Archr5

@tylersmyler like 9 people died in china due to "exploding cell phone batteries" funny thing is, at least one of them was later found to have "accidentally shot himself" with a home made gun...

http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Man-Killed-by-Exploding-Phone-Actually-Shot-with-Homemade-Gun-1243-01.html

@Blair ,
The bad part is these security settings have been available since Exchange 2003 service pack 2... In my opinion "Native" support indicates that all the built in features for the server should be compatible in the device.

@shea241 "The inherent security risks in carrying around a mobile device" have been largely mitigated by these features that were introduced in Exchange over 4 years ago...

The ability to encrypt the data, require a strong password, and remotely wipe a device if it's stolen/lost are all must-haves if your company deals with sensitive data at all.

We can't have an e-mail containing financial information, or discussions about legal issues sitting on a device that we can't administer remotely from the mail server, and honestly I'm shocked that enough people are out there not using these features for Verizon/Google/Motorola to think it's not a big deal.

I wonder if Verizon reps are still lying to people in the store and claiming that these things have native exchange support and will "totally work with your exchange server."

But when someone buys one, and then can't get it to work their story changes from "at the majority of companies it'll totally work" to the following:

"Positioning and defining the Exchange Active Sync support that the Droid has is a challenge. An expected upgrade sometime in the next few months should address some of the gaps - unfortunately both Verizon Wireless and Motorola are not releasing what these will be (e.g. remote wipe, force power-on password, encryption, certificate support, etc.).
With active sync, many of our business customers do not force security policy agents on the devices. This is why I assume it is being handled with a third party app for the immediate needs of our customers who do."

I like the wording. "Be aware that 99% of you don't come anywhere near a 250 GB limit."

I mean I guess the company has to do what it has to do, and they've put a fairly high cap in place...but seriously, why not be honest about it and cap everyone to the amount of bandwidth that you think they deserve for their money?

I'm guessing that figure is significantly closer to their "average" but they know nobody would pay $30-$70 a month for 4 gigs of transfer a month when you can buy a Flash drive bigger than that for less money.

What gets me is they're offering 250 gigs a month. Which on their 16megabit connections that they're hawking now, you could hit in like 35 hours of continually capping out your speed. Even at the crippled speeds you actually get once it hits your PC you could Easily hit that cap in a week or two of pulling down free or paid content, completely legally. I don't even want to think about what folks who have online backup services are going to run into with these caps...

it just seems like Comcast is setting themselves up for failure by devaluing the speed of their services... what's the point of having 4 megabytes a second available to download with if you can only use it for 35 hours a month and then you get cut off...

Chris asked for stories about finding people on facebook connect. I have yet to find a single person through the feature, I've got like 200 facebook friends, some of whom I know have 360's, but not a single person showed up on the facebook connect feature.

I was thinking one or two people would set it up first day from my list but as of now, still nobody I know has set it up other than my self and 4 people who were already in my xbox friends list before the patch.

Maybe Microsoft should advertise the feature in the main menus...

I think it's kinda funny that IW / Activision said "hey we're eliminating private servers to cut down on cheating and help us control the player experience and make it as smooth as possible."

and the Very First thing the "opposition" to that decision does is craft a server with an ability that completely breaks the game lol.

I mean we all know that IW / Activision really just wants to be able to sell DLC on the PC someday but on the surface it's still kinda funny.

They're reporting it as old news because the story source is a year old. It went up on slashdot yesterday and got called old news there and somehow still managed to make the rounds here.

Seriously Engadget, yesterday it was the "PSP Go Shot through a wall, here's a nested chain of read links ending up with the original article not even mentioning a PSP" thing from yesterday... and now this.

I usually love the site but both of these stories seem uncharacteristically "not fact checked"

Music Industry lawyers in general are struggling with emerging tech in every single avenue. They are barely figuring out how to sell digital music, they don't understand that physical media is dying when they do attempt to utilize technology they fail 9 times out of 10. They barely have a clue what they're doing and I'm guessing this is just evidence of that.

It would be shocking to me if we discover that Activision was not writing contracts in such a way that grants them rights to do exactly what they're doing without triggering a red flag with the RIAA / Interscope lawyers.

I'm willing to bet they have nearly explicit signed consent to do exactly what they're doing. But it's record industry lawyers claim to fame to stand and shout "that's illegal! and you're costing us millions!" whenever they don't like something.

Is it shady on Activisions part? A little, I guess. But it's their job to make a fun game, not ensure the egos of the talent that signs on with them go unbruised.

They should just re-name the book to "The Macworld Superguide to that Device You're holding right now! You know the one, the one with the Apps and stuff that plays your music and lets you make phone calls... Rhymes with My Phone."

Literally the only appeal of this device is to a new PSP consumer that has never owned one...
Which is me... and I'm still not going to pay significantly extra for less functionality.

This whole thing is discouraging me from even wanting an older PSP despite the great games available... i'd rather not prop up these jerks.