I know it sounds like trolling, but you may have a valid point - Facebook knows exactly who is connected and how - they should be easily able to pull a report and see if 6 degrees of separation is true (sure there may be privacy concerns, but they can just add that as an opt-out feature again, not a big deal). This seems like an elaborate/obscure marketing campaign in wake of Google+:)
Apple will ignore this as hard as they can, claiming it's not important for their market. Then, next year when the iPhone x+1 comes out, they'll innovate it into the phone and the media will declare them geniuses.
+1, in fact there have been rumors of iPhone 6 getting wireless charging months ago.
...it's a big planet. Completely natural, explainable things happen all over the globe every day that haven't happened in that particular spot for hundreds if not thousands of years.
You're crazy! This must be global warming. Send more money to Al Gore, stat!
It's arguable, which one is EASY(er) at this point. Yes, historically Microsoft systems have been targeted more often, but they have also developed more protection over the years as a result. WSUS, SCCM, MBSA, UAC, myriads of antivirus solutions and hardening guides, ActiveSync, BES, IPS signatures - all of these have been developed to further secure Windows platforms out of necessity. Borderline next to nothing has been developed for Mac OS security at this point, and with Apple gaining market share and entering enterprise environment, the race of exploits versus protection, which has been going on for decades for Microsoft, is about to begin for Apple. It remains to be seen, how Apple will come out of this, and the myth they have perpetuated for years, that there is no malware for Apple, is going to haunt them through all the sales and executive staff blindly believing that they're safe, while clicking on the Mac Defender packages and spear-phishing email links and ordering more and more shiny new Apple computers for their staff.
Considering that malware targeting Siemens' SCADA systems has been around since last year, I think there's been some backdoor action happening already... there is just no regulations that force industrial entities to release information about their breaches... or, it is entirely possible that industrial entities lack the IT staff and infrastructure to detect said breaches.
> Implying Facebook is a Bazaar....uh, Facebook isn't a Bazaar, brother sir.
It's a cathedral. The definition of conformity.
I disagree. I use a fake name on Facebook. 50% of my "friends" use a fake name on Facebook. 99% of people have different applications all over their walls, some have so many that their pages barely load. Facebook is anything but a cathedral, except for those users that chose to use it that way.
Everyone's page looks the same, same colors, same information, same photo gallery (containing different photos).
Everyone's Google+ looks the same too, from that perspective. Look and feel is not the issue at hand here, identity is.
Why not allow both and let the userbase sort out who they do and do not add on their professional (cathedral) and personal (bazaar) accounts? Because frankly, we already have a cathedral (LinkedIn) and a Bazaar (Facebook), so if Google wants to attract those users, they better be flexible enough to accommodate them.
But you see, the problem with destroying something that doesn't have a defined structure, that is a movement rather than an organization, is that you can't. You can arrest a 1,000 people who really did call themselves "Anonymous" and then someone else is going to call himself "Anonymous" and you're back at square one. There is no membership, any member of any other hacking collective (like "Lulzsec" or "Script Kiddies") or any independent blackhat or whitehat can turn around and start a DDoS under the "Anonymous" banner. It's like trying to destroy white supremacy - you can identify and arrest individuals who show the signs of it, display supremacist behavior or have swastika tattoos... but you can't destroy the notion itself - there will be others who feel that way, who have not yet publicly revealed themselves and who might carry out hateful acts in the future. In both cases you can only target/destroy individual contributors, not the movement itself.
I'm curious. Say Alice is using Tor to stop websites from tracking her location. Bob starts Tor to use LOIC in HTTP mode, targets Paypal, and just so happens to be routed through Alice's client as the final hop. Paypal logs Alice's IP address and hands it over to the feds, even though she did nothing illegal. Am I confused on how Tor works or is poor Alice screwed and it's not a good idea to use Tor for that reason?
Who said that using your real name on your Google+ profile is equivalent to "merging" your online identities? Nobody is asking you to do that, at most - they're stopping you from using one of the identities to the new platform. Only valid argument I see is that those who do want to use Google+ for things they would rather not associate their real names with are SOL, making Google+ more of a LinkedIn than Facebook or MySpace competition. It is after all their right as a service provider to decide who they are going to target as their primary customer base. In this case, it looks like they chose professionals and public figures, over fake avatars of l0lc4tz:\
You completely missed his point. He was pointing out that if the only piece of personal information someone can track down is the person's name, it doesn't do them much good.
Inversely, what's the harm in placing your real name online, if you're not being stupid about your privacy and not posting any of the tinfoil-y information ("postal code or birth date")? Say that I knew that I picked a "real" name of Bob Smith, say I was even able to find his public Google profile... let's even go as far as to say that I have somehow exploited Google's security and got to his "friends only" information - as long as he's not an idiot, he won't be posting his personal details online, under neither his fake or his real name, so what's the difference if he uses "Bob Smith" or "Heywood Jablome" on Google+?
Yes, but if you look at the reviews made by actual people employed by the product manufacturer, then it is a stupid project - there is no way a system would be able to differentiate between a real and a fake review written by a human. This on ly makes sense as the means of detecting automatically generated reviews.
Ok, so a circuit board inside a solid aluminum shell, inside a protective case, survived the fall... but as phone it was still useless - nobody in such a situation would wait to receive a call from 911, would they? Regardless, this should only be news if we can have 100 iPhones consistently survive a 13,500 foot drop, to prove that this wasn't a fluke from the phone cushioning its fall with a bird on the way down:)
Slashdot Mirror
What is this, a paid advertisement? How do I place my obscure product on Slashdot front page?
I know it sounds like trolling, but you may have a valid point - Facebook knows exactly who is connected and how - they should be easily able to pull a report and see if 6 degrees of separation is true (sure there may be privacy concerns, but they can just add that as an opt-out feature again, not a big deal). This seems like an elaborate/obscure marketing campaign in wake of Google+ :)
Apple will ignore this as hard as they can, claiming it's not important for their market. Then, next year when the iPhone x+1 comes out, they'll innovate it into the phone and the media will declare them geniuses.
+1, in fact there have been rumors of iPhone 6 getting wireless charging months ago.
...it's a big planet. Completely natural, explainable things happen all over the globe every day that haven't happened in that particular spot for hundreds if not thousands of years.
You're crazy! This must be global warming. Send more money to Al Gore, stat!
It's arguable, which one is EASY(er) at this point. Yes, historically Microsoft systems have been targeted more often, but they have also developed more protection over the years as a result. WSUS, SCCM, MBSA, UAC, myriads of antivirus solutions and hardening guides, ActiveSync, BES, IPS signatures - all of these have been developed to further secure Windows platforms out of necessity. Borderline next to nothing has been developed for Mac OS security at this point, and with Apple gaining market share and entering enterprise environment, the race of exploits versus protection, which has been going on for decades for Microsoft, is about to begin for Apple. It remains to be seen, how Apple will come out of this, and the myth they have perpetuated for years, that there is no malware for Apple, is going to haunt them through all the sales and executive staff blindly believing that they're safe, while clicking on the Mac Defender packages and spear-phishing email links and ordering more and more shiny new Apple computers for their staff.
This was true well into the 90's, but today the vast majority of malware is written for monetary gain.
+1
She shall go on to become the most famed "administrative assistant" I'm sure.
we're using a oxidized copper ion here
I am dying to know where is here, where you find yourself in common need of peeing in a jar to make invisible ink.
Better to use "ink" that only show under uncommon reagent, but that user would be reasonably expected to possess for another use.
But any other "ink" wouldn't be nearly us fun to obtain, especially for the female agents.
Considering that malware targeting Siemens' SCADA systems has been around since last year, I think there's been some backdoor action happening already... there is just no regulations that force industrial entities to release information about their breaches... or, it is entirely possible that industrial entities lack the IT staff and infrastructure to detect said breaches.
> Implying Facebook is a Bazaar. ...uh, Facebook isn't a Bazaar, brother sir.
It's a cathedral. The definition of conformity.
I disagree. I use a fake name on Facebook. 50% of my "friends" use a fake name on Facebook. 99% of people have different applications all over their walls, some have so many that their pages barely load. Facebook is anything but a cathedral, except for those users that chose to use it that way.
Everyone's page looks the same, same colors, same information, same photo gallery (containing different photos).
Everyone's Google+ looks the same too, from that perspective. Look and feel is not the issue at hand here, identity is.
Why not allow both and let the userbase sort out who they do and do not add on their professional (cathedral) and personal (bazaar) accounts? Because frankly, we already have a cathedral (LinkedIn) and a Bazaar (Facebook), so if Google wants to attract those users, they better be flexible enough to accommodate them.
But you see, the problem with destroying something that doesn't have a defined structure, that is a movement rather than an organization, is that you can't. You can arrest a 1,000 people who really did call themselves "Anonymous" and then someone else is going to call himself "Anonymous" and you're back at square one. There is no membership, any member of any other hacking collective (like "Lulzsec" or "Script Kiddies") or any independent blackhat or whitehat can turn around and start a DDoS under the "Anonymous" banner. It's like trying to destroy white supremacy - you can identify and arrest individuals who show the signs of it, display supremacist behavior or have swastika tattoos... but you can't destroy the notion itself - there will be others who feel that way, who have not yet publicly revealed themselves and who might carry out hateful acts in the future. In both cases you can only target/destroy individual contributors, not the movement itself.
Only if you clog all of them, in the entire building, at the same time :)
I'm curious. Say Alice is using Tor to stop websites from tracking her location. Bob starts Tor to use LOIC in HTTP mode, targets Paypal, and just so happens to be routed through Alice's client as the final hop. Paypal logs Alice's IP address and hands it over to the feds, even though she did nothing illegal. Am I confused on how Tor works or is poor Alice screwed and it's not a good idea to use Tor for that reason?
Who said that using your real name on your Google+ profile is equivalent to "merging" your online identities? Nobody is asking you to do that, at most - they're stopping you from using one of the identities to the new platform. Only valid argument I see is that those who do want to use Google+ for things they would rather not associate their real names with are SOL, making Google+ more of a LinkedIn than Facebook or MySpace competition. It is after all their right as a service provider to decide who they are going to target as their primary customer base. In this case, it looks like they chose professionals and public figures, over fake avatars of l0lc4tz :\
You completely missed his point. He was pointing out that if the only piece of personal information someone can track down is the person's name, it doesn't do them much good.
Exactly. Thank you!
Inversely, what's the harm in placing your real name online, if you're not being stupid about your privacy and not posting any of the tinfoil-y information ("postal code or birth date")? Say that I knew that I picked a "real" name of Bob Smith, say I was even able to find his public Google profile... let's even go as far as to say that I have somehow exploited Google's security and got to his "friends only" information - as long as he's not an idiot, he won't be posting his personal details online, under neither his fake or his real name, so what's the difference if he uses "Bob Smith" or "Heywood Jablome" on Google+?
Yes, but if you look at the reviews made by actual people employed by the product manufacturer, then it is a stupid project - there is no way a system would be able to differentiate between a real and a fake review written by a human. This on ly makes sense as the means of detecting automatically generated reviews.
*can't
(how in this day and age we still don't have ability to edit posts on Slashdot).
I think it incorrectly states "fake" where it should really say "automated".
At least it's not a giant Ed Hardy shirt.
Funny thing is that they're shooting themselves in the foot here...
Sounds like a job for... Kinect!
Ok, so a circuit board inside a solid aluminum shell, inside a protective case, survived the fall... but as phone it was still useless - nobody in such a situation would wait to receive a call from 911, would they? Regardless, this should only be news if we can have 100 iPhones consistently survive a 13,500 foot drop, to prove that this wasn't a fluke from the phone cushioning its fall with a bird on the way down :)