the DroidArmy collection on RedBubble.com. If you're anything like me, you've probably been around the Internet, seen some ingenious ways to turn everyday people and things into custom Androids,... Read more
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
News: Sony's PSN password page exploit
News:
Sony's PSN password page exploit:
Sony's PSN password page exploit:
When will it end?
Eurogamer has seen video evidence that verifies reports that Sony's PlayStation Network password reset system suffers from an exploit that allows attackers to change your password using only your PSN account email and your date of birth – information compromised in the PSN hack of 20th April.
Sony today made PSN sign-in unavailable for a number of its websites, including PlayStation.com and the PlayStation forums. All PlayStation game titles are also unavailable.
Crucially, the website users are directed to by password reset emails is now down.
Why Isn’t Google Chrome A Part Of Android?
Why Isn’t Google Chrome A Part Of Android?: "
"
Read the wrong way, that could seem like a deep question. But it almost never means “why isn’t Chrome OS simply merged with Android?” or the like. Most of the time, it’s simply a question wondering why Google’s very popular web browser is not a part of their very popular mobile operating system? After all, that OS has a browser (the aptly-named “Browser”), but it’s not Chrome. Why not?
Unsurprisingly, the question came up once again at Google I/O last week. During a panel with a bunch of engineers on the Chrome team, it was one of the first questions asked. The response? “It’s not something we’re talking about right now.” Ouch.
“I don’t know how to answer that,” the engineered continued. Okay…
Another team member, probably realizing those answers sounded both cryptic and harsh, chimed in. “The important thing at the end of the day is to make browsers better. While it’s not strictly Chrome, we share a lot of code with the Android team. We’ll share more over time.” Okay, that’s better. Still, a bit odd.
Based on my understanding, after having a number of discussions on this topic over the years, it would seem that boils down to a few things. First, the Android team is a completely separate team from the Chrome team. Second, it’s a branding issue that Google isn’t quite sure how to resolve. Third, the Android browser, while similar to Chrome, really isn’t Chrome.
The first and second issues are interesting because more and more, they’re related. As they showcased at I/O this year, Google now is fully backing two horses in the OS race: Android and Chrome OS. Each are made by two entirely different teams that don’t often mix with one another.
As Google executives kept saying over and over again when asked last week, the two OSes have different goals — and are going about things in completely different ways. While Chrome may have started out as a web browser, it’s now much more from an ideology perspective inside of Google. No one will admit this, but if they’re to ultimately succeed, they sort of have to believe that Android won’t. That makes it hard to work together.
When Android first launched in October of 2008, it seemed like either a small oversight or precautionary measure that the browser bundled with it wasn’t branded as Chrome. After all, Google’s browser had just launched in beta (on Windows) the month before. Assuming people liked it, you would have assumed that Google would transfer the branding over to use in Android, right?
Well people did like Chrome. A lot. And yet, Google never moved it over. This despite the fact that Apple did just that on the iPhone with its much less successful Safari browser. Meanwhile, Opera and Mozilla’s Firefox were committed to mobile versions of their popular browsers as well. But Google stuck with “Browser” for Android.
And now they may be stuck with it for good. The problem is that Chrome, for better or worse, is now associated with another product that is similar but different from Android — again, Chrome OS. Imagine if they start including a Chrome browser on Android tablets and then next year Chrome OS tablets launch. Consumers will wonder what the hell the difference is? (And this may already prove to be an issue on the PC/Chromebook side of things, we’ll see.)
All that aside, it is still important to remember that Android’s Browser really isn’t Chrome. The two are both based on WebKit and use Google’s V8 JavaScript engine, but there are dozens of other features that Google is trying to associate with Chrome that they couldn’t possibly squeeze into a mobile web browser (at least not yet).
The same issues are true with Apple’s regular Safari browser and their mobile one. But that browser generally seems to be less feature-focused, so the branding might not be as big of an issue. Plus, even if the two sides don’t work closely together inside of Apple (though it seems like they might), does anyone really believe there’s anyway in hell Steve Jobs would let the browser in iOS be called anything but Safari?
Back to Google, on the flip side of things, the Android team has their own wants and needs for the browser bundled with their software. And imagine if a problem on the Chrome team was stalling a new Android build? Or vice versa?
But with the launch of Honeycomb, Android’s Browser is now starting to look a lot more like Chrome as well, thanks to the tabbed browsing experience it offers. This will only lead to more questions. And it’s only a matter of time before users start demanding that elements are fully synced between the two (Chrome and Android’s Browser).
At that point, Google may have to consider this question yet again. Is it time to bring Chrome to Android?
[image via]
"
X-Muppets
X-Muppets: "
Something about me loves my childhood meeting my teenage nerdery. If only it were real.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Steven Levy on Facebook's ironic privacy charge against Google
Steven Levy on Facebook's ironic privacy charge against Google: "Steven Levy (whose new book, In the Plex, looks like a very good account of Google), has on the spot analysis for Wired about the revelation that Facebook had hired a PR firm to run a sleazy whisper campaign about Google and privacy, a pot/kettle/black moment if ever there was one:
Facebook's Stealth Attack on Google Exposes Its Own Privacy Problem
"
Facebook was griping that Google is getting information about its users without permission. But some information that users share with Facebook is available publicly, even to people who aren't their friends in in their social networks - or even are members of Facebook. It's not because outsiders raided the service and exposed that information. It's because Facebook chose to expose it.
Facebook used to have an implicit promise with its users. Basically the deal was what goes on Facebook stays on Facebook. But over the past couple of years Facebook has chosen to alter the deal. Certain profile information became available outside of Facebook, easily searchable via Google and other means. (Users can opt out of showing this but relatively few do.) Some of that profile information includes a few of the people on the user's friend list. By repeatedly pinging public profiles, it's possible for Google or anyone else to figure out pretty much all your friends.
This information is a lot easier to unearth from inside Facebook, but actually logging into Facebook to purloin information would indeed be troublesome. For one thing, it would violate the terms of service agreement. Is Google doing this? One of the Burson operatives implied that it is. But Google says the company does not go inside Facebook to scrape information, and I find this credible. (If Facebook has logs to prove this serious charge, let's see them.)
Facebook's Stealth Attack on Google Exposes Its Own Privacy Problem
"
Stan Lee Talks Upcoming Cameo Roles
Stan Lee Talks Upcoming Cameo Roles: "
Captain America, Spider-Man, but no X-Men
"
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)