Blackberries lock up, and theyre slow, and the browser sucks, but I still would take it any day of the week over an iPhone or even an android (unless they release a Galaxy S with a decent battery and a better keyboard...). Why?
1) The keyboards are always phenomenal. I can take notes on a blackberry quite well, keeping pace with a speaker. And the notes are always, automatically synced to the Exchange server, so I dont even have to worry about backups.
2) Battery life is phenomenal compared to Android power-devices. If the thing doesnt last through 8 hours of talking and data usage, then its worthless to me. Most days I dont use it quite that much, but others Im on the phone all day.
3) Keyboard shortcuts are phenomenal. It is trivial to fly around the menus on my Bold, compose a mail, copy/paste, bookmark and all the rest. Very little fiddling with menus.
4) BES is king. Active-sync is nice, and has its pros (like not needing yet another server and yet 2 more GB of RAM), but it also has a lot of cons-- certificate woes, iPhone woes (where it simply refuses to connect, even if the certs are all correct-- could be any number of things), lack of manageability, and not as many things are synced. Its getting better all the time, but BES still has fewer issues, easier deployment, better security, and more management options. And the new 5.0 BES has a web-management interface which (despite being ActiveX-style crufty) is great-- allows you do manage which public folders you sync, lets you do backups, etc.
If your idea of a smartphone is occasionally getting some emails and doing phone calls, sure, get an iPhone or Android. Some of the folks in my office have iPhones, and love them in general. But if you (like me) find yourself typing email on your phone even if theres a computer nearby, you really want to use a Blackberry. Theyre wonderful for business use, and I think it would be a mistake for RIM to start catering to home users-- theyll never beat iPhone at that game. The strength of a Blackberry is productivity.
That was me you told. Here is my reluctance to believe it: I will grant that it is possible that this was an opportunity that was seized upon by one or more governments to take some of the spotlight off of Assange (or to cast him in a bad light). But you seem to think that the entire case, start to finish, was fabricated. None of Assanges lawyers have yet argued that, nor have they denied a relationship or even the intercourse with the girls. Their entire claim has been that extradition would somehow put them more in the doghouse because they would be in the US-friendly Sweden (as if the UK isnt friendly with the US, and doesnt do extraditions?). It makes no sense, especially if we entertain the "CIA black-op" scenario.
And for everyone to right away assume that Assange MUST be in the right, before he has even set foot in a courtroom (because, of course, he is refusing to do so), is ridiculous. We see where similar assumptions about Strauss Kahn ended up (about his guilt, in that scenario).
And as for Strauss Kahn, everything Ive heard is that his name is NOT marred by this, the French are quite upset about the kneejerk reaction that the US had, and that Strauss Kahn could use the whole ordeal to play the victim card and come out looking better than before. Doesnt really sound like a good CIA plan to me.
Ill switch to peppermint, since its basically what I wanted out of Ubuntu in the first place-- a minimal, no-config Linux with debian-style package management, chrome as default browser, and a light-weight window manager.
And it gets the benefit of all those nifty patched Ubuntu kernels too.
Youll need a source for that, and youll want to explain how that fits with history, particularly the Reformation and the explosion of popular access to German and English language Bibles.
MAC filtering would have done, quite literally, nothing to stop this guy, and I will explain why.
To crack WEP, you generally fire up a scanner like kismet to locate your target. This will locate any SSID where there is either a broadcast, or traffic. This is why non-broadcast isnt much security-- its possible that the scanner will miss your network, but given enough time it will eventually respond to a packet and show up in the scanner.
Once you have located your network, you check its details, which shows authenticated MACs, encryption type, etc. At this point, you start collecting IVs through aircrack or whatever else you use. One of the ways to generate traffic is to spoof de-auth packets to auth'd laptops, forcing them to reauthenticate, generating additional traffic. This whole way through, you have a list of valid MAC addresses-- so when you finally crack the password, you can simply spoof your mac as one of theirs (Wifi macs are easily changed in software), issue a deauth command to their connection, and authenticate as them. If it is at night, they probably wouldnt even notice, and their router would show you as being them.
If you want additional security, you use an encryption type that wasnt broken in 2001, horribly broken in 2004, and left in shambles a few years later as the cracks got progressively better. It is now possible to crack a WEP network on bog-standard Ubuntu with unpatched drivers with bog standard hardware in about 5 minutes (the span of 2 youtube videos) if you have the right software.
In other words, use WPA or WPA2-- preferably with AES. The vulnerabilities for those consist of pounding the routers in a brute force attempt to get the password. For a password, use a sentence-- it can be anything, like "My dog's name is Rover.". Good luck to the would-be hacker guessing which of the billions of permutations of sentences you used.
It only takes a few minutes IF: A) there is a decent amoiunt of traffic going on. B) You do active cracking, sending all sorts of bogus traffic and making the router light up like a christmas tree, as well as causing suspicious disconnections C) Corollary to B, you have a wifi card capable of injection
Otherwise, you need to do passive sniffing to get enough IVs to actually crack it, and that really depends on whether you are sniffing when their primary usage times are, and how much data they regularly pull over wifi.
Disclaimer-- I do not have google+, and I rarely use my facebook, so any corrections are welcomed.
As much as I also hate Zuckerberg, he is spot on. At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public.
I thought the complaints had all, historically, been that facebook was difficult to make truly private, tracking you even when you make an effort to lock it down.
Conversely, Google has historically been quite clear on what they do with their data, and my understanding was that Google+ made it easier to say "dont track anything, this is private".
One usually imagines trolls as being gleeful because they ruined people's day without having to put any effort in.
But here you are putting all this effort into trolling... which makes it more sad, than anything. I mean, about 10 seconds after clicking goatse the person will simply move on with their day; to waste so much time on a pointless endeavor, how bored must you be?
3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?
This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no intentionality behind it, there is no reason for copyright.
All true points except the "pretty easy" part. I might be willing to do the upgrade myself, but I cant imagine recommending that a non-techie friend click that upgrade button without my help-- who knows how many things would break, or have the upgrade process halt because its waiting for you to figure out which grub.cfg you want, etc.
Its also about 3 times as obnoxious GUI wise. Its probably the only Ubuntu release that I trialed for less time than it took to install in a virtual machine-- it was bad enough that I couldnt even stand testing it.
I mean, this is completely off topic, but if you want to shift gears to spouting about how great Ubuntu is vs WIndows, some honesty about the trainwreck that is 11.04 would be useful. It is, after all, the Vista of Ubuntus.
Ubuntu's releases are also measured on the order of months, not years. They certainly dont support some of their LTSes that are younger than vista-- is Edgy Eft still supported? (thats october 2006)?
I very recently was going to make a snarky comment about XPs support vs Linux, and then I realized that kernel 2.4 (that one thats basically considered obsolete in non-embedded deployments) was the latest thing only 7-8 years ago-- kernel 2.6 is younger than XP is (and for that matter, 2.4 might be as well).
Might be credible if you had a shred of evidence to back your claims up; otherwise, how do you intend to separate yourself from scores of other certifiably nuts conspiracy theorists?
So, if Strauss Kahn wins the presidency, and this discussion resurfaces, will you then claim that its even more brilliant, because he will be an ineffective president?
The way you are arguing, no matter what reality and all evidence shows, you can continue to claim that its a conspiracy.
And Im not trying to claim the CIA couldnt do something like that (despite it being incredibly illegal, and not something the CIA would do inside of our country); but when you have no evidence whatsoever, and reality in fact heavily implies the opposite, it really hurts your credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Blackberries lock up, and theyre slow, and the browser sucks, but I still would take it any day of the week over an iPhone or even an android (unless they release a Galaxy S with a decent battery and a better keyboard...). Why?
1) The keyboards are always phenomenal. I can take notes on a blackberry quite well, keeping pace with a speaker. And the notes are always, automatically synced to the Exchange server, so I dont even have to worry about backups.
2) Battery life is phenomenal compared to Android power-devices. If the thing doesnt last through 8 hours of talking and data usage, then its worthless to me. Most days I dont use it quite that much, but others Im on the phone all day.
3) Keyboard shortcuts are phenomenal. It is trivial to fly around the menus on my Bold, compose a mail, copy/paste, bookmark and all the rest. Very little fiddling with menus.
4) BES is king. Active-sync is nice, and has its pros (like not needing yet another server and yet 2 more GB of RAM), but it also has a lot of cons-- certificate woes, iPhone woes (where it simply refuses to connect, even if the certs are all correct-- could be any number of things), lack of manageability, and not as many things are synced. Its getting better all the time, but BES still has fewer issues, easier deployment, better security, and more management options. And the new 5.0 BES has a web-management interface which (despite being ActiveX-style crufty) is great-- allows you do manage which public folders you sync, lets you do backups, etc.
If your idea of a smartphone is occasionally getting some emails and doing phone calls, sure, get an iPhone or Android. Some of the folks in my office have iPhones, and love them in general. But if you (like me) find yourself typing email on your phone even if theres a computer nearby, you really want to use a Blackberry. Theyre wonderful for business use, and I think it would be a mistake for RIM to start catering to home users-- theyll never beat iPhone at that game. The strength of a Blackberry is productivity.
That was me you told. Here is my reluctance to believe it:
I will grant that it is possible that this was an opportunity that was seized upon by one or more governments to take some of the spotlight off of Assange (or to cast him in a bad light). But you seem to think that the entire case, start to finish, was fabricated. None of Assanges lawyers have yet argued that, nor have they denied a relationship or even the intercourse with the girls. Their entire claim has been that extradition would somehow put them more in the doghouse because they would be in the US-friendly Sweden (as if the UK isnt friendly with the US, and doesnt do extraditions?). It makes no sense, especially if we entertain the "CIA black-op" scenario.
And for everyone to right away assume that Assange MUST be in the right, before he has even set foot in a courtroom (because, of course, he is refusing to do so), is ridiculous. We see where similar assumptions about Strauss Kahn ended up (about his guilt, in that scenario).
And as for Strauss Kahn, everything Ive heard is that his name is NOT marred by this, the French are quite upset about the kneejerk reaction that the US had, and that Strauss Kahn could use the whole ordeal to play the victim card and come out looking better than before. Doesnt really sound like a good CIA plan to me.
Ill switch to peppermint, since its basically what I wanted out of Ubuntu in the first place-- a minimal, no-config Linux with debian-style package management, chrome as default browser, and a light-weight window manager.
And it gets the benefit of all those nifty patched Ubuntu kernels too.
Perhaps you should read the relevant parts of the Constitution then, before commenting on it on slashdot.
Then again, ignorance has never been an excuse for not posting on slashdot.
Youll need a source for that, and youll want to explain how that fits with history, particularly the Reformation and the explosion of popular access to German and English language Bibles.
This would make far more sense than the unawares photographer getting the copyright.
That would not prevent someone authenticating to your wifi AP and doing what this guy did, namely take incriminating actions from your connection.
All nodes can change their mac. Under windows it can be done from device manager, under linux I think iwconfig and macchanger can do it.
MAC filtering would have done, quite literally, nothing to stop this guy, and I will explain why.
To crack WEP, you generally fire up a scanner like kismet to locate your target. This will locate any SSID where there is either a broadcast, or traffic. This is why non-broadcast isnt much security-- its possible that the scanner will miss your network, but given enough time it will eventually respond to a packet and show up in the scanner.
Once you have located your network, you check its details, which shows authenticated MACs, encryption type, etc. At this point, you start collecting IVs through aircrack or whatever else you use. One of the ways to generate traffic is to spoof de-auth packets to auth'd laptops, forcing them to reauthenticate, generating additional traffic. This whole way through, you have a list of valid MAC addresses-- so when you finally crack the password, you can simply spoof your mac as one of theirs (Wifi macs are easily changed in software), issue a deauth command to their connection, and authenticate as them. If it is at night, they probably wouldnt even notice, and their router would show you as being them.
If you want additional security, you use an encryption type that wasnt broken in 2001, horribly broken in 2004, and left in shambles a few years later as the cracks got progressively better. It is now possible to crack a WEP network on bog-standard Ubuntu with unpatched drivers with bog standard hardware in about 5 minutes (the span of 2 youtube videos) if you have the right software.
In other words, use WPA or WPA2-- preferably with AES. The vulnerabilities for those consist of pounding the routers in a brute force attempt to get the password. For a password, use a sentence-- it can be anything, like "My dog's name is Rover.". Good luck to the would-be hacker guessing which of the billions of permutations of sentences you used.
It only takes a few minutes IF:
A) there is a decent amoiunt of traffic going on.
B) You do active cracking, sending all sorts of bogus traffic and making the router light up like a christmas tree, as well as causing suspicious disconnections
C) Corollary to B, you have a wifi card capable of injection
Otherwise, you need to do passive sniffing to get enough IVs to actually crack it, and that really depends on whether you are sniffing when their primary usage times are, and how much data they regularly pull over wifi.
It makes the argument a bad one, even if its premise happens to be correct.
I have no problem tearing down someone's argument, even if they are in agreement with me, if it is an awful argument.
Disclaimer-- I do not have google+, and I rarely use my facebook, so any corrections are welcomed.
As much as I also hate Zuckerberg, he is spot on. At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public.
I thought the complaints had all, historically, been that facebook was difficult to make truly private, tracking you even when you make an effort to lock it down.
Conversely, Google has historically been quite clear on what they do with their data, and my understanding was that Google+ made it easier to say "dont track anything, this is private".
Is that not correct?
One usually imagines trolls as being gleeful because they ruined people's day without having to put any effort in.
But here you are putting all this effort into trolling... which makes it more sad, than anything. I mean, about 10 seconds after clicking goatse the person will simply move on with their day; to waste so much time on a pointless endeavor, how bored must you be?
3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?
This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no intentionality behind it, there is no reason for copyright.
hard to explain, but its the constant watching over me that creeps me out
Welcome to the internet. Not to freak you out, but all the sites are constantly watching you. Hope you didnt switch from gmail to hotmail or yahoo....
Source would be nice, I linked my source at the start which says that she DID withdraw consent during the act.
Running sandy bridge here (2310), onboard GPU is impressive. Dont knock it till youve tried it.
Oh good gracious, if its a big deal dont do business with them. Whats that, you really want the product? Sounds like the market is working, to me.
All true points except the "pretty easy" part. I might be willing to do the upgrade myself, but I cant imagine recommending that a non-techie friend click that upgrade button without my help-- who knows how many things would break, or have the upgrade process halt because its waiting for you to figure out which grub.cfg you want, etc.
Its also about 3 times as obnoxious GUI wise. Its probably the only Ubuntu release that I trialed for less time than it took to install in a virtual machine-- it was bad enough that I couldnt even stand testing it.
I mean, this is completely off topic, but if you want to shift gears to spouting about how great Ubuntu is vs WIndows, some honesty about the trainwreck that is 11.04 would be useful. It is, after all, the Vista of Ubuntus.
Ubuntu's releases are also measured on the order of months, not years. They certainly dont support some of their LTSes that are younger than vista-- is Edgy Eft still supported? (thats october 2006)?
I very recently was going to make a snarky comment about XPs support vs Linux, and then I realized that kernel 2.4 (that one thats basically considered obsolete in non-embedded deployments) was the latest thing only 7-8 years ago-- kernel 2.6 is younger than XP is (and for that matter, 2.4 might be as well).
Might be credible if you had a shred of evidence to back your claims up; otherwise, how do you intend to separate yourself from scores of other certifiably nuts conspiracy theorists?
So, if Strauss Kahn wins the presidency, and this discussion resurfaces, will you then claim that its even more brilliant, because he will be an ineffective president?
The way you are arguing, no matter what reality and all evidence shows, you can continue to claim that its a conspiracy.
And Im not trying to claim the CIA couldnt do something like that (despite it being incredibly illegal, and not something the CIA would do inside of our country); but when you have no evidence whatsoever, and reality in fact heavily implies the opposite, it really hurts your credibility.
She consented at the time, and changed her mind after the fact.
You might want to reread your sources. If everyone was in agreement over that, there WOULD be no case.