Gee, like nothing has changed at Google or elsewhere in the last 9 years? Like, the privacy policy consolidation to mention one little thing - and the related changes that it made.
Perhaps you want your Google search results tied to your emails keywords. I do not. Regardless of whether you like it or not, after 9 years and MANY changes, another discussion is merited.
For more than a few reasons, I have almost completely dropped Google services from my life: 1) Privacy. Google has far overstepped their boundaries (in my eyes). No, I'm not talking about GMail - I knew the deal there when signing up. Googles web tracking has increased massively over the last few years, via ad words and analytics. (Two things that did not exist when I started using Google services). I was even automatically and without my knowledge signed up for G+ account with the last GMail account i setup. I could go on with many many more examples. 2) Dropped services: Exchange email (no more push for iPhone), free Google apps are just recent examples. 3) Even if you are a paying customer, their customer service basically doesn't exist.... And those are just the main reasons.
Like all once-young, once-cool, once-hip startups before it, Google retains little of what made them a desirable company to do business with.
And before you bitch about expectation of getting things for free, realize that I do pay for my services and never really had any problem doing that. I used Google out of convenience and not cheapness.
I realize the Google apologists are strong here, and fully expect this comment will be downmodded out of emotional response.
The fact that there is a "dmca counter notification generator" - http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf, 34000 Google search results for "fake dmca notice", and a large history of this being a problem, might lead one to think that the problem isn't quite "handled". Oh, and this story mentions something about a fake take down notice too...
Also, it's pretty ridiculous and naive to think India would extradite someone to US over a fake DMCA take down notice. You may not realize, but both countries involved have some more pressing concerns. Given that this will never see a court room, or any real investigation, the thieves from India are also unlikely to worry much about travelling to the US.
No, it is more like if you murder an American (or anyone else) outside the US, then no, US law shouldn't apply, it would be the law of the country it happened in.
No.The potential copyright violation ("murder") here was happening in the United States on a Wordpress server. Therefore Wordpress was subject to US law.
Given how hard the US has trumpeted and lobbied foreign governments to put in place US style copyright laws, it would be pretty damn funny if the US refused to obey those same laws.
...he pulled down this amazing notification slide and right there, RIGHT THERE he could turn on or off wifi, change brightness, turn on or off data - it was amazing.
Regardless of the rest of your tirade, what you describe is exactly how SBSettings works. Swipe the status bar, and you can toggle all you desire...
If you'd read the letter in TFA it seems quite clear there is previous patent discussion that is not in the context here.
Regardless, what you say is pretty simply put as "bullshit". You do realize that your act of owning a gun and being prepared to shoot someone that threatens you is in fact you using your "gun to elect (or discourage) some other activiity", right? In that case you are discouraging someone from threatening you by using your gun as the means.
In the corporate world companies will often choose to litigate or not based on their existing relationship with a company - not whether they have a valid lawsuit or not. Wrong or not, that is the reality. And I really don't think it's wrong. If a friend of mine gets drunk and breaks something of mine, I am not likely to sue. On the other hand, if an enemy of mine is drunk and breaks something I won - I will sue. This is a discrepancy left up to me - as is right.
Another way to look at this is "Stop poaching our employees, and we won't so you for infringing on our patents".
From the letter in TFA, it looks to me like the patent issue was a much larger role than just revenge. Especially when you look at the names of the employees taken from Apple to work for Palm. (Also named in the letter, in TFA).
But it's okay, froth at the mouth without putting any of this into context. This is Slashdot, and that is expected.
All of them and others had agreements that each others employees were off limits for poaching. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565425-38/apple-google-others-agreed-not-to-poach-workers-reveal-e-mails/)... This kind of thing is pretty prevalent regardless of legality.
"A Google document cautioned against contacting potential hires from Intel, Apple, PayPal, Comcast, and Genentech, saying that Google has "special agreements" with these companies."
What many Slashdot readers seem to not realize is that almost all corporations will exercise whatever power they can to make more money.
Here is something Eric Schmidt said for example: In another message, a senior staffing stategist at Google told Schmidt that a recruiter who tried to hire an Apple employee was to be fired. Schmidt's response? "I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this."
Evil is prevalent in corporate America folks, you are deluding yourselves by believing that Jobs was anything special, in this regard.
Any web page retrieved through HTTPS is parsed into an unencrypted DOM within the web browser. You have to trust that the browser publisher knows what it is doing and how to keep a secret.
You're comparing a locally run application (which is much more easily audited) to datacenter(s) run by a large multi-national corporation? Really?
I suppose you're going to tell me now that Nokia will happily let any individual come in and audit their datacenter?
Apparently one that understands the significance of intentionally breaking SSL - something you seem to not understand.
If the end users are completely aware this is happening - then OK. But from the sound of it most users would not realize this is happening with SSL traffic.
Right - and remember that in most countries around the world these days (including the US), the government can and does happily and legally walk into datacenters and install sniffers. So it's not only the criminal aspect to worry about.
Picture a user in China for example trying to post comments critical of the CPC not being aware of this... but thinking they are okay because of SSL. Just one example of an almost infinite amount of potential issues with doing this.
Amazing that so many people here on a "nerd" website think this behaviour is fine.
Sure, but the real problem is that they are not explicitly telling the end user that this includes SSL traffic.
After the ecommerce industry spent the last 15 years trying to tell everyone to trust SSl, perhaps it would be a good idea to notify users when your application is BREAKING THAT TRUST (which is exactly what is happening here).
Yeah, and this traffic would be interesting enough that they almost certainly *are* compromised already. (Even if that "compromise" is a local-to-datacenter government legally requesting access.)
Doing it to SSL traffic without explicitly ensuring the user is aware that it is happening (and each time it happens)? Stupid, and wrong.
Now, if you do a survey of Nokia phone users and find that > 90% of them were aware this was happening then maybe it is ok. But it sounds like that number is closer to zero.
I don't use any of the browsers that purportedly do this, so I do not know how well the applications indicate to the user that they are completely breaking SSL. But, this is something that should not be done without massive, explicit, and repeated warnings (FOR EACH SSL REQUEST!) to the user.
As flawed as SSL and PKI may be, users have been trained to trust them. WTF is this shit? Lunacy.
Who cares if you want to call it a MITM attack or not...
DO NOT TOUCH SSL TRAFFIC WITHOUT ENSURING THE CURRENT USER KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON.
That is why you need a device like the hitechnic sensor mux (which you admittedly did link) that can deal with all the different types of lego sensor and then present the results as an I2C device. Not cheap though.
You can however very easily use a pcf8591 to create your own i2c interface for analog sensors... Simple circuit, good for learning & experimenting, and the necessary parts are easily and very cheaply available.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL I honestly can't tell if you are serious or joking by spouting that off.... Joking, I really hope.
Gee, like nothing has changed at Google or elsewhere in the last 9 years? Like, the privacy policy consolidation to mention one little thing - and the related changes that it made.
Perhaps you want your Google search results tied to your emails keywords. I do not. Regardless of whether you like it or not, after 9 years and MANY changes, another discussion is merited.
For more than a few reasons, I have almost completely dropped Google services from my life: ... And those are just the main reasons.
1) Privacy. Google has far overstepped their boundaries (in my eyes). No, I'm not talking about GMail - I knew the deal there when signing up. Googles web tracking has increased massively over the last few years, via ad words and analytics. (Two things that did not exist when I started using Google services). I was even automatically and without my knowledge signed up for G+ account with the last GMail account i setup. I could go on with many many more examples.
2) Dropped services: Exchange email (no more push for iPhone), free Google apps are just recent examples.
3) Even if you are a paying customer, their customer service basically doesn't exist.
Like all once-young, once-cool, once-hip startups before it, Google retains little of what made them a desirable company to do business with.
And before you bitch about expectation of getting things for free, realize that I do pay for my services and never really had any problem doing that. I used Google out of convenience and not cheapness.
I realize the Google apologists are strong here, and fully expect this comment will be downmodded out of emotional response.
The fact that there is a "dmca counter notification generator" - http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf, 34000 Google search results for "fake dmca notice", and a large history of this being a problem, might lead one to think that the problem isn't quite "handled". Oh, and this story mentions something about a fake take down notice too...
Also, it's pretty ridiculous and naive to think India would extradite someone to US over a fake DMCA take down notice. You may not realize, but both countries involved have some more pressing concerns. Given that this will never see a court room, or any real investigation, the thieves from India are also unlikely to worry much about travelling to the US.
No, it is more like if you murder an American (or anyone else) outside the US, then no, US law shouldn't apply, it would be the law of the country it happened in.
No.The potential copyright violation ("murder") here was happening in the United States on a Wordpress server. Therefore Wordpress was subject to US law.
Given how hard the US has trumpeted and lobbied foreign governments to put in place US style copyright laws, it would be pretty damn funny if the US refused to obey those same laws.
I'm curious... What is your "ethical" reason(s) for not jailbreaking?
...he pulled down this amazing notification slide and right there, RIGHT THERE he could turn on or off wifi, change brightness, turn on or off data - it was amazing.
Regardless of the rest of your tirade, what you describe is exactly how SBSettings works. Swipe the status bar, and you can toggle all you desire...
Yes, you must be a troll.
But I realized this whole story was completely fucking stupid and not worth putting any thought into.
Seriously, "brogramming"? Just fuck off.
If you'd read the letter in TFA it seems quite clear there is previous patent discussion that is not in the context here.
Regardless, what you say is pretty simply put as "bullshit". You do realize that your act of owning a gun and being prepared to shoot someone that threatens you is in fact you using your "gun to elect (or discourage) some other activiity", right? In that case you are discouraging someone from threatening you by using your gun as the means.
In the corporate world companies will often choose to litigate or not based on their existing relationship with a company - not whether they have a valid lawsuit or not. Wrong or not, that is the reality. And I really don't think it's wrong. If a friend of mine gets drunk and breaks something of mine, I am not likely to sue. On the other hand, if an enemy of mine is drunk and breaks something I won - I will sue. This is a discrepancy left up to me - as is right.
Another way to look at this is "Stop poaching our employees, and we won't so you for infringing on our patents".
From the letter in TFA, it looks to me like the patent issue was a much larger role than just revenge. Especially when you look at the names of the employees taken from Apple to work for Palm. (Also named in the letter, in TFA).
But it's okay, froth at the mouth without putting any of this into context. This is Slashdot, and that is expected.
All of them and others had agreements that each others employees were off limits for poaching. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565425-38/apple-google-others-agreed-not-to-poach-workers-reveal-e-mails/)... This kind of thing is pretty prevalent regardless of legality.
"A Google document cautioned against contacting potential hires from Intel, Apple, PayPal, Comcast, and Genentech, saying that Google has "special agreements" with these companies."
What many Slashdot readers seem to not realize is that almost all corporations will exercise whatever power they can to make more money.
Here is something Eric Schmidt said for example: In another message, a senior staffing stategist at Google told Schmidt that a recruiter who tried to hire an Apple employee was to be fired. Schmidt's response? "I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this."
Evil is prevalent in corporate America folks, you are deluding yourselves by believing that Jobs was anything special, in this regard.
News: Netflix is rolling out higher definition and higher bandwidth video qualities (similar to what is happening with most internet services).
Not news: Higher bandwidth actually requires more bandwidth, so ISP's must upgrade infrastructure.
Slashdot (apparently no better than Fox): You'll all pay more because of Netflix!!! Even if you don't use it!!!
Me: WTF?
Of course, when I saw TFA was on Foxnews.com, I realized what was really happening here.
Most users would NOT expect their encrypted traffic to be decrypted.
Are you really going to tell me that most Nokia users understand that their SSL traffic is unencrypted by Nokia?
Any web page retrieved through HTTPS is parsed into an unencrypted DOM within the web browser. You have to trust that the browser publisher knows what it is doing and how to keep a secret.
You're comparing a locally run application (which is much more easily audited) to datacenter(s) run by a large multi-national corporation? Really?
I suppose you're going to tell me now that Nokia will happily let any individual come in and audit their datacenter?
They shouldn't be doing it for HTTPS traffic, though.
Exactly.
Apparently one that understands the significance of intentionally breaking SSL - something you seem to not understand.
If the end users are completely aware this is happening - then OK. But from the sound of it most users would not realize this is happening with SSL traffic.
Exactly.
This break the trust in SSL (yes, SSL is already full of flaws, but it doesn't help anything to intentionally break it further).
Right - and remember that in most countries around the world these days (including the US), the government can and does happily and legally walk into datacenters and install sniffers. So it's not only the criminal aspect to worry about.
Picture a user in China for example trying to post comments critical of the CPC not being aware of this... but thinking they are okay because of SSL. Just one example of an almost infinite amount of potential issues with doing this.
Amazing that so many people here on a "nerd" website think this behaviour is fine.
You do realize most malware works the way it is intended to right? That doesn't mean it's what the end user wants, or is aware is happening.
This is simple - breaking SSL is wrong. There is no need to complicate it any further than that.
Sure, but the real problem is that they are not explicitly telling the end user that this includes SSL traffic.
After the ecommerce industry spent the last 15 years trying to tell everyone to trust SSl, perhaps it would be a good idea to notify users when your application is BREAKING THAT TRUST (which is exactly what is happening here).
Yeah, and this traffic would be interesting enough that they almost certainly *are* compromised already. (Even if that "compromise" is a local-to-datacenter government legally requesting access.)
It doesn't matter if it's a secret - the user must be explicitly and repeatedly informed this is happening for SSL connections.
THE LINK YOU GAVE POSTED DOES NOT EVEN MENTION SSL. BIG DIFFERENCE, NO?
No shit.
Doing it to SSL traffic without explicitly ensuring the user is aware that it is happening (and each time it happens)? Stupid, and wrong.
Now, if you do a survey of Nokia phone users and find that > 90% of them were aware this was happening then maybe it is ok. But it sounds like that number is closer to zero.
I don't use any of the browsers that purportedly do this, so I do not know how well the applications indicate to the user that they are completely breaking SSL. But, this is something that should not be done without massive, explicit, and repeated warnings (FOR EACH SSL REQUEST!) to the user.
As flawed as SSL and PKI may be, users have been trained to trust them. WTF is this shit? Lunacy.
Who cares if you want to call it a MITM attack or not...
DO NOT TOUCH SSL TRAFFIC WITHOUT ENSURING THE CURRENT USER KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON.
That is why you need a device like the hitechnic sensor mux (which you admittedly did link) that can deal with all the different types of lego sensor and then present the results as an I2C device. Not cheap though.
You can however very easily use a pcf8591 to create your own i2c interface for analog sensors... Simple circuit, good for learning & experimenting, and the necessary parts are easily and very cheaply available.