All sarcasm aside if GP is referring to the incident I'm thinking of that was only because people never changed the root password after jailbreaking. More recently with the iOS PDF exploit tools to help users protect themselves were available to jailbroken users 3 days after it was widely known (release of Jailbreakme.com which used the exploit). "Jailed" devices had to wait for a fix from Apple which came 10 days after. This is still a good response time and should not be taken as a bash on Apple, it does illustrate that assuming jailbroken automatically means less secure is wrong.
SQL syntax works on Oracle too... Shove that user input straight into an Oracle query and you'll find SQL injection is alive and well on all SQL databases where input is not sanitized properly.
Even if the law did I would hope it would specify the levels/types of encryption acceptable if only to avoid "Yes your honor, we were completely compliant with the law. All of our customer data was encrypted in ROT26 format".
1)You don't "accidentally" retain sniffed traffic logs of that size, across your entire international operations, for months if not years, "accidentally." See http://gizmodo.com/5671049/google-street-view-cars-collected-emails-and-passwords I mean come on...someone would have noticed the drives filling up, wondered why, etc. These people are supposedly geniuses, right?
First off, they wanted to capture some basic data about WiFi networks, SSID and possibly a few other things, not traffic. If you have a smartphone running iOS or Android (not sure about the others) both of those use WiFi to assist with location services. The way it does so is based on a database lookup of SSID + a few other factors which have been previously gathered by whatever company is running the location database.
Secondly, considering they were capturing that WiFi data along with the massive amount of photos necessary to make StreetView work you actually think the extra sniffed traffic amounted to any noticeable difference in the overall size of the collected data such that someone would express alarm at the size?
While I agree I also think there needs to be some clear indication that privacy is desired. Encrypted WiFi, however weak the encryption may be, clearly signals a desire for privacy and the argument can convincingly be made that anyone cracking the encryption is willfully violating privacy. Unencrypted WiFi should carry the same expectation of privacy as talking over a clear channel on a CB radio, the concept is actually quite similar.
What really should have happened here is that the government should have asked Google "Ok, you screwed up, now what are you going to do about it? How about you fund a campaign to educate the public on privacy matters and the importance of encrypting their WiFi?" That would have been a better solution for everyone involved. The government still gets to look like they stepped in and took care of the issue. Google still pays for the mistake, while helping people in the process. The public gets to use this incident and all of the publicity surrounding it as a lesson and many more people will encrypt their wireless networks or clamor to their ISPs to provide their wireless routers with encryption already set up. Very large missed opportunity here.
Well the whole thing just seems like an ever climbing level of stupid. First Google collects data that while not illegal certainly wouldn't look good for the company: Dumb. Then they announce it to the world: Extra Dumb The governments demand to see the data...why? Just to see if there are any juicy bits?:Really Dumb, and now Google refuses to hand any of it over rather than just redact the names and let them have the boring bits: Extra Super dumb.
First Google accidentally collected the data, they didn't do it on purpose. Then after realizing they had collected it they decided to come forward and do the right thing rather than doing what most corporations would have done and covering it up. Then instead of governments realizing "hey they screwed up and they've admitted it, we want to encourage this kind of behavior rather than cover-ups" all of the governments involved have done a fine job making the cover-up look like the smart choice over doing what's right.
Did you ever play video games with friends when you were a kid? I remember playing Goldeneye with 3 friends split screen on a 15" TV and we managed just fine. Playing 2 way or 4 way split screen on the 46" LCD I have now would still beat playing one player on that tiny screen for each person playing.
I suspect the real reason split screen is disappearing is that both the PS3 and the 360 have already been pushed to their hardware limits and the game devs are having difficulty making split screen run without killing the framerate or dropping down the graphics level.
There's an obvious joke about Microsoft/Apple charging for the alpha version of an OS/gizmo here, and I'd just like to say that anyone who makes it should be ashamed of themselves.
It actually hadn't come to mind before this reminded me but now that I'm thinking about it someone should really mention Windows ME.
Net neutrality means that the collective mob has used the force of government as an instrument to gain control over other privately owned networks.
The corporations who own the networks *should* have control. It's private property. Every packet traversing their infrastructure is a guest.
Ah, but it's not quite so simple as you like to see it. We have the additional complication that the people not only granted the corporations the rights to lay the cables for their infrastructure over public land and granted a local monopoly for each type of service. I am a supporter of capitalism and free market principles, however it is quite easy to see that the current ISP situation in this country is anything but a free market. The free market breaks down with the presence of monopolies and oligopolies, if we want it to function as it should we must step in from time to time and break them up or prevent their formation.
So if I'm understanding you correctly your argument is that since TV is broken in this regard the Internet should be too? A common phrase comes to mind... "Two wrongs do not make a right."
You can technically live without electricity but that doesn't mean the power company should be allowed to bill you more per kWh just because you bought a Kenmore fridge instead of a GE even if they both use the same amount of power...
We have advanced to the point where not having internet access or even not having reasonably fast internet access can place people at a significant disadvantage, especially when it comes to communication and political discourse which are both essential to the democratic process. The internet is rapidly approaching the point where it logically should be classified as a utility.
The first time I saw this trotted out it seemed interesting and I saved the link for later. The second time it was trotted out with almost the same boilerplate text I was annoyed. By now I'm not even interested in visiting the site because I'm so sick of seeing people shilling for it. If you actually want to bring people to your point of view I would recommend you evaluate how you are approaching them, some people don't like having advertisements pushed on them and I suspect there is an abundance of that sentiment here.
If Valve made a Steam client for Linux I'm sure it would run quite well, the problem is which distro do they make it for?
Just make it for the Linux Standard Base which pretty much every major distro but Gentoo (it can, just not by default) supports out of the box by default?
Ah, well there's my Linux novice status showing, I wasn't aware of that. Out of curiosity are there any major limitations to do that?
Lowest price isn't the only qualification for a happy customer, but it is the only criteria on the Internet.
It is? I can recall quite a few occasions where I've paid a bit more for something online to get it from a site I've had a good experience with and I know won't give me the run around if something is wrong with the order. A common example of this for me is Newegg, quite often I can find the part a bit cheaper somewhere else but unless the difference is quite significant I'd rather order it from the Egg. I've dealt with their customer service in the past and I know if I have any problems they will put a good bit of effort into making things right.
If I had a friendly local game store I might do the same. However the local Gamestop is anything but friendly and I dislike their used game practices (they will give you $5 for a game then put it on the shelf for $35, while I don't deny they need to turn a profit they're basically exploiting the trade in customers at those prices).
I'd spend just to get rid of the CRT. Apparently most people can't hear it but I haven't seen a CRT TV yet that doesn't make a horrifically annoying high pitched whine when it's turned on. One of my friends had a 32" that I could hear when he had left it on (nothing actually playing so no sound) from out in the hall with his dorm room door shut the whine was so loud.
This isn't always the case though. I have gone through hell trying to make a return at the local Best Buy before whereas every time I've needed to make a return to Newegg it's been completely painless. In fact I once had a Radeon 9700 All In Wonder arrive DOA, after returning it to Newegg I get an email stating they were out of stock and was it acceptable if they shipped me a 9800 AIW instead. Needless to say I've been hard pressed to find any brick and mortar chain with service that good (some of the mom and pop shops on the other hand have excellent service).
I feel bad for the actual good salesman that provide correct info and *gasp* help the customer find what he wants. There are so few of them and idiots like the guy you dealt with give them all a bad rep.
We have a Wegmans nearby, the first time I walked into the place I had to remind myself I was actually in a grocery store. They actually have very decent food in their cafeteria too, the soups are great. The only reason I don't do most of my grocery shopping there is convenience. There is a Pathmark just down the road from me whereas Wegman's is a 20 minute + drive depending on traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
All sarcasm aside if GP is referring to the incident I'm thinking of that was only because people never changed the root password after jailbreaking. More recently with the iOS PDF exploit tools to help users protect themselves were available to jailbroken users 3 days after it was widely known (release of Jailbreakme.com which used the exploit). "Jailed" devices had to wait for a fix from Apple which came 10 days after. This is still a good response time and should not be taken as a bash on Apple, it does illustrate that assuming jailbroken automatically means less secure is wrong.
And I bet the 'uninstall' process involves reflashing the device, too.
I applaud your optimism but I suspect the uninstall process may require a good-sized hammer.
SQL syntax works on Oracle too... Shove that user input straight into an Oracle query and you'll find SQL injection is alive and well on all SQL databases where input is not sanitized properly.
Even if the law did I would hope it would specify the levels/types of encryption acceptable if only to avoid "Yes your honor, we were completely compliant with the law. All of our customer data was encrypted in ROT26 format".
1)You don't "accidentally" retain sniffed traffic logs of that size, across your entire international operations, for months if not years, "accidentally." See http://gizmodo.com/5671049/google-street-view-cars-collected-emails-and-passwords I mean come on...someone would have noticed the drives filling up, wondered why, etc. These people are supposedly geniuses, right?
First off, they wanted to capture some basic data about WiFi networks, SSID and possibly a few other things, not traffic. If you have a smartphone running iOS or Android (not sure about the others) both of those use WiFi to assist with location services. The way it does so is based on a database lookup of SSID + a few other factors which have been previously gathered by whatever company is running the location database.
Secondly, considering they were capturing that WiFi data along with the massive amount of photos necessary to make StreetView work you actually think the extra sniffed traffic amounted to any noticeable difference in the overall size of the collected data such that someone would express alarm at the size?
While I agree I also think there needs to be some clear indication that privacy is desired. Encrypted WiFi, however weak the encryption may be, clearly signals a desire for privacy and the argument can convincingly be made that anyone cracking the encryption is willfully violating privacy. Unencrypted WiFi should carry the same expectation of privacy as talking over a clear channel on a CB radio, the concept is actually quite similar.
What really should have happened here is that the government should have asked Google "Ok, you screwed up, now what are you going to do about it? How about you fund a campaign to educate the public on privacy matters and the importance of encrypting their WiFi?" That would have been a better solution for everyone involved. The government still gets to look like they stepped in and took care of the issue. Google still pays for the mistake, while helping people in the process. The public gets to use this incident and all of the publicity surrounding it as a lesson and many more people will encrypt their wireless networks or clamor to their ISPs to provide their wireless routers with encryption already set up. Very large missed opportunity here.
Well the whole thing just seems like an ever climbing level of stupid. First Google collects data that while not illegal certainly wouldn't look good for the company: Dumb. Then they announce it to the world: Extra Dumb The governments demand to see the data...why? Just to see if there are any juicy bits? :Really Dumb, and now Google refuses to hand any of it over rather than just redact the names and let them have the boring bits: Extra Super dumb.
First Google accidentally collected the data, they didn't do it on purpose. Then after realizing they had collected it they decided to come forward and do the right thing rather than doing what most corporations would have done and covering it up. Then instead of governments realizing "hey they screwed up and they've admitted it, we want to encourage this kind of behavior rather than cover-ups" all of the governments involved have done a fine job making the cover-up look like the smart choice over doing what's right.
Did you ever play video games with friends when you were a kid? I remember playing Goldeneye with 3 friends split screen on a 15" TV and we managed just fine. Playing 2 way or 4 way split screen on the 46" LCD I have now would still beat playing one player on that tiny screen for each person playing.
I suspect the real reason split screen is disappearing is that both the PS3 and the 360 have already been pushed to their hardware limits and the game devs are having difficulty making split screen run without killing the framerate or dropping down the graphics level.
There's an obvious joke about Microsoft/Apple charging for the alpha version of an OS/gizmo here, and I'd just like to say that anyone who makes it should be ashamed of themselves.
It actually hadn't come to mind before this reminded me but now that I'm thinking about it someone should really mention Windows ME.
You seem lost, I believe you're looking for the topic on the Fairness Doctrine.
Net neutrality means that the collective mob has used the force of government as an instrument to gain control over other privately owned networks.
The corporations who own the networks *should* have control. It's private property. Every packet traversing their infrastructure is a guest.
Ah, but it's not quite so simple as you like to see it. We have the additional complication that the people not only granted the corporations the rights to lay the cables for their infrastructure over public land and granted a local monopoly for each type of service. I am a supporter of capitalism and free market principles, however it is quite easy to see that the current ISP situation in this country is anything but a free market. The free market breaks down with the presence of monopolies and oligopolies, if we want it to function as it should we must step in from time to time and break them up or prevent their formation.
So if I'm understanding you correctly your argument is that since TV is broken in this regard the Internet should be too? A common phrase comes to mind... "Two wrongs do not make a right."
You can technically live without electricity but that doesn't mean the power company should be allowed to bill you more per kWh just because you bought a Kenmore fridge instead of a GE even if they both use the same amount of power...
We have advanced to the point where not having internet access or even not having reasonably fast internet access can place people at a significant disadvantage, especially when it comes to communication and political discourse which are both essential to the democratic process. The internet is rapidly approaching the point where it logically should be classified as a utility.
The first time I saw this trotted out it seemed interesting and I saved the link for later. The second time it was trotted out with almost the same boilerplate text I was annoyed. By now I'm not even interested in visiting the site because I'm so sick of seeing people shilling for it. If you actually want to bring people to your point of view I would recommend you evaluate how you are approaching them, some people don't like having advertisements pushed on them and I suspect there is an abundance of that sentiment here.
Just make it for the Linux Standard Base which pretty much every major distro but Gentoo (it can, just not by default) supports out of the box by default?
Ah, well there's my Linux novice status showing, I wasn't aware of that. Out of curiosity are there any major limitations to do that?
Lowest price isn't the only qualification for a happy customer, but it is the only criteria on the Internet.
It is? I can recall quite a few occasions where I've paid a bit more for something online to get it from a site I've had a good experience with and I know won't give me the run around if something is wrong with the order. A common example of this for me is Newegg, quite often I can find the part a bit cheaper somewhere else but unless the difference is quite significant I'd rather order it from the Egg. I've dealt with their customer service in the past and I know if I have any problems they will put a good bit of effort into making things right.
If I had a friendly local game store I might do the same. However the local Gamestop is anything but friendly and I dislike their used game practices (they will give you $5 for a game then put it on the shelf for $35, while I don't deny they need to turn a profit they're basically exploiting the trade in customers at those prices).
I personally would avoid it if I saw that sign.
I'd spend just to get rid of the CRT. Apparently most people can't hear it but I haven't seen a CRT TV yet that doesn't make a horrifically annoying high pitched whine when it's turned on. One of my friends had a 32" that I could hear when he had left it on (nothing actually playing so no sound) from out in the hall with his dorm room door shut the whine was so loud.
This isn't always the case though. I have gone through hell trying to make a return at the local Best Buy before whereas every time I've needed to make a return to Newegg it's been completely painless. In fact I once had a Radeon 9700 All In Wonder arrive DOA, after returning it to Newegg I get an email stating they were out of stock and was it acceptable if they shipped me a 9800 AIW instead. Needless to say I've been hard pressed to find any brick and mortar chain with service that good (some of the mom and pop shops on the other hand have excellent service).
Sorry, that should be *salesmen* not *salesman*, not sure how I missed that in the preview.
I feel bad for the actual good salesman that provide correct info and *gasp* help the customer find what he wants. There are so few of them and idiots like the guy you dealt with give them all a bad rep.
Step 2a: Customers get angry at your arrogant and invasive measures.
Step 2b: Protests and bad publicity for your company.
Step 2c: Sued for illegally intercepting their mobile traffic.
Step 3 may not be as much profit as you're hoping.
We have a Wegmans nearby, the first time I walked into the place I had to remind myself I was actually in a grocery store. They actually have very decent food in their cafeteria too, the soups are great. The only reason I don't do most of my grocery shopping there is convenience. There is a Pathmark just down the road from me whereas Wegman's is a 20 minute + drive depending on traffic.
What's really sad here is that I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you honestly believe that. I'm really hoping it's the former.