within available constraints, yes. Such as supply, raw materials, or even space in the case of housing. If there was an infinite supply of desirable housing, $10 would be too high. This is why we need to virtualize everything.
Me too! I wonder though, if it makes any difference in the long run. There are still information leaks which they can collect. Over time the profile accumulates plenty of information. It might take longer but in the end they still get it.
"By buying a smart speaker, you're effectively paying money to let a huge tech company surveil you. " Not just the cellphone, but the web browser on your PC. Good grief. I would ignore privacy advocates too if I were a business, they run off screaming over non-issues so no one listens to them. I remember years ago when Facebook rolled out a feature to query on the history between you and a specific friend. OMG how privacy people caterwauled and made fools of themselves. It was all information that was already available, Facebook just changed how one could view it. Of course, Facebook ignored the complaints and it was a non-issue.
Chrome already has a lot of protections built in, including blocking known malicious sites. It appears to be Google's judgement that third party injected code from AV vendors doesn't add any real value or causes too many crashes. Vendors can still install extensions to do the same thing.
"the web" isn't a monolithic thing which can be forked. It is a network of networks. Lots of different groups do lots of different things using the network, this is just one more
The BRICS have long been discussing how to counter US monopoly positions in a variety of fields. If you want, you could say this is a reaction to the US forcing sanctions on Iran by leveraging US dominance of international banking
People expect to get their news for free because that is what they have done their whole lives. Print newspapers charged a small minimal fee but their main revenue was from advertising, just like it is now. The problem is they lost their vertical integration and someone else owns the printing presses.
"Paid prioritization" is already the reality. Bigger companies have more servers, bigger pipes, and CDNs. My brand new cat video site can't afford all those things. Netflix, and presumably others, already had a deal with Comcast to co-locate servers in Comcast data centers. It is effectively the same thing. There are certainly other things to worry about when it comes to the neutrality question, but this isn't one of them.
Just look at the number of apps which ask for permission to read the IMEI number, whose only purpose is for individual user tracking. It's possible that permission in Android has some other purpose, the permission dialog isn't very informative. I'd really like a current app or rom which can provide false information for apps which shouldn't have it.
The huge value of WeChat is its widespread use as a payment app. One can pay with WeChat almost everywhere in large Chinese cities and even out into the remote areas. in Shanghai there are a lot of restaurants which only take WeChat or AliPay, and don't accept other payment methods at all. A lot of smaller vendors especially now only take WeChat/AliPay or cash, no cards. I think this is the real center of that valuation, not the chat/social media aspects.
This. We routinely accept vulnerabilities in our homes, cars, lives because the risk is judged to be worth it. Windows for example. (In the walls of houses, not the computer OS). There is no reason why computerized systems should be any different. The challenge we have now is poor understanding of the risks and rapid change in the threat levels. Window-smashing burglars is a pretty static risk.
"Fixed all"? I've worked in Security for twenty years and would never ask them to fix ALL the vulnerabilities. There's an infinite number of vulnerabilities if you look hard and long enough. Many of them are small or extremely difficult to exploit, are all of these worth the cost of fixing? At a certain point you reach diminishing returns and the stuff never gets used. However, there is no excuse for leaving obvious easy exploits in place. But I think it was Marcus Ranum who said "Security is always going to be only as good as it has to be." So until the market changes to punish vulnerabilities more, the crap will still have shoddy security. That's why I favor full immediate disclosure. 'Responsible disclosure' only serves to shield the producer from the consequences.
I sometimes ask the same sort of question. A lot of classes of vulnerabilities seem completely unnecessary. For instance, buffer overflows. Why is it possible to overflow a buffer? I think the kernel should just refuse to do it. It is easier to fix something once than ten thousand times, and asking companies and coders to "care about security" is trying to fix it in ten thousand different places. We don't see buffer overflows much anymore since the behavior of the systems have changed after twenty or thirty years of exploits. Now I'm sure this is at least in part due to my own ignorance of how the kernel works. I also suspect that the countermeasures are expensive and thus were not included in the interest of performance. End rambling old man tirade.
They quickly deemed the Echo's sound quality inferior and got back to work building a better speaker
Good grief, engineers. Sad that Apple completely missed the point on this, it seems like the home assistant space is ripe for an iPod style re-definition.
There are a few apps which will do this. I stopped using them though since they are add-ons, which means the call will still come through and generate a missed call notification or even sometimes ring once. More trouble than it was worth IMO
I recently encountered another issue with the TouchID. I'm not clear on the logic, but if you reboot the phone you need to use a PIN to unlock anyway. Only after the initial PIN unlock can you use TouchID. So use after reboot depends on remembering a rarely used PIN. A recipe for disaster when I traveled recently and my companion could not unlock her phone after turning it on since she could not remember the PIN after so long. Granted, that is user error, but I would never use TouchID since I have to use the PIN enough anyway to avoid forgetting it.
I disagree. I urge you to consider the feelings of the victims of real bullying, whose experiences you demean and trivialize by equating them with simple rudeness.
Slashdot Mirror
the market adjusts itself to maximize profits
within available constraints, yes. Such as supply, raw materials, or even space in the case of housing. If there was an infinite supply of desirable housing, $10 would be too high. This is why we need to virtualize everything.
Me too! I wonder though, if it makes any difference in the long run. There are still information leaks which they can collect. Over time the profile accumulates plenty of information. It might take longer but in the end they still get it.
"By buying a smart speaker, you're effectively paying money to let a huge tech company surveil you. " Not just the cellphone, but the web browser on your PC. Good grief. I would ignore privacy advocates too if I were a business, they run off screaming over non-issues so no one listens to them. I remember years ago when Facebook rolled out a feature to query on the history between you and a specific friend. OMG how privacy people caterwauled and made fools of themselves. It was all information that was already available, Facebook just changed how one could view it. Of course, Facebook ignored the complaints and it was a non-issue.
These Russian hackers are now like the monster in the closet who gets blamed for everything. This is just a re-seller scam, not a hack.
Chrome already has a lot of protections built in, including blocking known malicious sites. It appears to be Google's judgement that third party injected code from AV vendors doesn't add any real value or causes too many crashes. Vendors can still install extensions to do the same thing.
"the web" isn't a monolithic thing which can be forked. It is a network of networks. Lots of different groups do lots of different things using the network, this is just one more
The BRICS have long been discussing how to counter US monopoly positions in a variety of fields. If you want, you could say this is a reaction to the US forcing sanctions on Iran by leveraging US dominance of international banking
People expect to get their news for free because that is what they have done their whole lives. Print newspapers charged a small minimal fee but their main revenue was from advertising, just like it is now. The problem is they lost their vertical integration and someone else owns the printing presses.
"Paid prioritization" is already the reality. Bigger companies have more servers, bigger pipes, and CDNs. My brand new cat video site can't afford all those things. Netflix, and presumably others, already had a deal with Comcast to co-locate servers in Comcast data centers. It is effectively the same thing. There are certainly other things to worry about when it comes to the neutrality question, but this isn't one of them.
Just look at the number of apps which ask for permission to read the IMEI number, whose only purpose is for individual user tracking. It's possible that permission in Android has some other purpose, the permission dialog isn't very informative. I'd really like a current app or rom which can provide false information for apps which shouldn't have it.
I find my MBA to be a tremendous value, as a supplement to my tech career. If it is all you have, typically not worth much.
The huge value of WeChat is its widespread use as a payment app. One can pay with WeChat almost everywhere in large Chinese cities and even out into the remote areas. in Shanghai there are a lot of restaurants which only take WeChat or AliPay, and don't accept other payment methods at all. A lot of smaller vendors especially now only take WeChat/AliPay or cash, no cards. I think this is the real center of that valuation, not the chat/social media aspects.
I think since "they hate us for our freedoms" the only viable defense is to take the freedoms away.
This. We routinely accept vulnerabilities in our homes, cars, lives because the risk is judged to be worth it. Windows for example. (In the walls of houses, not the computer OS). There is no reason why computerized systems should be any different. The challenge we have now is poor understanding of the risks and rapid change in the threat levels. Window-smashing burglars is a pretty static risk.
"Fixed all"? I've worked in Security for twenty years and would never ask them to fix ALL the vulnerabilities. There's an infinite number of vulnerabilities if you look hard and long enough. Many of them are small or extremely difficult to exploit, are all of these worth the cost of fixing? At a certain point you reach diminishing returns and the stuff never gets used. However, there is no excuse for leaving obvious easy exploits in place. But I think it was Marcus Ranum who said "Security is always going to be only as good as it has to be." So until the market changes to punish vulnerabilities more, the crap will still have shoddy security. That's why I favor full immediate disclosure. 'Responsible disclosure' only serves to shield the producer from the consequences.
I sometimes ask the same sort of question. A lot of classes of vulnerabilities seem completely unnecessary. For instance, buffer overflows. Why is it possible to overflow a buffer? I think the kernel should just refuse to do it. It is easier to fix something once than ten thousand times, and asking companies and coders to "care about security" is trying to fix it in ten thousand different places. We don't see buffer overflows much anymore since the behavior of the systems have changed after twenty or thirty years of exploits. Now I'm sure this is at least in part due to my own ignorance of how the kernel works. I also suspect that the countermeasures are expensive and thus were not included in the interest of performance. End rambling old man tirade.
That isn't fair since the EOL in this trial was an act of God
Probably because I can't get heroin without money.
They quickly deemed the Echo's sound quality inferior and got back to work building a better speaker
Good grief, engineers. Sad that Apple completely missed the point on this, it seems like the home assistant space is ripe for an iPod style re-definition.
Probably safer to just assume all of them
There are a few apps which will do this. I stopped using them though since they are add-ons, which means the call will still come through and generate a missed call notification or even sometimes ring once. More trouble than it was worth IMO
I recently encountered another issue with the TouchID. I'm not clear on the logic, but if you reboot the phone you need to use a PIN to unlock anyway. Only after the initial PIN unlock can you use TouchID. So use after reboot depends on remembering a rarely used PIN. A recipe for disaster when I traveled recently and my companion could not unlock her phone after turning it on since she could not remember the PIN after so long. Granted, that is user error, but I would never use TouchID since I have to use the PIN enough anyway to avoid forgetting it.
The idea of risk typically includes probability, which in the case of gelatin fingers is near zero for most people.
I disagree. I urge you to consider the feelings of the victims of real bullying, whose experiences you demean and trivialize by equating them with simple rudeness.
"treated rudely at least once a month" by bosses or co-workers in the past year -- which Prof. Porath defined as being bullied.
That explains the ridiculous result right there. In other words, a load of garbage.