I promise that's the case. This is probably why the Nexus 5 didn't make it onto VZW. Sprint has been very good about playing nice with the OEMs ever since they started getting a bad rap for having long delays in device updates. The Nexus 5 proved that they were willing to work with Google. That and their integration…

They will, according to most reports. The Nexus 5 is still a perfect device for what it does, and it's only real drawback next to any of the devices released after it is battery life, although the fact that most newer devices have a lot more room to fit a bigger battery...

Not the case. The gNex suffered from the fact that there was a variant for each carrier. Now that Qualcomm has been able to design/manufacturer radios that can work on all of the carriers, Google's Nexus 6 only has to come out as two variants. The first variant is a US-only device which works on ALL US carriers. The…

The problem with Target Sharing is that it's not very effective. If you are flying toward them and have a solid enough lock for me to take a shot, then you are the fighter with the highest likelihood of killing the target as well. Kinetically, if I'm flying away from the target and I shoot a missile using your…

It is possible to fire an active radar missile with no radar lock (so-called "maddog"); in this case, the missile will fly until it's nearly out of fuel, and then it will turn on its radar and pursue the first target it sees. This is not a recommended strategy if there are friendly aircraft in close proximity to the…

The information in this article is either slightly out of date or based solely on the F-16 (which doesn't have any of the latest-generation radar technology). If you look up AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar, you'll find some very cool stuff that does what you're talking about.

The RWR doesn't have any form of transmitters, so they don't/can't do that themselves. However, there are "pods" that can be configured to generate signals which jam the originating radar. These jammer pods work in many different ways (which are difficult to explain), but basically they attempt to deceive or confuse…

Not unless they disable USB at the BIOS level. Disabling USB in the actual software (Windows, for example) wouldn't stop the hardware interactions between the two devices, and the bus would still allow for data flow between the devices, it would just block Windows from accessing the drive, but the malicious software…

potentially, yes, but if they could build something into a small enough machine with the concept being a game-streaming device instead of a full-blown end-user device, then there's a lot more brand potential. It's much easier to build purpose-specific software when they have more walled-in hardware. Providing users…

I agree. In fact, I think Apple's best move would be to get rid of the "Pro"/"Air" naming conventions and switch back to just the MacBook (11" would still be what the Air is today, the 13" could be a Air/rMBP hybrid, since they're so similar already, and the 15" would be the Pro as it is today). Then they could start…

Also, after reading further into this, it looks like simply passwording your EFI stops this vulnerability. Again, that's after about 20 minutes or so of research, and I'm not sure exactly how effective it is.

Fair enough, and thank you very much for pointing this out to me. While I don't own any Thunderbolt accessories, it's good to know that there is a threat like this that makes Thunderbolt no better than USB in terms of security. Does this IOMMU mean that the CPU has to actually have it, or do most already have it but…

Well, no. If you have a disease that kills 100% of the people who contract it, but the disease can't transfer for shit, then it's a very low-threat disease. That's basically what they're saying with Ebola right now.

From what I read about the original press release for this: Yes. This vulnerable interacts with the USB controller on any device, so if malicious software was designed for this purpose, it could copy itself onto any USB device that connects with an infected machine, and keep spreading.

The Wadsworth Constant applies to this video, for those wandering.

They did run ads via YouTube, not just posting their own videos. Those ads took the space that any other paid advertisement could have instead, therefore they gave up on ad revenue in order to promote a product sold via the Play Store. Nexus devices give Google a cheap way into users' hands, especially those on a…

They didn't charge the carriers, LG did. LG makes the devices, so when T-Mobile and Sprint asked for them, LG said "Sure, that'll be $450 each". Alternatively, either Google said "OK, $450's no problem" then turned around and sold them $100 undervalue (since they make plenty on the other side of the exchange via user…

In this article T-Mobile says Google charges them $449 for Nexus phones and they're simply passing the cost on to consumers. The article is from almost a year ago so I wouldn't be surprised if Google has since reduced that price which would explain why T-Mobile is now only charging $370 but they were definitely…

OK... The Nexus 5 had the same advertisements on TV, and even YouTube ads DO cost Google, since those are ads they aren't receiving from advertisers.

They "advertise" it on their Play store, as well as a couple other places.