qc110.com

According to the Associated Press, the social network has officially disabled access to the popular online game, which closely resembles classic board game Scrabble, after receiving a complaint from Mattel, the company that publishes it outside the United States and Canada. Access within the U.S. and Canada had already been blocked.

Mattel has filed a lawsuit in India, where the developers who created the game are based, over copyright and trademark infringement. A court decision is pending, which is why Scrabulous is still accessible in India while Facebook chose to pull it elsewhere.

There’s no more Scrabulous on Facebook. For real. Unless you’re in India.

Outside of Facebook, the Web site Scrabulous.com is still extant.

The brothers subsequently modified Scrabulous’ design and points system, and relaunched it as Wordscraper in the United States and Canada within days of its initial demise. Mattel and Hasbro, meanwhile, have both created official versions of Scrabble on the platform.

The rights to Scrabble are owned by different companies: Hasbro handles the game in North America, and Mattel internationally. The two takedowns were different: The creators of Scrabulous
disabled U.S. and Canadian access on their own, after receiving a takedown notice from Hasbro, but the AP article says Mattel’s complaint led Facebook to take action.

The creators of Scrabulous, brothers Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla, are none too pleased with Facebook’s intervention. “It surprises us that Mattel chose to direct Facebook to take down Scrabulous without waiting for the (Indian court’s) decision,” Jayant Agarwalla said in a statement to the AP. “Mattel’s action speaks volumes about their business practices and respect for the judiciary.”

Slick, powerful, and much more extensible than Microsoft Outlook ever dreamed of being. There was just one thing I hated about the Zimbra experience: the browser artifacts around the application that made me feel like I was stuck in a Web site, rather than living in an application that just happened to leverage the power of the Web.

I fell in love with Zimbra’s Ajax-style interface the first time I saw it.

Zimbra’s new Desktop: It rocks

Now that Zimbra has full BlackBerry support, plus the ability to use my POP3 (.Mac, Comcast) and IMAP (Gmail) e-mail with Zimbra desktop, I’m scrapping Microsoft Entourage to use Zimbra full time.

After all, Zimbra gives me the full calendar/e-mail/address book suite that kept me with Entourage, but bombards me with an Internet-full of add-on applications/mashups (flight status, maps, and a range of other Zimlets). In other words, I finally have the “fat client” that I craved while being able to tap into the “fatter client” called the Internet.

No more. For the past few weeks I’ve been using Zimbra’s new Prism-based Desktop. Verdict? It rocks. Take a look at the UI below:

It’s very cool. You should give it a spin. This is the best e-mail “client” ever built…largely because of its successful marriage of the Web with the desktop. In the future, all applications will be like this–or should be.

commentary

How did Zimbra do this? With Prism, which is a Mozilla project that basically lets applications borrow a tightly integrated, stripped-down version of the
Firefox browser to run as standalone applications. This gives them all of the benefits of the browser (and the Web) without the browser artifacts. It’s a match made in heaven.

Now that we’re beyond the 2-megapixel era, I’d prefer better sensitivity over a couple extra megapixels. I find myself much more constrained by dim conditions or fast-moving subjects such as children and wildlife than by insufficient pixel quantity. I’ve blown up my 8-megapixel camera’s images to 20×30-inch prints without trouble.

View results

I’m one of those people who doesn’t believe more megapixels necessarily makes for a better digital camera. Sure, at least theoretically having more megapixels permits larger prints and tighter cropping, but it also can impose penalties such as image noise, lousy low-light performance, smeary noise-reduction artifacts, and other drawbacks. There’s a trade-off here.

Update 8:30 a.m. PST: Here’s my response to the issue of sensor size raised in some TalkBack comments.

This is a 100 percent crop of a photo I shot with a 12-megapixel Nikon D3 at a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec., f/7.1, at ISO 6,400, with Nikon's new 24-70mm lens. Sure, there's lots of noise and the colors aren't as vivid as they could be, but ISO 6,400 will let you freeze the action of a BMW racing past at about 80 miles per hour (which means the top edge of the wheel is going about 160mph). This crop is from the in-camera JPEG.

Perhaps most obviously, more megapixels means memory cards and hard drives fill up faster. Sure, storage is cheap, but what if what you’re storing is bulkier but no better?

Canon and Nikon provide another contrast with their top-end models. Canon’s $8,000 1Ds Mark III offers 21 megapixels, while Nikon’s $5,000 D3 has 12 megapixels. The 1Ds Mark III reaches ISO 6,400, but the D3 can go to 25,600 in a pinch. (Although these are top-end models, Canon’s $4,500 1D Mark III, with 10.7 megapixels and maximum ISO of 6,400 but a smaller image sensor than the D3, is probably a more direct comparison with the D3.)

There are signs that the industry is moving beyond its megapixels-uber-alles worldview. When Panasonic unveiled a number of compact cameras at a press conference Tuesday at the Photo Marketing Association trade show here, the company took pains to emphasize all the attributes besides megapixels it hopes to use to sell cameras.

Most interesting to me right now is Canon’s approach. Its entry-level EOS Rebel XSi is a 12-megapixel model, but one step up the ladder is the 10-megapixel 40D. The Rebel’s XSi top sensitivity is ISO 1,600, but the 40D offers 3,200.

It’s not practical for Canon to fix the sensitivity problem simply by dumping smaller APS-C sensors and moving to full-frame. The cheapest full-frame camera today, Canon’s 5D, costs at least $2,100 with no lens, which is hardly competitive in the entry-level SLR market.

I recognize it’s not a simple case that sensitivity is better than megapixels, and clearly some people may have different priorities. If you’re in controlled studio conditions and shooting stock photos, a market that sometimes pays by the pixel, more pixels is probably helpful. And lacking a mammoth telephoto lens, I do sometimes wish I had more pixels left over after I crop heavily to better show a bird.

Optical resolution is another issue. Lower-end and sometimes even expensive lenses can lack sufficient sharpness to really take advantage of all the pixels on the sensor.

Take a pixel peep at the cropped photo I took with the Nikon D3 of a BMW racing by on a Las Vegas track at about 80 miles per hour. The picture won’t be gracing the pages of Sports Illustrated, but using ISO 6,400 let me freeze the action with a 1/8000 shutter speed, and the full image looks fine.

So it’s time to vote now for what you’d benefit from more in a camera: more megapixels or higher sensitivity. Click the button to register your opinion and explain yourself below in the TalkBack section if you want to make your case in more detail.

News.com Poll Megapixels vs. Sensitivity
It’s hard for camera makers to resist increasing new models’ megapixel count, but
smaller pixels on the sensor can mean higher noise that worsens
performance in dim conditions and lowers overall sensitivity.
Which would you rather have, more megapixels or better sensitivity?

(Credit:
Stephen Shankland/CNET Networks)

You know where I stand on the issue. Let’s hear your voice.

It’s easier to vary sensor size in compact cameras where the built-in lens can be matched to the sensor. (Indeed, Canon increased the sensor size slightly from the PowerShot G7 generation to the G9.) But the same cost trade-off applies there too, and compact camera buyers are even more price-sensitive.

Camera makers seem unable to resist the temptation of higher megapixels in compact cameras right now, marching on past 10 megapixels to 12. But in the SLR domain, where buyers are more sophisticated and larger image sensors provide more leeway, there are some interesting trade-offs going on.

Gratuitous megapixels have other drawbacks besides noise. Image processors that convert sensor data into a JPEG have to do more work–especially with the double whammy that they often must use more sophisticated but power-hungry noise-reduction work.

10 megapixels and ISO 3,200
12 megapixels and ISO 1,600

Increasing the sensor size while holding megapixels constant can let manufacturers improve sensitivity, too. However, that’s another trade-off because larger sensors cost a lot more to manufacture. I chose the 12 megapixel/ISO 1,600 vs. 10 megapixel/ISO 3,200 comparison because it’s a real reflection of choices Canon had in its Rebel XSi vs. 40D.

LAS VEGAS–The camera companies keep telling me the megapixel race isn’t over, but I’d like to see if you have a different opinion.

It’s been a slow week in Eee PC news–it’s Friday and Crave has seen only one post thus far–so let us quickly share information from a report on DigiTimes today. According to the report, Asus expects to bring “whole-day” battery life and Internet storage to its Netbook by the end of the year. I’m not sure what a whole day’s worth of online storage amounts to, but presumably it’s more than the 20GB you get now with the solid-state hard drive in the Eee PC 1000.

(Credit:
Asus)

I have a message in to Asus, asking for comment on this rather vague DigiTimes article.

Lastly, despite Asus rapidly introducing 7-, 9-, and 10-inch Eee PC models, the DigiTimes reports that “the company will also push out software and hardware upgrades every month to fill gaps in the Netbook market.”

The report doesn’t specify how many hours make up a whole-day’s worth of battery life (12 hours? 24 hours?). It must be more than 8 hours, which is the outside estimate Asus claims the six-cell battery will last its Eee PC 1000. (With an SSD drive, the Eee PC 901 ran for 5 hours 15 minutes in CNET Labs.)

(Credit:
Corinne Schulze/CNET Networks)

Last week I posted a list of the features that I’d like to see in the new 3G iPhone. I also asked you what you’d like to see in the new version, and I got quite a few responses. Voice dialing was one of the most popular suggestions, and I’m embarrassed that I left that off my original list. Indeed, that feature is sorely needed, particularly as more states and localities mandate hands-free cell phone use while driving. Also, another feature that I should have included is a landscape keyboard for composing text messages. On the current
iPhone, the landscape keyboard is available only in the
Safari Web browser. As reader bmaberryjr put it, why this was left out to begin with is one of Apple’s great mysteries.

On the whole, those are great comments. Yet, a few people suggested moving the iPhone off AT&T’s network. Unfortunately, that won’t happen for a few years at least. Also, one reader proposed that Apple make the new iPhone thinner, while another wanted a better user interface. Personally, I don’t agree with those suggestions. The iPhone is slim already, and I think the interface is quite nice as it is. What do you think??

But those weren’t your only suggestions for iPhone 2. Here’s what else you had to say.

Apple iPhone

Please let me toss my Palm system by giving me third-party apps.
- orange636
The ability to forward a text message! How sweet would that be!
- Pathogens
Don’t forget Spotlight (a desktop search feature of
Mac OS X). It’s needed badly in the new iPhone.
- Ashoka8350
I would love it if my iPhone had a built-in FM tuner like many other phones out there.
- cmunroe19
Being able to search the iPhone addresses, calendar, notes, etc., would be a big help. Also, I would like to see a way to sync notes with your computer.
- jond
Slingbox capability. It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that sling.
- Frank
Ringtones from voice recordings.
- msurebel
Why can’t they just make the speakerphone loud?
- maxreynoso
I want to send all of my phone numbers to my hands-free car interface so I can see the caller ID on the screen. Currently, Bluetooth is only for use with a headset, not with data transfer.
- 8AxleEd
Wi-Fi sync from my computer to my iPhone and vice versa!
- peruchino
Forget all that other crap (video recording, messaging). If I can just open, edit, and create Mobile Word and Excel files, then I could consolidate my PDA, phone, and iPod into one device!
- kabuki969
I’d like a second SIM card slot so you can have one phone with two numbers on two different services when traveling overseas.
- jrettie
I’d add the ability to tether the phone and use it as a 3G modem.
- sjmanikt

In addition to a flurry of new PCs, HP also announced this week that it would, at long last, start shipping the HP iPaq 900 smartphone on June 30. First introduced back in September 2007, the iPaq 900 is a business- and messaging-centric smartphone with a full QWERTY keyboard; Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional Edition; a 3-megapixel camera; and integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and GPS. The quad-band (GSM 850/900/1800/1900) smartphone also has tri-band UMTS/HSDPA support.

[Sources: Phone Scoop, HP]

Currently, no U.S. carrier has picked up the device, though, according to HP, that may change in the future. (AT&T did pick up the HP iPaq hw6900 series a while back, so if any carrier will do it, we think it’ll be AT&T.) For now, the iPaq 900 will be sold unlocked through HP’s Web site, though pricing has not been finalized at this point.

Check out our reviews of the pricey X300 and the sleek Macbook Air.

Lenovo has taken a page straight from Apple’s playbook. The parody of the Macbook Air commercial promoting the ThinkPad X300 ultramobile PC has an effect similar to Apple’s series of ads with John Hodgman and Justin Long that put down Windows.

It’s not what you would expect from the Chinese company that acquired IBM’s PC business, but it works. The ad is getting passed around like candy, and it is really funny and points out the weakness of the Macbook Air. (It lacks some ports and an optical drive.) Expect the Macbook Air crowd to strike back with a parody of its own.

Haute Secure is a free 32-bit or 64-bit download when used for home use; businesses will be charged to have their Web pages checked for malicious code. At the moment there is little technical support offered beyond a few FAQs and a users’ forum.

New Web threats today come not necessarily from sites built to host malicious content, but also from legitimate sites that have been compromised. A new safe Web surfing product, Haute Secure, is out of beta and available for free home use with both Internet Explorer and
Firefox. Founded in 2006 by former Microsoft security engineers, Haute Secure hopes to distinguish itself in a crowded field of products, including Grisoft Linkscanner and Finjan SecureBrowsing.

While we were pleased with the product’s ability to block threats on compromised Web sites, Haute Secure did, however, fail to identify a few recent non-exploit-related phishing sites, which surprised us. Using five sites recently reported to a reputable, independent phish-tracking site (most were active an hour or less), we noted that none were flagged as active by Haute Secure. Perhaps that’s because the pages themselves do not contain malicious code. Yet the pages do contain forms which, when filled out and sent in, could compromise your identity. Although Haute Secure uses phishing reports from Stopbadware.org and others, and will warn you of known fraudulent sites, we found the native anti-phishing protection in Internet Explorer and Firefox did a better job at flagging recently reported phishing sites.

An interesting note in Karnitschnig’s report is that the talks Monday in the Valley were held with only senior executives of the companies and no investment bankers from either side.

And while the Journal report notes that no other meetings between the companies have been scheduled since Microsoft gave its outline of the combined companies, that’s not to say the folks in Redmond don’t foresee another trigger point ahead.

Keeping tabs on Microsoft’s efforts to win Yahoo, Matt Karnitschnig of the Wall Street Journal reported Friday on some interesting events.

As reported Thursday in News.com, the “radio silence” between the two companies has taken a shift and the parties have held informal merger discussions.

And while it’s not unusual for executives to chat informally about “what if” merger scenarios without bankers and lawyers hovering about, it was a particularly smart move on Microsoft’s part, said one former banker.

“Given they already have this offer out there, the dynamics are very different,” the former banker told CNET News.com. “By having bankers there, it lends an air of formal negotiations. Microsoft is trying to get Yahoo to buy into the concept of a combined business and then hope they’ll be more willing to negotiate…it’s like trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. And with the bankers there, it’s seen as more of a negotiating tactic than a friendly olive branch.”

One source familiar with the talks told CNET News.com on Wednesday that Microsoft will keep a keen eye on Yahoo’s upcoming first-quarter results, when the Internet search pioneer reports its financial performance on April 22.

On offense, cyberwar might be better relegated to support roles, and then only “sparingly and precisely,” according to the report. A one-shot strike to silence a surface-to-air missile system, allowing aircraft to penetrate defenses to destroy a nuclear facility, is the example given.

A new RAND Corporation report suggests the U.S. may be better off playing defense and pursuing diplomatic, economic, and prosecutorial efforts against cyberattackers, instead of making strategic cyberwarfare an investment priority.

Libicki doesn’t downplay the threat. Damage from recent cyberattacks is estimated to cost the U.S. up to hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Meanwhile, the military has hinted that it’s ready to skip the games and deal with cyberattackers in the real world–provided they can find them.

The study comes as the U.S. military fires up its new unified Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) program this month. The new outfit will be responsible for network-related operations, defense, and attacks and will operate under the U.S. Strategic Command.

“Attempting a cyberattack in the hopes that success will facilitate a combat operation may be prudent; betting the operation’s success on a particular set of results may not be,” Libicki wrote. One question planners should ask is whether strategic cyberwar would induce political compliance comparable to what could be produced by, say, strategic air power.

“Deterrence and warfighting tenets established in other media do not necessarily translate reliably into cyberspace,” wrote Libicki.

(Credit:
RAND)

Even retaliatory attacks could risk sending the wrong message, since treating cyberattacks as acts of war could be construed as indemnifying owners of private infrastructure from third-party liability. Why spend money on cybersecurity if your losses are covered a la FEMA, for example?

However, the threat of punishment has never done much to prevent cyberattacks on either civilian or military networks, another reason to concentrate on prevention, according to the study. After all, cyberattackers can only get through doors that are left open.

Cyberwarfare is better at bothering an adversary than defeating it–given that permanent effects are illusive, author Martin C. Libicki wrote in the report, titled “Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar.”

“The Law of Armed Conflict will apply to this domain,” Air Force General Kevin P. Chilton told Stars and Stripes. “You don’t take any response options off the table from an attack on the United States of America. Why would we constrain ourselves on how we would respond?”