Month: June 2016

Grab the latest build of VLC and you'll see a "Render Output" option in the "Tools" menu.

6 more images in gallery

Streaming online content to a Chromecast is fast and easy, but what if you have local files on your desktop that you want to get on the big screen? There are a few niche apps out there that will serve, but one of the biggest media players, VLC, is working on built-in support for Google's Chromecast. Recently the nightly build servers started pumping out early, unstable builds of VLC with Chromecast support, so I gave it a try.

You won't find the familiar "cast" button that you see in many apps in this VLC build. Instead, the "Tools" menu has a new option called "Render Output"—this screen is for playing media on something other than the computer screen in front of you. It will detect and display Chromecasts on your local network, and the detection process seems to work great. You just pick the device you want to use and hit "OK."

If you're playing media you'll need to stop it, and then once you hit play the casting process should start. I got an "unknown certificate" error at first, but, after accepting it, the usual Chromecast stuff started to happen. My TV turned on and switched to the right input. A Chromecast logo appeared, the loading bar popped up—and then it failed.

(credit: Getty Images | Digital-Saint)

Google Fiber's new terms add a clause familiar to subscribers of other large Internet service providers: customers who want to sue the company must now instead submit to arbitration.

The Google Fiber terms were updated last week with a note that they now "require the use of binding arbitration to resolve disputes rather than jury trials or class actions." While the clause allows cases in small claims court, it otherwise forces customers to waive the right to bring legal actions against the ISP. Arbitration must be sought on an individual basis, as the clause also prevents class arbitration.

The previous terms of service did not have the binding arbitration clause, though they did limit Google Fiber's liability to the amount customers pay to use the services. (The Consumerist published an article on the change yesterday.)

Enlarge / the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus. (credit: Andrew Cunningham)

Update: Apple's has responded to our request for comment, indicating that all current iPhones are still being sold in Beijing while the company appeals the order. The full statement:

"iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus as well as iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus and iPhone SE models are all available for sale today in China. We appealed an administrative order from a regional patent tribunal in Beijing last month and as a result the order has been stayed pending review by the Beijing IP Court."

Original story: A Chinese regulator has told Apple to stop selling the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus in the city of Beijing, according to a report from Bloomberg. The Beijing Intellectual Property Office has ruled that the phones infringe on the external design patents of the Shenzhen Bali 100C, which like the vast majority of smartphones today looks like a gently rounded rectangle.

It's a confusing order, especially given the number of Chinese smartphone makers who design and sell iPhone-esque Android phones. It may be another round of pushback by the Chinese government against an American company, not unlike the decision to shut down the iBooks and iTunes Movies stores in China back in April.

(credit: Erik (HASH) Hersman)

Dave Aitel is CEO of Immunity Inc., an offensive security firm that consults for Fortune 500s and government agencies. He is a former "security scientist" for the NSA and a past contractor for DARPA's Cyber Fast Track program. His firm specializes in vulnerability research, penetration testing and network testing tools. His views don't necessarily reflect the opinions of Ars Technica.

What occurred with the recently disclosed breach of the Democratic National Committee servers, and the dumping of stolen data on a WordPress site, is more than an act of cyber espionage or harmless mischief. It meets the definition of an act of cyberwar, and the US government should respond as such.

The claims by “Guccifer 2.0”—that a lone hacker carried out this attack—are not believable. Of course, anything is possible, but the attack looks to be an operation conducted by Russian intelligence services. Had this been a “normal” operation—that is, covert intel gathering by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service or any other foreign intelligence service (as the Chinese have done in past election seasons)—it would be business as usual. To be honest, the US government would not really be justified in denouncing it, as it does the same thing. But what makes this attack very different—and crosses the line—is the Russian team’s decision to dump the Clinton campaign’s opposition strategy on the public Web, presumably for the dual purpose of both spreading misinformation about the party responsible for the breach and interfering with the Clinton campaign.