Slashdot Mirror

"I quote: "Coverity scanned over ten thousand Python programs on the popular GitHub open-source software repository...""

Great. Now where the hell do you quote it from, since that sure as hell isn't in the linked to article anywhere.

"Coverity's scanning technology has analyzed more than 396,000 lines of code in the latest builds of Python 3.3.2. That analysis has led to 181 new defects being identified. For the year to date, Python developers have already fixed 278 defects. - See more at: http://www.eweek.com/developer/open-source-python-code-sets-new-standard-for-quality-study.html#sthash.wSdGotDE.dpuf"

That makes it pretty clear that they are talking about the Python executable itself. Version 3.3.2 to be exact.

"One of the more interesting defects that Coverity identified in Python that developers have since fixed is a "double-free" defect. "'Double free' means that you allocate memory for a pointer, and then you free the memory twice," Samocha explained. "This can cause memory corruption, which can lead to unexpected behaviors or program crashes." - See more at: http://www.eweek.com/developer/open-source-python-code-sets-new-standard-for-quality-study.html#sthash.wSdGotDE.dpuf"

... and that clearly shows that they are talking about the interpreter, written in C, which has pointers, malloc() and free(). Python has a memory manager with garbage collection and doesn't use pointers. The Python programmer doesn't allocate and free memory resources directly.

I especially love how you criticized a language earlier, when you clearly have literally no knowledge of said language.

"I quote: "Coverity scanned over ten thousand Python programs on the popular GitHub open-source software repository...""

Great. Now where the hell do you quote it from, since that sure as hell isn't in the linked to article anywhere.

"Coverity's scanning technology has analyzed more than 396,000 lines of code in the latest builds of Python 3.3.2. That analysis has led to 181 new defects being identified. For the year to date, Python developers have already fixed 278 defects. - See more at: http://www.eweek.com/developer/open-source-python-code-sets-new-standard-for-quality-study.html#sthash.wSdGotDE.dpuf"

That makes it pretty clear that they are talking about the Python executable itself. Version 3.3.2 to be exact.

"One of the more interesting defects that Coverity identified in Python that developers have since fixed is a "double-free" defect. "'Double free' means that you allocate memory for a pointer, and then you free the memory twice," Samocha explained. "This can cause memory corruption, which can lead to unexpected behaviors or program crashes." - See more at: http://www.eweek.com/developer/open-source-python-code-sets-new-standard-for-quality-study.html#sthash.wSdGotDE.dpuf"

... and that clearly shows that they are talking about the interpreter, written in C, which has pointers, malloc() and free(). Python has a memory manager with garbage collection and doesn't use pointers. The Python programmer doesn't allocate and free memory resources directly.

I especially love how you criticized a language earlier, when you clearly have literally no knowledge of said language.

Is crackers can step trace source to find holes = easier than disassembling with a kernel level debugger (or even binary app 'fuzzing').

Now, on the note of making fixes: I see your level of accuracy here (2 patches in 1 day on a kernel release) -> http://www.eweek.com/developer/linux-3.10-kernel-receives-two-updates-in-one-day (MS makes a mistake now & then too admittedly & did this round of patches on this just passed "Patch Tuesday" regarding remote desktop validation & AD - however, unlike you, who won't admit the dichotomy present in your "argument", I do admit it).

On homegrown fixes:

Sure - You can "fix it" if you find a bug as you say ONLY IF you know how to code in the language the OS uses (C most likely) & IF you are intimately familiar with the subsystem(s) + its dependencies on other subsystems + libs in question...

That takes time (on both accounts, learning how to code and well, as well as learning the ins-N-outs of said subsystem & its dependencies).

That is, unless you work on said subsystem frequently & even then? It's a bitch.

QUESTION: How many of you "penguins" around here can claim that? Not many, & certainly NOT the majority.

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-line: What you say doesn't hold true for most users, period... and you KNOW it!

... apk

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all...

And yet judges and presidents seem to display a consistent bias. Funny that.

Yes, very funny... especially since the bias is against Apple.

(That's not even including the decisions that led to needing this overruling in the first place).

Little details always mess numbers

Does it hurt to be as ignorant as you are, or does the ignorance come with some sort of pain-reducing features of its own?

What is PR.

Some news articles that would probably not exist without PR professionals:
http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/trends/how-linux-foundation-runs-its-virtual-of/240156624
http://www.eweek.com/servers/ibm-to-support-linux-kvm-virtualization-on-power-systems/
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Linux-Mint-15-A-better-Ubuntu-for-the-desktop-1873682.html

I just randomly picked Linux as a search item in Google News. It could have been anything. Almost everything you read in a publication was "sold" to that publication by a PR professional. Did you think journalists actually spent time researching and finding out stuff on their own? Honestly, if it wasn't sold by a PR agency, you probably never heard about it.

With those private keys available they can listen in on the HTTPS conversations in real time, and there is no way for the participants of the conversation to know this

No. Unless you are stupid enough to have your private key generated by the actual CA. Never do that!

What they *can* do is do a MITM attack if they can produce a valid certificate for your domain. That is the problem with CAs. Gov't can generate wildcard certificates (or specific ones), if the CA is trusted by you.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Mozilla-Warning-Certificate-Authorities-About-Issuing-MITM-SSL-Certs-813817/

The only workable solution is to either use a web of trust - where SSL certificates are checked by other machines elsewhere on network. This reduces the chances that MITM is happening.

A much more secure solution would be to have private CA and only trust that CA. This is like self-signed certs, but actually manageable.

Then again, if quantum computers are a reality, then the entire public-private crypto is obsolete making SSL useless for key exchanges. We would be back to pre-shared key crypto only.

To follow up and clarify:

The current statement FTA is that the 5th protects you only from being forced to decrypt *A* hard drive. If you did that, you'd be saying in effect "that's my hard drive".
In this case, the FBI says the figured out it was that guy's hard drive.
The judge in this case has to say "OK, they know it's your hard drive; you lose nothing by providing the password now."

So, if you accept the current legal state that decrypting *your* hard drive is not protected, there is no protection for this guy.

Personally, I would have taken the simple "I'm not going to say anything because it might get me into trouble" as sort of the point of the 5th amendment, but that's not how the courts currently see it.

For common people, the rule seems to be that the *act* of supplying the documents (that is the decryption itself) is protected.
But the documents themselves (that is the unencrypted data) *derived* from that act is NOT protected.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201112268.pdf

But, if you're a lawyer or politico, then the supplying of documents and the content of those documents are BOTH protected.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_166

EFF would like to see it go this way, too (good luck!)
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/EFF-Claims-Encrypted-Password-is-Protected-Under-5th-Amendment-560879/

Storage is far from solved, let's look at that with your proposed theoretical limit of 1 exabyte and see how that works out. The bottom line is can you buy something like that and use it, it's a little more complicated than buying a bunch of hard drives and sticking them in a several cases and pushing the power button. You've also got to have a lot more drive overhead available to compress all this data to begin with, so you'll need more than an exabyte of working drive space.

Let's start with a company that is well know for making storage arrays. To put this in perspective Drobo in aggregate has sold n Exabyte of storage to /all/ of it's customers. How about backing up this enormous amount of data that you propose is being captured? StorageTek announced the worlds first Exabyte capable Tape drive backup only two years ago.

Now let's look at something from are pie in the sky friends over at DARPA and see what they are doing. It seems they recently announced that they will build a 4 Exabyte system in the for military surveillance. Now let's really go out there and look at marketing for a company claiming to meet the governments theoretical future demand for a really, really large array to be used for data mining and you will find contemplating a 10 exabyte capacity of storage and inquiring what it would costmodel that could meet that demand in the future.

To put some perspective on the logistics of actually doing this look at Cleversafe, they are creating a 10 exabyte array that will be housed in 8 different data centers in 8 different states and use 4.5 million disks.

Well the only lead that matters to people seeking a profit, is the willingness of people to spend money.

Android users don't spend money

http://www.eweek.com/cloud/apple-app-store-revenue-dwarfs-android-app-store-sales-report/

Or even surf the web as often as iOS users:

http://allthingsd.com/20130403/safari-still-winning-the-mobile-browser-war/

"at what point does someone wake up and develop a system that can be trusted out of the box to be secure?"

Today. Just don't connect to a network or use writable, removable media.

It's all a matter of trust vs. risk. How much do you trust that some software officially signed through Microsoft is really OK? Or that SSL keys signed by a CA provide any security?

It's easy to complain - you're saying it's "fundamentally flawed," but not offering any examples of what isn't. People have broken into bank vaults, too.

Hundred year old knob and tube wiring in a NEW house? I hate to tell you, but that house the realtor told you was "brand new" probably has gaslight pipes in the walls. Everything you described is an OLD house, from newspaper as insulation, lead pipes, lead paint, asbestos. That porch wasn't built with rotting wood, it was built with brand new wood that rotted fifty years later when somebody neglected to paint it.

And in a house that old, you're going to find obsolete and even now-illegal things, like copper pipes soldered together. And in an older house it's going to have previous work done to it by someone who is not trained in the art, let alone competent.

As to software not killing people, a lot of people have died from buggy software.

Actually Microsoft's cloud services are HIPAA compliant. According to the article, it includes Office365 in addition to Azure. Link: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/Microsoft-Adds-HIPAA-Compliance-in-Windows-Azure-for-Cloud-Health-Data-446671/

...China Inc. can first fuck all these corporations and then run away with their decades of R&D data.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/rsa-hacked/

So because RSA was hacked, we shouldn't use Microsoft software?

It's a good thing that no Open source software has ever been hacked.

No, they'll just start writing more Linux trojans.

Hah. 3rd place in the mobile OS market is kind of like 3rd place in the Superbowl. They don't even get to show up for the game.

There's lots to back that up; the mobile market is a scale game and without the large number of customers on a platform it just isn't worth investing in new development. However, the mobile market doesn't quite work like a normal consumer market. The buyers in most countries are the big operators - not the end users - and they are willing to put extra subsidies into a third platform just in order to get more competition in future. Look at how desperately AT&T has been keeping Windows Phone on life support even at the cost of their own subscriber base.

In this case BlackBerry has additional features such as FIPS certification which guarantee it markets such as the military bureaucrats of the Pentagon. That means that they can actually become profitable with a third place and can probably get a decent volume long term.

The reason nothing like this can ever work for Microsoft is that sensible carriers hate Skype. They know that, if Skype succeeds then Microsoft will become the sole point of contact for customer billing. This will make the operators no more valuable than a WiFi access point whilst they have to invest in serious and expensive radio equipment to provide the coverage required by their licenses. Most operators can see that pushing forward Windows Phone would be suicidal.

...is as Good as the OS It Runs On says Dean Hachamovitch, Microsoft's top gun on the Internet Explorer browser team. Well, this is a double-edged sword...

Amazon taking charge of OMAP could leave rivals Barnes & Noble in a tricky situation.

Apple just announced that it's going into the chip business. Why not Microsoft too?

The new Barnes & Noble subsidiary, which will build on the history of innovation in digital reading technologies from both companies, has not been named and will be referred to as Newco.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Microsoft-Invests-300M-in-Barnes-and-Noble-Settles-Patent-Flap-555788/
 

POWER7+ was discussed at Hot Chips and released a couple of days ago.

If this was "made public" today, why is [sic] there so many articles from August 20th, when it was submitted?

Because the USITC acted on it yesterday.

If this was "made public" today, why is there so many articles from August 20th, when it was submitted? This is total bullshit, posted by Ars, just to try and get publicity with the iPhone 5 release tomorrow.

And for the record, I am not an Apple apologist, and I own a Galaxy S3. But I mean, bullshit is bullshit.

Per the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the organizations that have breaches of information are in violation of HIPAA and are fined.

Adobe will not develop and test Flash player for Android 4.1 and will now focus on a PC browsing and apps. In a blog post, they wrote, 'Devices that don’t have the Flash Player provided by the manufacturer typically are uncertified, meaning the manufacturer has not completed the certification testing requirements. In many cases users of uncertified devices have been able to download the Flash Player from the Google Play Store, and in most cases it worked. However, with Android 4.1 this is no longer going to be the case, as we have not continued developing and testing Flash Player for this new version of Android and its available browser options

First, Adobe stopped developing Flash for Linux, now they are dropping Android. The irony is that Adobe does not see that by dropping support for platforms, fewer developers will want to use Flash, because it is no longer "cross-platform." And if fewer developers want to use Flash, then fewer people will consume Flash content ... and eventually Adobe will decide to drop support for another platform because fewer people are consuming Flash there. The cycle feeds itself. It's only a matter of time before Flash goes away entirely.

This is not a trend Adobe will want. Adobe is focusing on "the PC", but the market is increasingly moving to "mobile" ... I think we can see where this is going.

Most Japanese phones run on a Linux stack, not the more vulnerable proprietary OSs.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Phone-Stack-Vendor-Wins-Big-in-Japan/

If Apple retains their tablet advantage for a few years I'd expect them to start getting looked at from an anti-trust standpoint.

Apple has continuously been losing tablet market share, it's just that the enamored press isn't reporting it. When the iPad first came out, its tablet market share was over 90%. Since then, most references I'd seen put it at 75%. The latest figures (once you dig through the "I love Apple; Apple is lord" spin) puts it at just 63%. The numbers are all there, but the press is so busy fawning over Apple that you have to do your own market analysis to see what's going on. Ignore the editorializing and just look at the raw numbers.

WebGL, but good luck finding a browser that supports it.

chrome?

Good luck finding Google Chrome for Windows RT. From this article: "Microsoft says IE will be the only browser choice in devices running Windows RT, the variation of Windows 8 designed for devices running ARM processors."

What private keys of note have been hacked?
RSA's, very likely. That was a very major issue, when the SecureID tokens had to be replaced.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/RSA-Warns-SecurID-Customers-of-Data-Breach-395221/

According to this article, Google is estimated to bring in $4 billion in mobile Ad revenue in 2012. Even if these estimates were off by (a generous) 25%, that still sounds like a lot of money. What exactly am I missing here that led the Forbes author to predict Google's demise? I must admit I don't know much about where Facebook stands in this regard.

Considering the kid made the typical anti-google statements, I would tend to agree.

"Fread has filed a complaint with the federal Department of Education, saying, “They’re [UH] absolutely ignoring Google’s abysmal record with privacy.”

That's word for word, isn't it. quoted from fox news: Yep "Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, wrote on FoxNews.com that "[Google's] abysmal track record on privacy "
Or here's one for facebook: http://rsjrealestate.blogspot.com/2012/02/google-facebook-privacy-and-digital.html "Facebook, with its abysmal track record on privacy"
How often do people trot out this line as if it's facts?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21/mac_os_x_lion_security/
http://blog.laptopmag.com/mac-os-x-lion-vs-windows-7-which-is-better/9
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/Apple-Mac-OS-X-Lion-Bests-Microsoft-Windows-7-10-Reasons-Why-647298/ (slide 4)
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/lions-upgraded-robust-security-features/
I think you get the point... all of these I found on the first 2 pages by Googling "lion security vs windows 7".

No, the US government is rightly concerned with the Australian government making spurious claims of security problems that harm legitimate competition for money from Australian companies, and is bringing up the issue with he Australian government, which is its job.

Sorry, but under the US Patriot Act, the US government has granted themselves unlimited, and secret access to any and all data stored on a US server.

I've done some contract work for the Canadian Government, and it is illegal to store certain kinds of information on US based servers because it would potentially violate Canadian law. There are companies who have arms-length subsidiaries whose job it is to handle government data that could not be allowed to be stored in the US. This is no different than similar issues with US owned companies accessing EU data because of the Patriot Act.

The US can claim their companies are being hurt by this, but the fact of the matter is, the US is not a trustworthy place to store your data unless you are also going to accept them potentially spying on your citizens.

This isn't a trade issue. It's a trust issue.

So if America wants to keep their Patriot Act which tries to violate the laws of other countries, their businesses are going to lose out in those markets if it would mean those companies can't comply with local laws and the US law at the same time.

Sorry, but these aren't spurious claims -- they're well established issues which have been covered before.

Yeah, and how hard is that? Is this about malware that magically attaches itself to existing executables, or does it just drop itself into a system directory and run itself?

"As with previous variants of the malware, the latest variant of the Flashback malware, called OSX/Flashback.I, works by modifying code within Web browsers that causes it to launch when the browsers are opened and result in modified Web pages being displayed."
Removal instructions

Both are pretty bloody old problems and easily mitigated. How is it that OSX can be owned by a driveby exploit trojan that adds it to a botnet? I thought its underlying guts were Unix. How is it that Windows can't notice that something new has been installed and executed without the user's instigation?

What have Apple and Microsoft OS developers been spending their time on for the last decade? Surfing pr0n? Posting "you guys suck" on web forums? Making Clicky spin more gracefully?

Meanwhile, their users are unwittingly added to botnets and their machines run keyloggers that phone home to crackers. And they get to pay for these "privileges"?!? Gee, what a great deal.

$DEITY help them if their shareholders ever wise up.

Actually the problems ARE all solved in the latest versions of OSX. The attack vector is a Java applet displayed in the browser, Lion no longer includes Java by default, malware detection was added in Snow Leopard and starting in Lion processes are sandboxed. From what I've read the malware seems to target older computers and versions of OSX. As always the best protection is remaining up to date.

it has nothing on linux

IS WAY out of context. And you are wondering why I'm calling you a troll? Because you went to every post I posted that is still replyable calling me a liar, I've proven you wrong. Accepted that I was wrong that Hilton.com IS using Windows. And you are still trying to garner a response. On top of that you've taken your argument to just trying to take things out of context.

Now to answer your questions.

U avoid the question: Does HILTON.COM own the hilton.com domain, & does Hilton use Windows on it! YES or NO??

Beyond the fact that when I worked for them, they OWNED the TLD but it was hosted by a 3rd party vendor. The answer is YES they own the domain, and yes, in effect since the THIRD party hosts it but they own the TLD, once again you are right I was wrong.

"Troll is Troll, and because they have one server that has to make them windows dominate" - by Rasperin (1034758) on Saturday April 07, @01:50PM (#39607549) Calling me NAMES again (ontop of Shill & shit when you said you "kept a level head"? Bullshit)... but, ok: Funny, HILTON.COM's already PROVEN to run on Windows (gosh that's another Windows machine @ hilton) -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=hilton.com [netcraft.com]

My response is:

P.S.=> Ahem: My source? That came straight from Microsoft via their "GET THE FACTS" program, via EWeek magazine inserts on that much they used to do... apk

A highly unreliable source.

My bad for paraphrasing, you are stating 367 institutions Using Windows OVER Linux when they are using one for domain management.

367++ TOP FORTUNE 100/500 (or best 100 to work for per CNN Money) COMPANIES, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, &/or GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USING WINDOWS (over other solutions like Linux)

I'd copy and paste everything you did above but I don't have to.

Here's the deal, I called you out

HILTON HOTELS: Manages 1.4 Billion records a day for customers in 1000's of their hotels worldwide - for 370,000 rooms & catering services forecasts (switching from 6 *NIX systems to 1 Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 clustered failover system using a data warehouse with 7 million rows & 99.998% uptime).

After saying

367++ TOP FORTUNE 100/500 (or best 100 to work for per CNN Money) COMPANIES, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, &/or GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USING WINDOWS (over other solutions like Linux)

(Notice Windows over Linux) I (very unclearly, and very poorly) pointed out this is not the case and that they do not use Windows at all. Even if it is a third party, they do. I was wrong. However, your point of using Windows OVER Linux for all of Hilton Corporation is 100% FUD. As you can see with my retort of hilton.co.uk. Which is 7 non Windows servers (not counting citrix). And if you go to every other non .com/.net domain you will see that it is all linux, solaris, or "unknown".

With that, It's 5:20, I've got a family to go home to and I'm done playing your game. Promot

I'm sure Windows Phone will be as successful as the Zune, the Kin and the Spot Watch.

Anything Apple makes will be as successful as the Newton and Ping.
And anything Google makes will be as successful as Buzz and Wave(and G+?).

See, I too can make non-sequitur arguments by digging up past failures and ignoring successes like the XBox and Kinect(which is the fastest selling consumer electronic device ever).

Add Google TV and Chromebooks to the list of Google failures. Apparently, Chromebooks sold only a few thousands, ouch.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Logitech-Giving-Up-on-Google-TV-After-Losing-100M-344197/

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111109PD222.html

In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry. However, Acer has declined to comment.

But looks like it's fashionable here to rail only on MS' failures and not any other company's.

Ah yes, the old "these people are idiots, therefore everyone must be treated as such" fallacy.

With some 9,000 privilege escalations on Android, the Proof is in the pudding. And Apple's much-maligned "Walled Garden" (where the "walls" are so far away as to be virtually out-of-sight) and Developer Registration Program are exactly the reasons cited as to why you can't even find a number for iOS Malware.

And since you consider yourself to not be an idiot; surely you realize that you can trivially jailbreak your iOS device (thanks in part to the fact that Apple really doesn't work too hard to prevent that), and enjoy the same illusion-of-freedom that you ascribe to Android.

Microsoft continues to be the only vendor to sell stand-alone desktop operating systems that are not tied to hardware.

You mean other than Canonical or Red Hat? The only way GNU/Linux or FreeBSD could possibly be called "tied to hardware" would be as part of a complaint about poor driver support by some peripheral manufacturers.

Try again. Neither one of them has even 1/100 of 1% of desktop market sales (sales, as opposed to downloads - but even if we included the free downloads, either of them will have a hard time breaking that 1/10 of 1% mark). So, a few thousand sales in a market where Microsoft sells hundreds of millions really de minimus. Also, selling a support contract is not the same - Microsoft is quite happy (and profitable) selling just a bare OS, no support.

BTW - it's not GNU/Linux, any more than your car is called a Michelin/Ford - but if you want to go that route, feel free to call it Apple/BSD/GNU/Linux - there's Apple-owned stuff in the typical linux distro - essential stuff like cups. ;-)

False.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Google-Sued-Over-Safari-Privacy-Snafu-395296/

I'm not sure what to think of this story, but I was surprised when I spoke to two mainland Chinese co-workers about the issue of worker conditions in China. Essentially they said that only Apple has the power to do anything about this issue. The Chinese government won't do anything, Foxconn and other manufacturers won't do anything, the Chinese workers are too powerless to do anything. Only Apple has what they phrased as "moral standing". The Chinese government and Foxconn are viewed as amoral.

I also read an interesting article the other day about the planned inspections. The author, a person with experience in doing inspections, says the currently planned third-party inspections won't work. He suggested instead Apple place an employee representative on-site permanently ensure compliance.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Foxconn-Inspections-Are-Good-PR-but-Apple-Needs-to-Protect-Workers-407229/1/

Of course you have a valid point that nobody ever breaks the law.

Please - Explain away this (it's proof of ANDROID phones bearing CarrierIQ):

---

Carrier IQ Software Compromises Android Device Data Privacy:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Carrier-IQ-Software-Compromises-Android-Device-Data-Privacy-801615/

---

* Care to explain that article title & content then?

(CarrierIQ runs on ANDROID, a Linux variant, & thus is a problem for it, no questions asked!)

APK

P.S.=> Also - I never mentioned "your phone" specifically, so I don't know WHY you'd bring it up...

Heck, for all anyone KNOWS? YOU may have toyed with it to remove CarrierIQ, using say, the ADB (Android Debugging Bridge) & pulled CarrierIQ from it somehow that way!

See - I note that tool, because it's HANDY for installing custom HOSTS files onto ANDROID phones (for added "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" vs. known malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains, as well as speed for blocking out adbanners)... apk

Wrong.

Apple's certainly making a ton of money because of the margin they can charge, but they're not the dominant platform in either smartphones or tablets anymore.

Carrier IQ Software Compromises Android Device Data Privacy:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Carrier-IQ-Software-Compromises-Android-Device-Data-Privacy-801615/

* Care to explain that article title & content then?

(CarrierIQ runs on ANDROID, a Linux variant, & thus is a problem for it, no questions asked!)

APK

P.S.=> This is a classic that needs you requoted verbatim vs. the above evidence from reputable sources to the contrary:

"CarrierIQ is not an android problem." - by mSparks43 (757109) on Thursday December 22, @04:14PM (#38464720) Homepage"

Nuff said, because does CarrierIQ run on Linux? Absolutely, on ANDROID a linux variant, thus CarrierIQ IS A LINUX/ANDROID PROBLEM, & no "spin" b.s. can counter for that fact - See above, explain THAT then...

... apk

The most popular languages now, C# and Java

C and C++ are still the most used languages on the PC. Java wins if you include mobile (Android) devices.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Java-C-C-Top-18-Programming-Languages-for-2011-480790/

I find it interesting that virtually all new languages are programmed in C!

...perhaps dissidents should not be carrying around cell phones? I thought that much was obvious...

My point was really about governments that spy on dissident groups' communication, as in this case from Vietnam:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Google-Malware-Attacks-Target-Vietnam-Dissidents-498247/

You pulled that opinion out of your ass. Apple's products are well built. Apple consistently outdoes the rest of the tech industry on consumer satisfaction ratings.
http://osxdaily.com/2011/09/20/apple-customer-satisfaction-rating-at-all-time-high-dominates-pc-industry/
http://www.changewaveresearch.com/articles/2011/smart_phones_20110718.html
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Apple-iPad-Continues-to-Dominate-Consumer-Reports-Ratings-787644/
http://www.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2011030

And that is only one aspect of design. Apple selling Windows PCs or Android Phones wouldn't be nearly as popular. The software and ecosystem design is even more important than the industrial design.

CA sold off their utilities suite division, and CA's disreputable (this deals with thor schmuck) being caught in accounting and other types of scandals:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/CA-Struggles-with-Scandal/

and

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22CA%22+and+%22scandal%22&btnG=Search

The link at Windows IT Pro also shows that Jeremy Reimer (whom arstechnica no longer employs as a writer because of this and other misdeeds of his) was caught impersonating APK on his forums also, as well as libeling he childishly, email harassing apk, and stalking him forums to forums, on top of making threats to apk and his home as well which ended up bringing not only Reimer's ISP Shaw Canada into it, but Canadian law enforcement into it in a Det. Felton of Vancouver BC, which made Reimer and his friend Jay Little stop (along with a Jarrett DeAngelis who was caught lying there also and on this forums too).

(That said, it's known that that impersonating apk was also done at arstechnica forums itself also and they were also caught using the same email from multiple usernames while impersonating apk there also (ManWithNoHead = GOD = same person)).

Your sources are no reputable.

You are not reputable.

You can't even do an adhominem attack properly, as illogical as it is and invalid to begin with.

Your further messes have been shown throughout this exchange and you resorting to the last resort of trolls in off topic illogical adhominem attacks does the rest.

You lose and not even with any grace or dignity.

The problem is that they have government contractors reviewing potential solutions. The same people who are incapable of coming up with workable solutions themselves. So what makes anyone think they would know a good solution, even if it bit them in the ass?

DARPA announced a grant program for this last August at Black Hat. We spent a month crafting an RA for developing a solution based upon formal methods that would change the advantage from the attacker to the defender. Even if we were full of shit, you'd think DARPA would want to know more, in case we weren't. We got a form letter rejection for "Mudge". Am I bitter I spent a month trying to help out the DoD? you bet. I have better things to do.

It reminds me of when the Web was first emerging and I was getting my MBA - Anderson Consulting came to our school with a "contest" to see who could come up with the best business model for the web. Anyone know where AC is now? The DoD needs a good shot of Darwin.

MS did purchase licenses from SCO. More important, MS helped finance BayStar shortly before BayStar helped finance SCO for the lawsuits, thus preserving plausible deniability.
See the Halloween documents indicated in another post above as well as this and this.

That was intended to be a facetious reply to a rhetorical question. Nothing serious.

>Their reports ALWAYS favor Microsoft

Like this one? The first Google hit?

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Gmail-Now-Credible-Rival-to-Microsoft-Exchange-Gartner-617996/

Your comments NEVER favor Microsoft though. :) People have to be dense to believe you?

However, by creating a lackluster product in the Slate 2 that runs on a soon-to-be-outdated operating system

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/HP-Slate-2-Tablet-PC-Offers-Windows-at-a-Touch-676841/

it'll run windows 8...

That's what submitter gets for reading an article about HP on IBM's website. P.S. they're competitors.