Yes, but closing the port is enough to stop him. This is akin to shooting someone's head of, when you notice he's walking towards an open window - closing the window would have been enough.
This is too extreme. That's like saying "I can prevent people from stealing my golden watch by leaving it at home". Closing the appropiate ports may be saner.
This isn't really self defense; your actions didn't PREVENT harm from ocurring to you, this was rather vendetta: he did X to me, I did it back. I don't think this should be legal, because it could escalate into cyber-wars. Much like you can't steal something that was stolen from you in the first place - you can't take justice into your own hands.
The Android open source proyect and what comes pre-installed on your phone are different thing. There's plenty of stuff that's part of Android that's not open source. IIRC, the chat program, market, and maps are included in this category. The same applies for the SDK, the binaries they provide include extra stuff that's not FLOSS.
You can fork Android (the FLOSS proyect, not what comes on your phone that usually has aditional software), but not it's SDK. While Android (or parts of it) are free, the SDK is not (and yes, this does go a bit against the principles of open source software).
AFAIK, there's no offline maps for maemo (Nokia N900), how about supporting your own OSs first? You know; to give something to the people who actually pay for your products.
Because more "likes" makes the brand stand out more on facebook, and more users find it. Some of those users end up becoming more customers, which ends up in "more profit".
How is this a securty hole? To begin with, I imagine they meant "privacy", not "security". Secondly, what actually happened in this case is that the user shared the infomation logged by a device to his GF, and she found out about it. With that same argument, I can make a 1990 photo camera into a "privacy hole" - if I use it while cheating on my GF and then show her the data (pictures), she'll find out what I did.
I find that using debit card helps me greatly control my expenses at the end of the day (vs cash), since I can just sum up everything from my online report. This is quite a plus when you want to see what your largest expenses are at the end of the month.
Using debit: 1) Walk from home/work to coffee shop (50m). 2) Buy coffee
Using cash: 1) Walk from home/work to ATM (~200m). 2) Wait in line at the ATM. 3) Get cash. 4) Walk back to coffee shop. 5) Pay using cash, having to wait while the cashier counts the change, and you have to count it as well. You also need to find where to fit all those pieces of paper and metal, instead of a single plastic card.
So you'd rather downgrade your security or pay for additional IP addersses to support XP users who can't bother to download firefox? No thanks, I prefer to run secure websites with TLS+SNI, and screw XP+IE users. Security comes first, if those users don't care about security, they can take their business elsewhere. Why should I pay for additional IP addresses just to support such a small target (seriously, how many XP+IE users are there?).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but closing the port is enough to stop him.
This is akin to shooting someone's head of, when you notice he's walking towards an open window - closing the window would have been enough.
Damn that, I would have gotten on if it had a resistive screen. I can't stand capacitive screens and it seems the entire market is flooded with those!
This is too extreme. That's like saying "I can prevent people from stealing my golden watch by leaving it at home".
Closing the appropiate ports may be saner.
Closing the port they're using to access your computer(s) is way easier. Attacking them is actually aggressive.
Ok then, let's put it this way:
"If someone breaks into your house and uses your living room to have dinner, is it legal for you to go over to their house and do them same."?
This isn't really self defense; your actions didn't PREVENT harm from ocurring to you, this was rather vendetta: he did X to me, I did it back.
I don't think this should be legal, because it could escalate into cyber-wars. Much like you can't steal something that was stolen from you in the first place - you can't take justice into your own hands.
Why do you need a Windows box? Most Valve games seem to work fine with wine. At least the one I've tried and the once my friends play.
So we may never get a year of desktop linux.
But there's still a chance for a year of the living room linux.
The Android open source proyect and what comes pre-installed on your phone are different thing. There's plenty of stuff that's part of Android that's not open source. IIRC, the chat program, market, and maps are included in this category.
The same applies for the SDK, the binaries they provide include extra stuff that's not FLOSS.
You can fork Android (the FLOSS proyect, not what comes on your phone that usually has aditional software), but not it's SDK.
While Android (or parts of it) are free, the SDK is not (and yes, this does go a bit against the principles of open source software).
AFAIK, there's no offline maps for maemo (Nokia N900), how about supporting your own OSs first? You know; to give something to the people who actually pay for your products.
RTFA! It's all clearly explained there!
Because more "likes" makes the brand stand out more on facebook, and more users find it. Some of those users end up becoming more customers, which ends up in "more profit".
Indeed. I've found that some old applications (especially games from around 1999), tend to work on wine, while they fail to run on Windows > XP.
They may be few, but it's worth a try.
How is this a securty hole?
To begin with, I imagine they meant "privacy", not "security".
Secondly, what actually happened in this case is that the user shared the infomation logged by a device to his GF, and she found out about it.
With that same argument, I can make a 1990 photo camera into a "privacy hole" - if I use it while cheating on my GF and then show her the data (pictures), she'll find out what I did.
You don't need to position yourself so carefully as with MRIs; you position yourself the way you want the printed product to look.
This question had already been slashdotted when someone else asked the exact same question here:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/08/24/2014256/Searching-For-Backdoors-From-Rogue-IT-Staff
They want more things, but contrary to older people, they settle for less.
We need a single card to unify all our discount cards, not our debit cards!!
I find that using debit card helps me greatly control my expenses at the end of the day (vs cash), since I can just sum up everything from my online report. This is quite a plus when you want to see what your largest expenses are at the end of the month.
Using debit:
1) Walk from home/work to coffee shop (50m).
2) Buy coffee
Using cash:
1) Walk from home/work to ATM (~200m).
2) Wait in line at the ATM.
3) Get cash.
4) Walk back to coffee shop.
5) Pay using cash, having to wait while the cashier counts the change, and you have to count it as well. You also need to find where to fit all those pieces of paper and metal, instead of a single plastic card.
Pics or it didn't happen.
[citation needed]
So you'd rather downgrade your security or pay for additional IP addersses to support XP users who can't bother to download firefox?
No thanks, I prefer to run secure websites with TLS+SNI, and screw XP+IE users. Security comes first, if those users don't care about security, they can take their business elsewhere. Why should I pay for additional IP addresses just to support such a small target (seriously, how many XP+IE users are there?).
I've never seen the need or reason to have a mail client and a browser as separate apps either.
It's just a matter of how good or bad it is/they are.