Welcome to Active Repair Center Dist, where we make a difference!
We are a company with over 8 years of experience, trust, and reliability on computer and cell phone repairs. We provide friendly customer service, quality work. We Repair iPhone screen and Lcd, speaker, Water Damage on any iPhone and our main goal is to achieve our customer's satisfaction. We also provide FREE estimates of either computers or cell phones to our clients. For more information, contact us (786) 539-9851 or please visit us at 1924T NW 17 Ave, Miami, Florida 33125. Thank you for your cooperation to Actie Repair Center Dist. We also are Proud distributor of a new breed of Smart Phones we are happily to bring you Zeuss.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZEUSS is a trend-setting, mobile brand customizing their devices to the needs of the local consumer to provide the ultimate in mobile communication across the globe. A partner to mobile industry leaders, ZEUSS is fast and adaptable, able to readily design, develop and detail a tailored mobile experience. As the creators of the freestyle mobile experience, ZEUSS provides truly unlocked devices, giving the consumer the freedom of choice to design their own mobile lifestyle.
Formally established in 2013, is a hi-tech enterprise which is engaged in the business of mobile intelligent terminal products design, manufacture, marketing and after-sales service, is a dreamer. Its’ magical dream makes everything extraordinary and creative. Since 2014, ZEUSS has been pursuing “ always fresh” to be extraordinary and provide clients the unique and fresh brand experience
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet Apple's new iPad, now with a Retina Display
Everyone knew it was coming, and here it is: the new iPad.
See also: CNET: Live blogging today’s eventLive Webcast: Let’s talk iPad
New Apple TV announced at iPad event
Apple display spending to double in 2012: report
CEO Tim Cook introduced the newest, 1.4-pound iPad at a special media, invite-only event in San Francisco on Wednesday morning, hailing it as the next step in the “post-PC revolution.”
“In many ways the iPad is reinventing portable computing, and it’s outstripping the wildest of predictions,” Cook told audience-goers, adding that Apple sold 172 million post-PC devices in 2011 alone.
Ever since the unveiling of the iPad 2 last March, rumors have been swirling everywhere as to what the third-generation of the iOS-based tablet would look like. One of the most recent rumors was that the iPad 3 would actually be referred to as the iPad HD.
Yet, it looks like Apple is actually only going to refer to the third-generation as simply “the new iPad” for the time being.
Also as expected, Apple is finally bringing its Retina Display technology (as seen on the iPhone 4 and 4S) to the 9.7 inch screen of the iPad. That includes a 2048 x 1536 resolution with 3.1 million pixels.
Additional hot specs include the A5X quad-core processor, touted as twice as fast and four times better performance than Nvidia’s Tegra 3 chip.
Apple developers also stepped up the camera features and abilities considerably from the iPad 2. For starters, the rear camera is now an iSight camera with 5-megapixel, illuminated sensor with a 5-element lens, face detection and IR filter. Another touch of HD on this tablet is the addition of 1080p HD video recording. read more
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter could be sued for its users’ unlawful tweets.
Summary: If a Twitter user posts a defamatory tweet, they could get sued. But could Twitter itself be sued as a ’secondary publisher’ for simply being the platform to an ‘illegal’ tweet?
Twitter said at the time it would notify users of any legal action wherever possible, but they would “be on their own” in court.
But the social microblogging service may be in hot water of its own if a legal challenge is made in the UK.
Legal analysis site Out-Law published a very interesting, theoretical piece, which describes how Twitter could fall foul of the law — through no apparent fault of its own but by giving its users free reign over what they say.
It stems from a case in Australia, where Twitter itself is being sued by Melbourne resident Joshua Meggitt, after writer and television critic Marieke Hardy wrongly named in a tweet who she thought was behind a defamatory blog dedicated to her. She since issued an apology and reached an out-of-court legal settlement.
Those who retweeted are not being pursued, as reports the Sydney Morning Herald. However, as Twitter was the platform for the defamation, the microblogging site is being taken to court for its role as the “publisher” as it is claimed it gave the libellous blog post the greatest exposure.
Many think Twitter is immune from prosecution. But Meggitt’s lawyer cites a case where Dow Jones was sued in Australia under its own defamation law, rather than U.S. law. Also, because Meggitt never signed up to Twitter, he never agreed to the site’s terms and conditions, while Hardy and others did.
But in the UK, the defamation laws are less clear and open to interpretation. In this case, the law has “not yet been tested”. While Out-Law explains that it could go either way, Twitter faces a troublesome time should a case rule against its favour.
It explains that in Australia, Internet service providers (ISPs) and Internet content hosts (ICHs) are publishers, and can be sued in relation to content published by a third-party. As I understand it, ISPs can be sued under UK law in a similar way to have file-sharing sites blocked to their users. Twitter therefore could be held responsible for unlawful tweets published by a user.
It explains that Twitter is not a broadcaster, and is not protected by Australian broadcasting law, and therefore could not be considered as an ICH. Twitter in the U.S. cannot be sued because it is classed as an “interactive computer service”.
In the UK, however, where Twitter has a European base but remains officially headquartered in the United States, its definition is even less clear.
If Twitter users are considered publishers, and Twitter itself is therefore considered a secondary publisher, the microblogging service could be held liable for its users’ tweets.
But as the piece explains, this has yet to be tested in court.
Whatever Twitter says, however, will be overruled or validated by a court. If Twitter is a publisher of sorts, it faces extremely tough times ahead.
Image source: ZDNet. Article source: Out-Law via The Register
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T aims to have developers pay for app bandwidth usage
At an interview during the Mobile World Congress going on in Spain this week, AT&T executive John Donovan told the Wall Street Journal that the company is apparently hoping to have app developers pick up some of the cost of network usage. The whole idea sounds kind of dumb, but obviously AT&T wants to make more and more money off of the climbing amounts of network usage, and one idea they've had is to have app developers subsidize the cost of that data. In other words, a developer like Rovio would pay AT&T directly, and then Angry Birds would come with some kind of a "No Network Usage" label, meaning that users wouldn't need to pay AT&T for any data that app happened to use across the network.
TechCrunch's Jordan Crook doesn't waste any time taking the charge to AT&T for this, saying that the whole thing is a "boondoggle" designed to sneak more money out of both developers and users (who are already hit by the rising costs of usage plans). The fact is that most uses don't go anywhere near AT&T's data cap, but it's in the company's best interest to make them think they're almost there, sending out warnings and cautions about how much bandwidth is being used. AT&T's Donovan claims that a plan like this would allow AT&T to avoid raising user costs, but let's be honest: They'll still go up as AT&T charges users more and more on network usage, and they'll also add on costs to developers (who also will likely pay for way more bandwidth than their users actually use).
All of that said, it's doubtful we have much input on this anyway: If AT&T does offer such a usage plan, there are probably plenty of developers willing to pay if it gains them even just a few more app users.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom
The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom
On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.
If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.
Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success.
In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.
Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.
Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.
The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.
Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:
• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;
• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;
• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."
• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;
• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;
• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.
Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.
And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.
Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.
Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.
A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.
Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.
Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.
While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.
Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Could Pull the Plug On Millions of Internet Users March 8.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation may yank several crucial domain name servers (DNS) offline on March 8, blocking millions from using the Internet. The servers in the FBI’s crosshairs were installed in 2011 to deal with a nasty worm dubbed DNSChanger Trojan. DNSChanger can get an innocent end-user in trouble; it changes an infected system’s DNS settings to shunt Web traffic to unwanted and possibly even illegal sites.
DNSChanger oozed out of Estonia and may have fouled up as many as a half-million computers in the United States. The feds’ temporary fix to keep the worm from propagating was to replace infected servers with clean surrogates.
Coordinating with the Estonian authorities who arrested those believed responsible for the worm, the FBI set up what amounted to a Maginot Line of temporary servers that would to give businesses and private individuals affected by DNSChanger time to cleanse infected systems. However, this may not have been enough to save all the afflicted. Cyber security journalist Brian Krebs writes:
Computers still infected with DNSChanger are up against a countdown clock. As part of the DNSChanger botnet takedown, the feds secured a court order to replace the Trojan’s DNS infrastructure with surrogate, legitimate DNS servers. But those servers are only allowed to operate until March 8, 2012. Unless the court extends that order, any computers still infected with DNSChanger may no longer be able to browse the Web.
[Internet Identity president and CTO Rod] Rasmussen said there are still millions of PCs infected with DNSChanger. “At this rate, a lot of users are going to see their Internet break on March 8.”
According to Mr. Krebs, Internet Identity believes DNSChanger infected “half of all Fortune 500 firms, and 27 out of 55 major government entities.”
Large network operators unsure as to whether their system is infected can contact the DNS Changer Working Group for assistance here. Private users may be able to ferret out a localized infection by following steps outlined here, at DCWG.org.
Original Post
http://digg.com/newsbar/Technology/f...sers_march_8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD Card Extended from 2Gb to 4Gb FRAUD OR FAKE.
As many people have reported there are a very large number of fake and counterfeit Micro SD cards, and Usb Pen Drives, and VIDEO TUTORIALS on YOUTUBE claiming how to increase the size of it from 2Gb to 4Gb and yes physical you will see the SD card goes from 2Gb to 4Gb and you think that you outdone it that you are the best but wait YOU OR WHO EVER IT’S DOING THAT FOR YOU AND WORST IT’S CHARGING YOU TO DO SO (YOUR GETTING RIPOFF OR YOUR FOOLING YOURSELF BY THINKING YOU HAVE DONE THE IMPOSIBLE). This is how you can figure it out if you are a brainier or a Faker.
Testing:
Most of these instructions apply to SD cards but can be used for other memory cards and USB drives as well.
1. If the card has a write prevention switch (as all SD cards do) put it in the Read only position and try to write to the card (if you can then it is a fake).
2. Reformat the card in you camera (if the card has an overstated capacity this will either fail or format the card with the actual amount of available space).
3. Copy a series of files to the card. Remember that most SD cards are formatted with a FAT file structure so files over 2GB can't be saved to them anyway. Try a series of 100mb files (recorded audio from Windows Sound Recorder found in the Accessories menu will do the trick, just record silence for ten minutes (no microphone needed)).
4. Copy a series of small files to the card :try text files or your temporary internet files. Do this until the card is full. (Testing capacity and the Master File Table).
5. If it is an SD card or similar put it in you camera and use the Video Record function :record for 30 minutes (or as long as you can) then wait for the camera to save the file. If the camera can't save the file and tells you the card is invalid then again you have a dud on your hands)
6. Attempt to open a large file directly from the card :a Photoshop file or even one of the silent audio files you recorded earlier will do the trick. You can usually connect you camera to you computer in Mass Storage mode to test this.
7. Use a program such as SiSoftware Sandra Lite (Free) to test the read and write speeds of the card. This software has built in benchmarks so you can compare the results to what you should be getting. This requires either a card reader or you camera to be connected in Mass Storage Mode.
8. Use KillDisk to view the contents of the card. Run the disk wipe on the SD card (which may fail with fake capacity cards) then view the contents again. When you scroll through the sectors move towards the end and look for changes that are out of place (the first 100 or so entries are the MFT and will be full of gibberish, then it should be all zeros :if it is 99 instead of 00 you have a card with overstated capacity).
9. Finally before you complain to the seller check that you camera can actually read the card :by this I mean many cameras can not handle cards with a capacity of over 512mb, just because you found someone on the internet whose camera could doesn't mean yours will so check the manual (different ROM versions for different countries can impact this :Canon in the USA and Canon in Australia often have subtle differences in the ROM image).
Most of these instructions apply to SD cards but can be used for other memory cards and USB drives as well.
1. If the card has a write prevention switch (as all SD cards do) put it in the Read only position and try to write to the card (if you can then it is a fake).
2. Reformat the card in you camera (if the card has an overstated capacity this will either fail or format the card with the actual amount of available space).
3. Copy a series of files to the card. Remember that most SD cards are formatted with a FAT file structure so files over 2GB can't be saved to them anyway. Try a series of 100mb files (recorded audio from Windows Sound Recorder found in the Accessories menu will do the trick, just record silence for ten minutes (no microphone needed)).
4. Copy a series of small files to the card :try text files or your temporary internet files. Do this until the card is full. (Testing capacity and the Master File Table).
5. If it is an SD card or similar put it in you camera and use the Video Record function :record for 30 minutes (or as long as you can) then wait for the camera to save the file. If the camera can't save the file and tells you the card is invalid then again you have a dud on your hands)
6. Attempt to open a large file directly from the card :a Photoshop file or even one of the silent audio files you recorded earlier will do the trick. You can usually connect you camera to you computer in Mass Storage mode to test this.
7. Use a program such as SiSoftware Sandra Lite (Free) to test the read and write speeds of the card. This software has built in benchmarks so you can compare the results to what you should be getting. This requires either a card reader or you camera to be connected in Mass Storage Mode.
8. Use KillDisk to view the contents of the card. Run the disk wipe on the SD card (which may fail with fake capacity cards) then view the contents again. When you scroll through the sectors move towards the end and look for changes that are out of place (the first 100 or so entries are the MFT and will be full of gibberish, then it should be all zeros :if it is 99 instead of 00 you have a card with overstated capacity).
9. Finally before you complain to the seller check that you camera can actually read the card :by this I mean many cameras can not handle cards with a capacity of over 512mb, just because you found someone on the internet whose camera could doesn't mean yours will so check the manual (different ROM versions for different countries can impact this :Canon in the USA and Canon in Australia often have subtle differences in the ROM image).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests
Following the MegaUpload shutdown and indictments last week, FileSonic, one of the Internet's most popular file-sharing services, has disabled its sharing functionality.
The service can "only be used to upload and retrieve files you have uploaded personally," according to a note posted on the site's home page. FileSonic also suspended its affiliates rewards program, which paid users when people downloaded their files.Some users on Reddit say the online digital locker has already begun deleting files and even accounts, as ZDNet's Zack Whittaker notes.
TorrentFreak called the development "a pretty big deal. Filesonic isn't just some also-ran in the world of cyberlockers. The site is among the top 10 file-sharing sites on the Internet, with a quarter billion page views a month." Read more at.....
thanks to C|Net News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Wrong could Sopa be.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google says 4.5 million people signed anti-SOPA petition today
When Google speaks, the world listens.
And today, when Google asked its users to sign a petition protesting two anti-piracy laws circulating in Congress, millions responded.
A spokeswoman for Google confirmed that 4.5 million people added their names to the company's anti-SOPA petition today.
Not too shabby.
The petition, which was available via a link from Google's homepage, states that although fighting online piracy is important, the plan of attack described in the SOPA and PIPA bills would be ineffective.
