Android because the rallying cry for cross-armed, anti-social cynics standing in the corner of the party watching the iPhone users socialize.
Wow wow... hold on fellow. You now are doing exactly what you object to in others, making an unrealistic caricature of groups of users. You do realize there are more Android phones sold every day then there iPhone's right? I don't know in which groups you hang of course, but with my friends, the "in" crowd is definitely not the iPhone user. But all of this is completely irrelevant because we should judge the products, not their users.
Finally, people have begun to wake up to the fact that Google is not what they perceived it to be. [various examples]
I'm sure there are some delusional Fandroids out there that think Google is God, but I'm pretty sure there are just as many delusional iFans and a significant portion of delusional Open Source / MS supporters (sorry I couldn't come up with anything clever to name those fans).
But please remember that's just the vocal minority on internet fora, most of the market just thinks: "Hey, this company has done pretty well. I'm not so sure about their privacy stuff that I sometimes read about, but their products are pretty nice.". There's no "Evil Google (TM)" or "Holy Google (TM)" for most people, and that's a good thing.
However, for so many years, mentioning any of this on tech sites like Slashdot, Reddit, Hacker News, and so on would get you voted down relentlessly by obsessive fans who could not accept any criticism of their hero. Google's purpose in appealing to those crowds--and I wouldn't be surprised if Google employees secretly post here and at other sites to help in this--is to win the support of techie communities, who will then defend them and give them a pass for things that companies like Microsoft could never get away with. It's free advertising.
Well now, this is getting up to the level of tinfoil hats mixed with an extremely selective world view. I'm sure there are Google employees on this and other sites, just as there are Microsoft employees here (probably even more), Apple employees here (probably less) and you know Slashdot has enough Open Source evangelists, even if it's a little less than it used to be. Besides, what is exactly the problem with Google (or any other company) trying to please the crowds? I'm a privacy advocate, so it stings me to say, that as far as delivering (decent) quality services to end-users for little-to-nothing (and unfortunately that's what people want - privacy be damned), I can't really think of any other company than Google that has done so well in the past years.
An unfortunate truth is that not all business models flourish through open-source. And not only open-source projects give the best end product, especially when it comes to user experience (which now is more important than ever). What Google has done better than any other (evil or not) is introduce and actively develop a legion of services and solutions (some better than others) that are free / freemium to use. Google's core business - Search - will never be opened because it would destroy their business. That Google isn't really quick on opening newest Android builds (whether for security or monetary concerns) is definitely unfortunate, and I'm sure there are many points to be made against other missteps, but the simple truth is that they are no more evil than MS or Apple or [fill in large corp]. I'm sure I don't have to list to you any of their missteps to prove that point. (Though to be fair Apple's recent patent trolling is really starting to bother me, especially because they violate so many of these so-called patents themselves, but that's a different story for another day.)
People get hung up on Google's openness, either in a too positive or too negative way. Judging by your signature, I'd say you are in the latter department. Chill, relax. The world is not coming to an end because of these companies. Your and my government (and the people that vote for them) are way ahead of them.
At this point, I have no idea who sued who first... but Samsung made the components for Apple, and Apple is asserting that in the process, Samsung ripped off their technologies so they could make their own product. (A little googling managed to turn up this [ibtimes.com] timeline -- apparently Apple sued first.)
Well that's the point isn't it? All these companies (Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, etc) own such a ridiculous amount of patents, according to the MAD principle they've stayed off each other's backs for years... until recently when Apple (& Microsoft) started suing everyone. If every patent they were granted was in fact valid, they could completely block each other from ever bringing out new products and completely destroy each other.
Sadly, with patents being such a big factor in what products you can make without getting sued (for instance, Android phone makers paying Microsoft)... I don't see how you can have anything but product competition being defined by lawyers and the courts.
Indeed, it seems this system is starting to show everyone why it doesn't work.
Unless you toss the notion of patents altogether, do you have a proposal of how companies will make products with out constantly suing one another? Because quite frankly, as it stands, the patent system pretty much guarantees that your lawyers are more important than your engineers.
Well the cold-war stand-off that seemed to happen (most of the time) in the past decade or two seemed to work "somewhat", a company like HTC was able to rise to power only at the merits of others not suing them over patents until they got a couple themselves (though not enough apparently in some cases).
Patents exist so that you can avoid having to out-compete, you either get in injunction, or make them pay you an obscene licensing fee per unit that makes it impossible to compete effectively.
With other words: Patents (in their current form) are anti-competitive and anti-innovative... and it seems that deep misunderstanding by many judges worldwide of the technical sector and how it works, doesn't help much either.
And to comment on the form factor: There were rounded square tablets before the iPad, there were rounded square phones before the iPhone (LG Prada?)... maybe the Galaxy S 1 is a bit more like the iPhone than the iPhone is like the Prada... but it's all definitely a blurred line. I've heard non-techie's say the Galaxy S is like the iPhone, but only in the sense a McDonald's burger is like a Burger King burger... never were they unable to tell which is which.
Ehm, I think they actually said: "President Obama is dead" (note the "president" part). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMP7Ys57ha4 Though it seems like an honest mistake... then again, they are Fox News, so...
Actually, I take that back... go through the comments on the Fox site. The ridiculous amounts of negative feedback on the review more than makes up for the review itself. This should be posted in Idle though, like the joke that it is.
How did this even get through the Firehose? Guess there are a lot more Apple fanboys on Slashdot then I thought... Even an Engadget review would've been more in-depth and useful than this one... and that's saying something...
It goes beyond that... it's also about recognition.
When I see "blablabla.com" I'm pretty sure that's a website. When toplevel domains are fully customizable and some companies will presumably start using http://microsoft/ or http://apple/... recognition will be gone, which is very annoying and slightly confusing. Most annoying for me personally (and many others I gather) will be I can no longer use the top bar for both searching and entering a webaddress. If I enter one word right now, it searches for it and if I enter a word+".com" (or similar) it goes to the web page. How will it be able to know once we go "keyword"-ing our TLDs? (Without either having a current list of ALL TLD's (which can become a huge list) or looking it up online (which introduces lag, especially on mobiles)?
But it was bound to happen I guess... ICANN wasn't going to ignore this huge amount of money that they can make from this just because it might make sense.
"The Flash sandbox blog post went to pains to call it an initial step," said Evans [from Google]. "It protects some stuff, more to come. Flash sandbox [does not equal] Chrome sandbox."
The blog Evans referred to was published in December 2010, where Schuh and another Google developer, Carlos Pizano said, "While we've laid a tremendous amount of groundwork in this initial sandbox, there's still more work to be done."
So yeah, but no, Google never claimed the flash plugin was inside the Chrome sandbox, it's still a work in progress apparently. Of course that doesn't negate the fact that flash is bundled with Chrome and therefor all Chrome users are vulnerable. Still, most users would've installed Flash anyway, this way Google has at least some control over the security issues (though obviously not enough).
Flash is not going away for awhile, especially as long as people keep using outdated browsers en masse and HTML5's implementation isn't (at least somewhat) unified crossbrowser... so with other words it's going take a looooooooong time before Flash is a distant memory. Your best bet is that Google finds a way to *really* sandbox Flash in, so this can't happen anymore. We'll see if they're able to.
Look, I'm a big advocate for more privacy and believe we are currently giving away way too much private information and are tracked way too much, but this is something that should be addressed in browsers, not websites. Hell, make legislation that makes it mandatory to have a dedicated cookie-information page with a new tag that links to it if you must (so the browser can link to it, for instance with the infamous yellow bar), but the practical effect of legislation like this is that business is moving elsewhere (outside the EU).
Any website that gives the end user a scary "I'm tracking you!" pop up will most definitely be less popular than its US/Asian/etc sibling that doesn't. More importantly, it's not what the end user wants (in most cases) as it deducts from the user experience. If you want to tackle this legitimate concern, do so from within the browser, so there is no advantage to anyone (and also solves the issue with how to warn for 3rd party cookies, plus saves a million man hours to make current websites compliant). I really don't understand why the (sometimes somewhat IT competent) EU decided to implement this in the way they did, as it will only hurt their business.
Almost makes me wish the EU had someone in charge that calls the internet a "series of tubes"... Almost.
Don't worry, I've seen a lot of Anonymous up close and believe me they are not even half as organised as you might think they are.
the linked article was purportedly written by a company called Anonymous Enterprises LLC (Bermuda). Now I'm too lazy to do any more research on that (I leave that to the experts) so I can't tell who is behind that company. But somehow, somewhere one or more individuals have apparently set this up, and the same or other individual(s) wrote this press release.
I didn't check the business registry of Bermuda, but knowing how this loosely tied group called Anonymous works, you can be sure there either is no Anonymous Enterprises LLC registered in Bermuda or if there is they have nothing to do with this. I'm pretty sure this was just added for the so called Lulz.
Furthermore, I can assure you while sometimes a "press release" like this is first shown in IRC channels to see if most people think it's ok, a lot of times it's just an Anonymous user who feels this is what most of Anonymous is thinking (whether wrong or right) and posting it right away. If you need more proof, check anonnews.org for the many contradictory "press releases" on their site. While there is an active (but still loosely tied) core of Anonymous that seems to be more active in creating these press releases, setting up websites, thinking up "diabolical" schemes and "Ops", they too are consistently being replaced by others. There's no real center of operation or spokeperson.
In short: almost all "members" of Anonymous don't really know what the hell they are doing over half of the time and structure and order is contrary to how Anonymous operates. That is, if you can even call a bunch of trolls, idealists, lulz-seekers, bored teens and what have you, who constantly disagree on everything, even the definition of Anonymous, a real group.
Back on topic: while it may be very possible someone who has at one time or another sympathized or acted as part of Anonymous is responsible for the hack. I'm pretty damn sure there was no secret meeting, nor any group effort by the collective we call Anonymous to hack the PSN as occurred. While I do believe Sony may indeed have found a file named "Anonymous" with the contents "We are legion", it is both silly for Sony or anyone else for that matter to think they have much to do with it.
Well, doesn't make much sense after you decode it either:
A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 1. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT. Involvement with the patient's suffering might cause him to lose valuable scientific objectivity. 2. BE CHEERFUL AT ALL TIMES. Your doctor leads a busy and trying life and requires all the gentleness and reassurance he can get. 3. TRY TO SUFFER FROM THE DISEASE FOR WHICH YOU ARE BEING TREATED. Remember that your doctor has a professional reputation to uphold. % A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 4. DO NOT COMPLAIN IF THE TREATMENT FAILS TO BRING RELIEF. You must believe that your doctor has achieved a deep insight into the true nature of your illness, which transcends any mere permanent disability you may have experienced. 5. NEVER ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE IS DOING OR WHY HE IS DOING IT. It is presumptuous to assume that such profound matters could be explained in terms that you would understand. 6. SUBMIT TO NOVEL EXPERIMANTAL TREATMENT READILY. Though the surgery may not benefit you directly, the resulting research paper will surely be of widespread interest. % A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 7. PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS PROMPTLY AND WILLINGLY. You should consider it a privilege to contribute, however modestly, to the well-being of physicians and other humanitarians. 8. DO NOT SUFFER FROM AILMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD. It is sheer arrogance to contract illnesses that are beyond your means. 9. NEVER REVEAL ANY OF THE SHORTCOMINGS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF TREATMENT BY YOUR DOCTOR. The patient-doctor relationship is a privileged one, and you have a sacred duty to protect him from exposure. 10. NEVER DIE WHILE IN YOUR DOCTOR'S PRESENCE OR UNDER HIS DIRECT CARE. This will only cause him needless inconvenience and embarrassment. % A distraught patient phoned her doctor's office. "Was it true," the woman inquired, "that the medication the doctor had prescribed was for the rest of her life?" She was told that it was. There was just a moment of silence before the woman proceeded bravely on. "Well, I'm wondering, then, how serious my condition is. This prescription is marked `NO REFILLS'". % A doctor calls his patient to give him the results of his tests. "I have some bad news," says the doctor, "and some worse news." The bad news is that you only have six weeks to live." "Oh, no," says the patient. "What could possibly be worse than that?" "Well," the doctor replies, "I've been trying to reach you since last Monday." % A woman physician has made the statement that smoking is neither physically defective nor morally degrading, and that nicotine, even when indulged to in excess, is less harmful than excessive petting." -- Purdue Exponent, Jan 16, 1925 % A woman went into a hospital one day to give birth. Afterwards, the doctor came to her and said, "I have some... odd news for you." "Is my baby all right?" the woman anxiously asked. "Yes, he is," the doctor replied, "but we don't know how. Your son (we assume) was born with no body. He only has a head." Well, the doctor was correct. The Head was alive and well, though no one knew how. The Head turned out to be fairly normal, ignoring his lack of a body, and lived for some time as typical a life as could be expected under the circumstances. One day, about twenty years after the fateful birth, the woman got a phone call from another doctor. The doctor said, "I have recently perfected an operation. Your son can live a normal life now: we can graft a body onto his head!" The woman, practically weeping with joy, thanked the doctor and hung up. She ran up the stairs saying, "Johnny, Johnny, I have a *wonderful* surprise for you!" "Oh no," cried The Head, "not another HAT!" % After his legs had been broken in an accident, Mr. Miller sued for damages, claming that he was crippled and would have to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Although the insurance-company doctor testified that his bones had healed properly and that he was fully capable of walking, the
What I don't understand is why everyone is so afraid of ID theft after this hack.
I'm not going to defend Sony here on any of their actions, from the reports so far it seems they really f-ed up (even though it's the actual criminal that should get primary blame), but apart from the possible CC info (which I already had replaced), what informations do(es) the hacker(s) really have? Name and Address? We do realize that for most world citizens that have the money to have bought a PS3 system, that information is already... I don't know, like everywhere? Actively being collected by hundreds if not thousands of corporations and being (legally) sold between entities throughout the world.
The only major thing is the password (though hashed, it might be retrievable with rainbow tables as I haven't read anywhere they also salted it) and the security question. Both can be a problem if you use the same one often of course. But it's not like someone has your SSN and can go open a credit in your name right? Or is it really possible in some countries to do that with just your name and address? I can't imagine, but if it is, those countries really need to rework their financial branch a.s.a.p.
Look, I'm not saying this is extremely inconvenient (cancel CC, get new one and if you didn't use a unique password / security question, change them elsewhere) and I'm pissed this happened, but being afraid of the ID theft because of this hack, seems like being afraid of dieing when you've just been stung by a bee... I'm not saying it's impossible, but seems highly unlikely. But please, if I missed something somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong.
Interesting, though I'm somewhat skeptical at the idea that any film at any iso has the resolution to actually retain any usable information from that. Also consider that when something is shot with a small aperture, all the light comes from pretty much one point (think about how lenses work) and even with a large aperture, the difference in direction is not spectacular. This makes me further doubt that film (especially in 35mm) could have any further information (that is detectable with any normal forensic equipment) that would allow you to detect tempering.
True, but "App Store" can obviously be translated to "Application Store" which both of these stores are. The only claim Apple can possibly make is that they introduced the word "App" thereby making "App Store" their intellectual property / trademark... and since "App" has been an abbreviation of "Application" for quite some time (though maybe not as widespread), I'm thinking they'll have a hard time getting this one to stick. (A lot harder than Microsoft would have litigating if another operating system came out with the word "Windows" in it anyway.)
Oh and in case you were wondering: the moral of this story is: you [should be/are] allowed to rip off anyone who rips of others... even if your combination of rip-offs is unique to your device.
Well it matters since if they didn't actually stole Apple's files which contained the design, they can't claim copyright infringement. They know this, so they are saying Samsung is infringing on their trademark... unfortunately how generation X, Y or Z of iphone's look, couldn't possibly stand in court as their trademark - *especially* because they already ripped of so many others in it.
Yeah, 'cos a grid of app icons was Apple's innovation... Just like a rounded rectangular shaped phone...
Besides, you can't patent or copyright an idea, just your implementation. Apple is just as guilty (if not more so) of copying other people's ideas as any one else.
Slashdot Mirror
Android because the rallying cry for cross-armed, anti-social cynics standing in the corner of the party watching the iPhone users socialize.
Wow wow... hold on fellow. You now are doing exactly what you object to in others, making an unrealistic caricature of groups of users. You do realize there are more Android phones sold every day then there iPhone's right? I don't know in which groups you hang of course, but with my friends, the "in" crowd is definitely not the iPhone user. But all of this is completely irrelevant because we should judge the products, not their users.
Finally, people have begun to wake up to the fact that Google is not what they perceived it to be. [various examples]
I'm sure there are some delusional Fandroids out there that think Google is God, but I'm pretty sure there are just as many delusional iFans and a significant portion of delusional Open Source / MS supporters (sorry I couldn't come up with anything clever to name those fans).
But please remember that's just the vocal minority on internet fora, most of the market just thinks: "Hey, this company has done pretty well. I'm not so sure about their privacy stuff that I sometimes read about, but their products are pretty nice.". There's no "Evil Google (TM)" or "Holy Google (TM)" for most people, and that's a good thing.
However, for so many years, mentioning any of this on tech sites like Slashdot, Reddit, Hacker News, and so on would get you voted down relentlessly by obsessive fans who could not accept any criticism of their hero. Google's purpose in appealing to those crowds--and I wouldn't be surprised if Google employees secretly post here and at other sites to help in this--is to win the support of techie communities, who will then defend them and give them a pass for things that companies like Microsoft could never get away with. It's free advertising.
Well now, this is getting up to the level of tinfoil hats mixed with an extremely selective world view. I'm sure there are Google employees on this and other sites, just as there are Microsoft employees here (probably even more), Apple employees here (probably less) and you know Slashdot has enough Open Source evangelists, even if it's a little less than it used to be. Besides, what is exactly the problem with Google (or any other company) trying to please the crowds? I'm a privacy advocate, so it stings me to say, that as far as delivering (decent) quality services to end-users for little-to-nothing (and unfortunately that's what people want - privacy be damned), I can't really think of any other company than Google that has done so well in the past years.
An unfortunate truth is that not all business models flourish through open-source. And not only open-source projects give the best end product, especially when it comes to user experience (which now is more important than ever). What Google has done better than any other (evil or not) is introduce and actively develop a legion of services and solutions (some better than others) that are free / freemium to use. Google's core business - Search - will never be opened because it would destroy their business. That Google isn't really quick on opening newest Android builds (whether for security or monetary concerns) is definitely unfortunate, and I'm sure there are many points to be made against other missteps, but the simple truth is that they are no more evil than MS or Apple or [fill in large corp]. I'm sure I don't have to list to you any of their missteps to prove that point. (Though to be fair Apple's recent patent trolling is really starting to bother me, especially because they violate so many of these so-called patents themselves, but that's a different story for another day.)
People get hung up on Google's openness, either in a too positive or too negative way. Judging by your signature, I'd say you are in the latter department. Chill, relax. The world is not coming to an end because of these companies. Your and my government (and the people that vote for them) are way ahead of them.
Well, for starters Samsung is a Korean company.
I think GP meant Apple... the US company.
At this point, I have no idea who sued who first ... but Samsung made the components for Apple, and Apple is asserting that in the process, Samsung ripped off their technologies so they could make their own product. (A little googling managed to turn up this [ibtimes.com] timeline -- apparently Apple sued first.)
Well that's the point isn't it? All these companies (Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, etc) own such a ridiculous amount of patents, according to the MAD principle they've stayed off each other's backs for years... until recently when Apple (& Microsoft) started suing everyone. If every patent they were granted was in fact valid, they could completely block each other from ever bringing out new products and completely destroy each other.
Sadly, with patents being such a big factor in what products you can make without getting sued (for instance, Android phone makers paying Microsoft) ... I don't see how you can have anything but product competition being defined by lawyers and the courts.
Indeed, it seems this system is starting to show everyone why it doesn't work.
Unless you toss the notion of patents altogether, do you have a proposal of how companies will make products with out constantly suing one another? Because quite frankly, as it stands, the patent system pretty much guarantees that your lawyers are more important than your engineers.
Well the cold-war stand-off that seemed to happen (most of the time) in the past decade or two seemed to work "somewhat", a company like HTC was able to rise to power only at the merits of others not suing them over patents until they got a couple themselves (though not enough apparently in some cases).
Patents exist so that you can avoid having to out-compete, you either get in injunction, or make them pay you an obscene licensing fee per unit that makes it impossible to compete effectively.
With other words: Patents (in their current form) are anti-competitive and anti-innovative... and it seems that deep misunderstanding by many judges worldwide of the technical sector and how it works, doesn't help much either.
And to comment on the form factor: There were rounded square tablets before the iPad, there were rounded square phones before the iPhone (LG Prada?)... maybe the Galaxy S 1 is a bit more like the iPhone than the iPhone is like the Prada... but it's all definitely a blurred line. I've heard non-techie's say the Galaxy S is like the iPhone, but only in the sense a McDonald's burger is like a Burger King burger... never were they unable to tell which is which.
This must hands down be the weirdest reply I've ever read on Slashdot... and I've read quite a few strange ones...
Ehm, I think they actually said: "President Obama is dead" (note the "president" part). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMP7Ys57ha4
Though it seems like an honest mistake... then again, they are Fox News, so...
Actually, I take that back... go through the comments on the Fox site. The ridiculous amounts of negative feedback on the review more than makes up for the review itself. This should be posted in Idle though, like the joke that it is.
How did this even get through the Firehose? Guess there are a lot more Apple fanboys on Slashdot then I thought... Even an Engadget review would've been more in-depth and useful than this one... and that's saying something...
It goes beyond that... it's also about recognition.
When I see "blablabla.com" I'm pretty sure that's a website. When toplevel domains are fully customizable and some companies will presumably start using http://microsoft/ or http://apple/ ... recognition will be gone, which is very annoying and slightly confusing. Most annoying for me personally (and many others I gather) will be I can no longer use the top bar for both searching and entering a webaddress. If I enter one word right now, it searches for it and if I enter a word+".com" (or similar) it goes to the web page. How will it be able to know once we go "keyword"-ing our TLDs? (Without either having a current list of ALL TLD's (which can become a huge list) or looking it up online (which introduces lag, especially on mobiles)?
But it was bound to happen I guess... ICANN wasn't going to ignore this huge amount of money that they can make from this just because it might make sense.
You must be Dutch...
I think you should re-read Duradin's comment... and check again for sarcasm. Good points otherwise though.
From TFA:
"The Flash sandbox blog post went to pains to call it an initial step," said Evans [from Google]. "It protects some stuff, more to come. Flash sandbox [does not equal] Chrome sandbox."
The blog Evans referred to was published in December 2010, where Schuh and another Google developer, Carlos Pizano said, "While we've laid a tremendous amount of groundwork in this initial sandbox, there's still more work to be done."
So yeah, but no, Google never claimed the flash plugin was inside the Chrome sandbox, it's still a work in progress apparently. Of course that doesn't negate the fact that flash is bundled with Chrome and therefor all Chrome users are vulnerable. Still, most users would've installed Flash anyway, this way Google has at least some control over the security issues (though obviously not enough).
Flash is not going away for awhile, especially as long as people keep using outdated browsers en masse and HTML5's implementation isn't (at least somewhat) unified crossbrowser... so with other words it's going take a looooooooong time before Flash is a distant memory. Your best bet is that Google finds a way to *really* sandbox Flash in, so this can't happen anymore. We'll see if they're able to.
Yes, and it should link to the original source of the story, not this crappy write-up on some unknown blog.
Original: [link]
Exactly.
Look, I'm a big advocate for more privacy and believe we are currently giving away way too much private information and are tracked way too much, but this is something that should be addressed in browsers, not websites. Hell, make legislation that makes it mandatory to have a dedicated cookie-information page with a new tag that links to it if you must (so the browser can link to it, for instance with the infamous yellow bar), but the practical effect of legislation like this is that business is moving elsewhere (outside the EU).
Any website that gives the end user a scary "I'm tracking you!" pop up will most definitely be less popular than its US/Asian/etc sibling that doesn't. More importantly, it's not what the end user wants (in most cases) as it deducts from the user experience. If you want to tackle this legitimate concern, do so from within the browser, so there is no advantage to anyone (and also solves the issue with how to warn for 3rd party cookies, plus saves a million man hours to make current websites compliant). I really don't understand why the (sometimes somewhat IT competent) EU decided to implement this in the way they did, as it will only hurt their business.
Almost makes me wish the EU had someone in charge that calls the internet a "series of tubes"... Almost.
Don't worry, I've seen a lot of Anonymous up close and believe me they are not even half as organised as you might think they are.
the linked article was purportedly written by a company called Anonymous Enterprises LLC (Bermuda). Now I'm too lazy to do any more research on that (I leave that to the experts) so I can't tell who is behind that company. But somehow, somewhere one or more individuals have apparently set this up, and the same or other individual(s) wrote this press release.
I didn't check the business registry of Bermuda, but knowing how this loosely tied group called Anonymous works, you can be sure there either is no Anonymous Enterprises LLC registered in Bermuda or if there is they have nothing to do with this. I'm pretty sure this was just added for the so called Lulz.
Furthermore, I can assure you while sometimes a "press release" like this is first shown in IRC channels to see if most people think it's ok, a lot of times it's just an Anonymous user who feels this is what most of Anonymous is thinking (whether wrong or right) and posting it right away. If you need more proof, check anonnews.org for the many contradictory "press releases" on their site. While there is an active (but still loosely tied) core of Anonymous that seems to be more active in creating these press releases, setting up websites, thinking up "diabolical" schemes and "Ops", they too are consistently being replaced by others. There's no real center of operation or spokeperson.
In short: almost all "members" of Anonymous don't really know what the hell they are doing over half of the time and structure and order is contrary to how Anonymous operates. That is, if you can even call a bunch of trolls, idealists, lulz-seekers, bored teens and what have you, who constantly disagree on everything, even the definition of Anonymous, a real group.
Back on topic: while it may be very possible someone who has at one time or another sympathized or acted as part of Anonymous is responsible for the hack. I'm pretty damn sure there was no secret meeting, nor any group effort by the collective we call Anonymous to hack the PSN as occurred. While I do believe Sony may indeed have found a file named "Anonymous" with the contents "We are legion", it is both silly for Sony or anyone else for that matter to think they have much to do with it.
Well, doesn't make much sense after you decode it either:
A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 1. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT. Involvement with the patient's suffering might cause him to lose valuable scientific objectivity. 2. BE CHEERFUL AT ALL TIMES. Your doctor leads a busy and trying life and requires all the gentleness and reassurance he can get. 3. TRY TO SUFFER FROM THE DISEASE FOR WHICH YOU ARE BEING TREATED. Remember that your doctor has a professional reputation to uphold. % A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 4. DO NOT COMPLAIN IF THE TREATMENT FAILS TO BRING RELIEF. You must believe that your doctor has achieved a deep insight into the true nature of your illness, which transcends any mere permanent disability you may have experienced. 5. NEVER ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE IS DOING OR WHY HE IS DOING IT. It is presumptuous to assume that such profound matters could be explained in terms that you would understand. 6. SUBMIT TO NOVEL EXPERIMANTAL TREATMENT READILY. Though the surgery may not benefit you directly, the resulting research paper will surely be of widespread interest. % A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 7. PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS PROMPTLY AND WILLINGLY. You should consider it a privilege to contribute, however modestly, to the well-being of physicians and other humanitarians. 8. DO NOT SUFFER FROM AILMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD. It is sheer arrogance to contract illnesses that are beyond your means. 9. NEVER REVEAL ANY OF THE SHORTCOMINGS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF TREATMENT BY YOUR DOCTOR. The patient-doctor relationship is a privileged one, and you have a sacred duty to protect him from exposure. 10. NEVER DIE WHILE IN YOUR DOCTOR'S PRESENCE OR UNDER HIS DIRECT CARE. This will only cause him needless inconvenience and embarrassment. % A distraught patient phoned her doctor's office. "Was it true," the woman inquired, "that the medication the doctor had prescribed was for the rest of her life?" She was told that it was. There was just a moment of silence before the woman proceeded bravely on. "Well, I'm wondering, then, how serious my condition is. This prescription is marked `NO REFILLS'". % A doctor calls his patient to give him the results of his tests. "I have some bad news," says the doctor, "and some worse news." The bad news is that you only have six weeks to live." "Oh, no," says the patient. "What could possibly be worse than that?" "Well," the doctor replies, "I've been trying to reach you since last Monday." % A woman physician has made the statement that smoking is neither physically defective nor morally degrading, and that nicotine, even when indulged to in excess, is less harmful than excessive petting." -- Purdue Exponent, Jan 16, 1925 % A woman went into a hospital one day to give birth. Afterwards, the doctor came to her and said, "I have some... odd news for you." "Is my baby all right?" the woman anxiously asked. "Yes, he is," the doctor replied, "but we don't know how. Your son (we assume) was born with no body. He only has a head." Well, the doctor was correct. The Head was alive and well, though no one knew how. The Head turned out to be fairly normal, ignoring his lack of a body, and lived for some time as typical a life as could be expected under the circumstances. One day, about twenty years after the fateful birth, the woman got a phone call from another doctor. The doctor said, "I have recently perfected an operation. Your son can live a normal life now: we can graft a body onto his head!" The woman, practically weeping with joy, thanked the doctor and hung up. She ran up the stairs saying, "Johnny, Johnny, I have a *wonderful* surprise for you!" "Oh no," cried The Head, "not another HAT!" % After his legs had been broken in an accident, Mr. Miller sued for damages, claming that he was crippled and would have to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Although the insurance-company doctor testified that his bones had healed properly and that he was fully capable of walking, the
What I don't understand is why everyone is so afraid of ID theft after this hack.
I'm not going to defend Sony here on any of their actions, from the reports so far it seems they really f-ed up (even though it's the actual criminal that should get primary blame), but apart from the possible CC info (which I already had replaced), what informations do(es) the hacker(s) really have? Name and Address? We do realize that for most world citizens that have the money to have bought a PS3 system, that information is already... I don't know, like everywhere? Actively being collected by hundreds if not thousands of corporations and being (legally) sold between entities throughout the world.
The only major thing is the password (though hashed, it might be retrievable with rainbow tables as I haven't read anywhere they also salted it) and the security question. Both can be a problem if you use the same one often of course. But it's not like someone has your SSN and can go open a credit in your name right? Or is it really possible in some countries to do that with just your name and address? I can't imagine, but if it is, those countries really need to rework their financial branch a.s.a.p.
Look, I'm not saying this is extremely inconvenient (cancel CC, get new one and if you didn't use a unique password / security question, change them elsewhere) and I'm pissed this happened, but being afraid of the ID theft because of this hack, seems like being afraid of dieing when you've just been stung by a bee... I'm not saying it's impossible, but seems highly unlikely. But please, if I missed something somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong.
Interesting, though I'm somewhat skeptical at the idea that any film at any iso has the resolution to actually retain any usable information from that. Also consider that when something is shot with a small aperture, all the light comes from pretty much one point (think about how lenses work) and even with a large aperture, the difference in direction is not spectacular. This makes me further doubt that film (especially in 35mm) could have any further information (that is detectable with any normal forensic equipment) that would allow you to detect tempering.
True, but "App Store" can obviously be translated to "Application Store" which both of these stores are. The only claim Apple can possibly make is that they introduced the word "App" thereby making "App Store" their intellectual property / trademark... and since "App" has been an abbreviation of "Application" for quite some time (though maybe not as widespread), I'm thinking they'll have a hard time getting this one to stick. (A lot harder than Microsoft would have litigating if another operating system came out with the word "Windows" in it anyway.)
^ This is awesome... must have for my next web project.
How is "Windows" a generic term to describe an operating system?
Indeed, these kind of suits are getting ridiculous... (and I don't mean the fashionable ones.)
Except, then there were Rainbow Tables... but then of course they should've used Salt which I guess they didn't.
Also possibly relevant is the PSN Outage FAQ they posted: [link].
Oh and in case you were wondering: the moral of this story is: you [should be/are] allowed to rip off anyone who rips of others... even if your combination of rip-offs is unique to your device.
Well it matters since if they didn't actually stole Apple's files which contained the design, they can't claim copyright infringement. They know this, so they are saying Samsung is infringing on their trademark... unfortunately how generation X, Y or Z of iphone's look, couldn't possibly stand in court as their trademark - *especially* because they already ripped of so many others in it.
Yeah, 'cos a grid of app icons was Apple's innovation... Just like a rounded rectangular shaped phone...
Besides, you can't patent or copyright an idea, just your implementation. Apple is just as guilty (if not more so) of copying other people's ideas as any one else.