But that's the point - they're doing extra work to make a worse product. They could sell the $500 part for $200 because it's the same part. It's not like they're subsidizing the $200 part, making a loss on it.
Maybe instead of ranting and admonishing, you could provide us with some examples of how you search - some sample queries.
As it stands, your post is one I would ignore. Angry people are irrational, and no one reading it knows whether it's just because you suck at formulating queries or you just search for obscure things or what. And while you rant about how much Google sucks, you provide no comparison to any other service.
It's really all just noise. No way to make any rational sense out of it.
No, I think that if random/. posters are coming up with that 5 minutes after reading the summary, LG wouldn't be stupid enough to think that no one at Apple - who has a vested interest in these things - would ever come to that conclusion. I mean, seriously. That doesn't take any insight.
It's seems unlikely that LG is the puppeteer. As - AFAIK - they're not involved in any of the Apple/Android/mobile patent wars with Apple, it would be pretty stupid for them to instigate a fight. After all, they sold off a parent that this new company claims has significant value. If that's the case, why would LG sell it? Why not pursue Apple themselves? The only reason would seem to be legal insulation from the lawsuit if they think the claim is tenuous and they're just trying to ruffle Apple's feathers. But if they're not involved in the patent fight, why would they provoke Apple and risk their current business with Apple?
In short: no, it seems too transparent and too stupid (stupid at least with the information I'm aware of; maybe an Apple suit against LG is imminent or something).
...but you'll rarely see stock Android on your phone. To install a version that the tethering hasn't been cut out of by the carrier or manufacturer, you still need root.
Aside from browser ID strings - which as others mentioned are easily spoofed - traffic patterns are probably just as identifiable. If I were to tether from my computer, it's not just browser traffic they would see. My mail client would be reaching out checking for updates, Dropbox would keep checking for changes and syncing, as would Evernote... This is probably especially true for Windows users: antivirus traffic, Windows update traffic... Youtube videos could be loaded that otherwise wouldn't on a mobile device. Short, high-bandwidth bursts of traffic are more likely from a tethered desktop than a phone - in Chrome I often load up 6-8 of the pages in my home tab on start, simultaneously. That's hard to do in a mobile browser. Even the user agent string is a good indication - who browses everything with a user agent set to a desktop on a mobile device? Sure, it's useful at times, if a site is misbehaving, but most often the mobile versions of pages are better for mobile devices. If they see a whole session of browsing with a desktop user agent, yeah, they'll probably be suspicious.
And your browser reports more than what browser it is, what version, what OS. They generally report information on plugins and fonts and compatibilities, too, which can be very unique and easily identifiable: https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Eh, I don't think so. I've set up a VPN for use from my phone and I don't tether. I just don't trust random open wifi networks, and feel semi-insecure doing things with sensitive info like banking without it.
Plus I have access to files at home, and all web traffic routed to my phone is filtered with Privoxy and compressed with Ziproxy.
>> I mean it is really obvious to your lopsided opinion on this, but I wonder if you really think that or not.
What does that even mean? What is really obvious?
>> The reality is that both entities, corporate and government are made up of people... people will do stupid things and probably at the same percentage or rate as both entities
I'd disagree. I have experience in both sectors, and from what I have seen... People in private entities are held more accountable for their actions. You can easily be demoted, not-so-easily fired (but it's still possible), and reassigned to jobs you don't like to limit the amount of damage you can do. In the public sector, it's almost impossible to do those things. What's more, screw up enough and you may find yourself in a new position - not with crappy work, but with almost no work. Still taking a salary, not trusted to do a thing, but can't be gotten rid of. What's more - corporations often have bonus incentives based on personal and company performance, which makes people more invested in not screwing things up.
People will do stupid things. But they'll do them less if they have an incentive not to.
>> However, to read what you wrote, you tend to think that there are far more people doing stupid things in Government than business. Where do you get your opinion from? One can only guess, but it seems statistically flawed
Two things...
First, the two aren't directly comparable - what governments do is different than what corporations do. Corporations are self-interested; they are less likely to make stupid decisions because those decisions hurt themselves. Governments' decisions act primarily not on the government, but on others. And there are always people who think they know best how someone else should run things... made all the worse if they benefit from it. So, it all comes down to what constitutes a "stupid decision," but government is intrinsically set up in a manner that doesn't seek to avoid them, as is the case for a corporation.
Second, "it seems statistically flawed." No, because there's no statistics in play here. All you've basically said so far is that you disagree with his interpretation. But you have no statistical grounds to claim that; it's merely a difference of opinion.
>> However, to counter your point. I feel that everyone should be subject to laws, and if they break them... accept the consequences. Do not bitch, moan, bribe, cajole, mope, PR blitz, pay someone to throw a pie at you during a hearing, or toss empty pity apologize and then fall asleep during the hearing.
How is that at all a counter to what he said? He didn't claim that everyone shouldn't be subject to the same laws, nor advocate slimy ways of getting out of it. All he said was that in his eyes, people and corporation are being treated equally. You can disagree with that, fine. But do it directly.
Also, personal pet peeve: stop "feeling" things and start "thinking" them.
>> Frankly, any excuse such as the ones above is a cop out and you are lower than a bottom feeder in my eyes.
Oh, I should add: I use a script blocking extension as well as Privoxy. Because I do use the tested sites somewhat, chances are some of the scripts are enabled, but Privoxy will crunch ads and certain scripts anyway, and I have it set up to block any kind of Facebook Open Graph stuff, as well as Share This On (Digg|Twitter|Facebook|Reddit) things, and other random things. So, the 1 MB/page may not be quite so generous, but probably not far off the mark.
On the other hand, it very well could be that the people most likely to run into cap limitations are the types who know their way around the computer well enough to install, say, Adblock Plus.
What are caps for most people these days? Usually I see 150-250 GB; once, I've encountered 50 GB, so I sent them a letter letting them know I wouldn't be purchasing their service and told them who I was going with and why.
Seems like a few extra pageloads would be insignificant. If you query Google 20 times a day, and as a result, incur 5*20=100 extra pageloads... how big is a page? Loading the/. homepage, I use 519 KB. Ars Technica: 868 KB. Facebook: 417 KB. CNN: 889 KB. And this is assuming no content is cached; if I don't force a refresh of everything on the page, I use 1/4 or less of these amounts.
So if we're generous, we'll call it 1 MB/page * 100 pages/day * 31 days/month = and additional ~3 GB. So, and extra couple percent, for what I've seen from most ISPs in the States, and maybe as high as 6% - of course dependent on the number of searches one makes.
But this isn't anything new. Prefetching has been around for some time. This new feature just takes the additional step of rendering the prefetched pages, instead of waiting to render if the user decides to go there. The "damage" of prefetching could very well be already factored in to your current usage.
In my experience, it only manages to fire off one or two DNS queries before I hit enter, much less load a page. When I am stuck - usually when I'm using it to search my history or the name of a site I can't quite remember - it's always seemed very helpful.
IMHO and YMMV and all that, but for the sake of your health, take a deep breath and calm down:)
I don't know of any ABP equivalents, there may not be any; I use Privoxy anyway, which is really a much more capable tool than ABP and does a lot more for the security and privacy conscious.
Out of curiosity - people modding, please reply - why is this modded troll?
I'm not angry, not looking for an argument; just genuinely curious about the thought process behind the moderation. I don't think what I said was inflammatory or out of line - just speculating that though this likely won't stop anonymous, it could still have some effect. Are anon-troll members lurking or something?
Remember, someone isn't a troll simply because you disagree with them, and there's no "-1 Disagree."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.
Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.
DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. It has no message, other than an error when a customer tries to load the page; there's no persuasion there. They might read about it later - might - but then, the DDoSers no longer control the message - most people are going to read about it from a news outlet. They'll probably see it as some "hackers" preventing them from getting on with their lives. Frustrating people and not letting them handle their affairs is not a good way to get them on your side.
DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge. It's sneaking into UPS at night and letting the air out of all the tires of all the trucks. No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business, delays packages.
DDoS over Tor would probably cripple the Tor network. Tor is for anonymizing your connection, but it's not a robust, high-speed link. It would slow the attack on the target, and more effectively DDoS Tor than anything.
Patent troll? Yes. These complaints basically amount to "running a regex on an incoming text to look for things like addresses, and then making it possible for the user to interact with the recognized address by e.g. opening up Maps and having Maps search for that address," and claiming that no one can have an API which allows real-time interaction with a datastream, such as DSP effects on an audio stream.
Superfluous? Yes. Prior art? Yes. Patent troll? You betcha.
Don't know where you work, but in my last job search, I had interviews with engineers and managers (with engineering backgrounds), almost exclusively. Met with 5 or 6 of them for 30-60 minutes, in a day, after which they got together and discussed, and told HR who to hire. Generally I met with an HR person first thing at the start of the day, "personality screening" I suppose, along with some of the paperwork.
So I don't necessarily buy that line. If that's how the company hires, they deserve what they get. And the qualified guy will be happier in the end not having worked there.
Especially if they think admining Windows is applicable job experience for admining credit card databases, santa vaca!
Securing computer systems well is a necessary step, but it's not perfect. New exploits are always appearing, sometimes admin screw something up, patches can cause regressions in the code or in the configuration.
It's not an end-all, be-all. To be truly secure, you need a proactive element, sniffing out what the bad guys are doing, what exploits aren't patched yet or aren't even known about outside of the bad guys, that kind of thing... at a minimum. If you have the authority, trying to actually stop the bad guys - e.g., arrest them - is the next logical step to the tit-for-tat game you play otherwise. That's not a fun game to play, because if you're not going after the bad guys, you're the only one with something to lose. Given enough time, you will.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's the point - they're doing extra work to make a worse product. They could sell the $500 part for $200 because it's the same part. It's not like they're subsidizing the $200 part, making a loss on it.
Oops, forgot to log in. I'm the AC above.
Maybe instead of ranting and admonishing, you could provide us with some examples of how you search - some sample queries.
As it stands, your post is one I would ignore. Angry people are irrational, and no one reading it knows whether it's just because you suck at formulating queries or you just search for obscure things or what. And while you rant about how much Google sucks, you provide no comparison to any other service.
It's really all just noise. No way to make any rational sense out of it.
No, I think that if random /. posters are coming up with that 5 minutes after reading the summary, LG wouldn't be stupid enough to think that no one at Apple - who has a vested interest in these things - would ever come to that conclusion. I mean, seriously. That doesn't take any insight.
It's seems unlikely that LG is the puppeteer. As - AFAIK - they're not involved in any of the Apple/Android/mobile patent wars with Apple, it would be pretty stupid for them to instigate a fight. After all, they sold off a parent that this new company claims has significant value. If that's the case, why would LG sell it? Why not pursue Apple themselves? The only reason would seem to be legal insulation from the lawsuit if they think the claim is tenuous and they're just trying to ruffle Apple's feathers. But if they're not involved in the patent fight, why would they provoke Apple and risk their current business with Apple?
In short: no, it seems too transparent and too stupid (stupid at least with the information I'm aware of; maybe an Apple suit against LG is imminent or something).
...but you'll rarely see stock Android on your phone. To install a version that the tethering hasn't been cut out of by the carrier or manufacturer, you still need root.
Aside from browser ID strings - which as others mentioned are easily spoofed - traffic patterns are probably just as identifiable. If I were to tether from my computer, it's not just browser traffic they would see. My mail client would be reaching out checking for updates, Dropbox would keep checking for changes and syncing, as would Evernote... This is probably especially true for Windows users: antivirus traffic, Windows update traffic... Youtube videos could be loaded that otherwise wouldn't on a mobile device. Short, high-bandwidth bursts of traffic are more likely from a tethered desktop than a phone - in Chrome I often load up 6-8 of the pages in my home tab on start, simultaneously. That's hard to do in a mobile browser. Even the user agent string is a good indication - who browses everything with a user agent set to a desktop on a mobile device? Sure, it's useful at times, if a site is misbehaving, but most often the mobile versions of pages are better for mobile devices. If they see a whole session of browsing with a desktop user agent, yeah, they'll probably be suspicious.
And your browser reports more than what browser it is, what version, what OS. They generally report information on plugins and fonts and compatibilities, too, which can be very unique and easily identifiable: https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Eh, I don't think so. I've set up a VPN for use from my phone and I don't tether. I just don't trust random open wifi networks, and feel semi-insecure doing things with sensitive info like banking without it.
Plus I have access to files at home, and all web traffic routed to my phone is filtered with Privoxy and compressed with Ziproxy.
When I go there, I get "Join Google+ Just sign in with your Google account to start using the new parts of Google."
Maybe it's geographically based?
It's been open to the public for a while now.
>> I mean it is really obvious to your lopsided opinion on this, but I wonder if you really think that or not.
What does that even mean? What is really obvious?
>> The reality is that both entities, corporate and government are made up of people... people will do stupid things and probably at the same percentage or rate as both entities
I'd disagree. I have experience in both sectors, and from what I have seen... People in private entities are held more accountable for their actions. You can easily be demoted, not-so-easily fired (but it's still possible), and reassigned to jobs you don't like to limit the amount of damage you can do. In the public sector, it's almost impossible to do those things. What's more, screw up enough and you may find yourself in a new position - not with crappy work, but with almost no work. Still taking a salary, not trusted to do a thing, but can't be gotten rid of. What's more - corporations often have bonus incentives based on personal and company performance, which makes people more invested in not screwing things up.
People will do stupid things. But they'll do them less if they have an incentive not to.
>> However, to read what you wrote, you tend to think that there are far more people doing stupid things in Government than business. Where do you get your opinion from? One can only guess, but it seems statistically flawed
Two things...
First, the two aren't directly comparable - what governments do is different than what corporations do. Corporations are self-interested; they are less likely to make stupid decisions because those decisions hurt themselves. Governments' decisions act primarily not on the government, but on others. And there are always people who think they know best how someone else should run things... made all the worse if they benefit from it. So, it all comes down to what constitutes a "stupid decision," but government is intrinsically set up in a manner that doesn't seek to avoid them, as is the case for a corporation.
Second, "it seems statistically flawed." No, because there's no statistics in play here. All you've basically said so far is that you disagree with his interpretation. But you have no statistical grounds to claim that; it's merely a difference of opinion.
>> However, to counter your point. I feel that everyone should be subject to laws, and if they break them... accept the consequences. Do not bitch, moan, bribe, cajole, mope, PR blitz, pay someone to throw a pie at you during a hearing, or toss empty pity apologize and then fall asleep during the hearing.
How is that at all a counter to what he said? He didn't claim that everyone shouldn't be subject to the same laws, nor advocate slimy ways of getting out of it. All he said was that in his eyes, people and corporation are being treated equally. You can disagree with that, fine. But do it directly.
Also, personal pet peeve: stop "feeling" things and start "thinking" them.
>> Frankly, any excuse such as the ones above is a cop out and you are lower than a bottom feeder in my eyes.
What excuses are they?
Oh, I should add: I use a script blocking extension as well as Privoxy. Because I do use the tested sites somewhat, chances are some of the scripts are enabled, but Privoxy will crunch ads and certain scripts anyway, and I have it set up to block any kind of Facebook Open Graph stuff, as well as Share This On (Digg|Twitter|Facebook|Reddit) things, and other random things. So, the 1 MB/page may not be quite so generous, but probably not far off the mark.
On the other hand, it very well could be that the people most likely to run into cap limitations are the types who know their way around the computer well enough to install, say, Adblock Plus.
What are caps for most people these days? Usually I see 150-250 GB; once, I've encountered 50 GB, so I sent them a letter letting them know I wouldn't be purchasing their service and told them who I was going with and why.
Seems like a few extra pageloads would be insignificant. If you query Google 20 times a day, and as a result, incur 5*20=100 extra pageloads... how big is a page? Loading the /. homepage, I use 519 KB. Ars Technica: 868 KB. Facebook: 417 KB. CNN: 889 KB. And this is assuming no content is cached; if I don't force a refresh of everything on the page, I use 1/4 or less of these amounts.
So if we're generous, we'll call it 1 MB/page * 100 pages/day * 31 days/month = and additional ~3 GB. So, and extra couple percent, for what I've seen from most ISPs in the States, and maybe as high as 6% - of course dependent on the number of searches one makes.
But this isn't anything new. Prefetching has been around for some time. This new feature just takes the additional step of rendering the prefetched pages, instead of waiting to render if the user decides to go there. The "damage" of prefetching could very well be already factored in to your current usage.
You must type really slow or something.
In my experience, it only manages to fire off one or two DNS queries before I hit enter, much less load a page. When I am stuck - usually when I'm using it to search my history or the name of a site I can't quite remember - it's always seemed very helpful.
IMHO and YMMV and all that, but for the sake of your health, take a deep breath and calm down :)
It can be done, see NotScript: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn
>> currently an extension like NoScript for Firefox is practically impossible to implement in Chrome
Not true - see NotScripts: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn
Works very well.
I don't know of any ABP equivalents, there may not be any; I use Privoxy anyway, which is really a much more capable tool than ABP and does a lot more for the security and privacy conscious.
Out of curiosity - people modding, please reply - why is this modded troll?
I'm not angry, not looking for an argument; just genuinely curious about the thought process behind the moderation. I don't think what I said was inflammatory or out of line - just speculating that though this likely won't stop anonymous, it could still have some effect. Are anon-troll members lurking or something?
Remember, someone isn't a troll simply because you disagree with them, and there's no "-1 Disagree."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.
Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.
DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. It has no message, other than an error when a customer tries to load the page; there's no persuasion there. They might read about it later - might - but then, the DDoSers no longer control the message - most people are going to read about it from a news outlet. They'll probably see it as some "hackers" preventing them from getting on with their lives. Frustrating people and not letting them handle their affairs is not a good way to get them on your side.
DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge. It's sneaking into UPS at night and letting the air out of all the tires of all the trucks. No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business, delays packages.
Just use Chinese computers, US won't get any help from them.
On the other hand, if it makes people think there's more hacking from China, that could cause all kinds of other international problems...
No.
DDoS over Tor would probably cripple the Tor network. Tor is for anonymizing your connection, but it's not a robust, high-speed link. It would slow the attack on the target, and more effectively DDoS Tor than anything.
Could be, but those are also the people who may be most easily deterred from doing it again, if they see people being arrested for it.
Doesn't hit core anon members, perhaps, but weakens one of their weapons.
Look at these tables, and ignore the rest, because it's Florian Mueller: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-infringes.html
Patent troll? Yes. These complaints basically amount to "running a regex on an incoming text to look for things like addresses, and then making it possible for the user to interact with the recognized address by e.g. opening up Maps and having Maps search for that address," and claiming that no one can have an API which allows real-time interaction with a datastream, such as DSP effects on an audio stream.
Superfluous? Yes. Prior art? Yes. Patent troll? You betcha.
You can't be serious.
Don't know where you work, but in my last job search, I had interviews with engineers and managers (with engineering backgrounds), almost exclusively. Met with 5 or 6 of them for 30-60 minutes, in a day, after which they got together and discussed, and told HR who to hire. Generally I met with an HR person first thing at the start of the day, "personality screening" I suppose, along with some of the paperwork.
So I don't necessarily buy that line. If that's how the company hires, they deserve what they get. And the qualified guy will be happier in the end not having worked there.
Especially if they think admining Windows is applicable job experience for admining credit card databases, santa vaca!
Bad analogy.
Securing computer systems well is a necessary step, but it's not perfect. New exploits are always appearing, sometimes admin screw something up, patches can cause regressions in the code or in the configuration.
It's not an end-all, be-all. To be truly secure, you need a proactive element, sniffing out what the bad guys are doing, what exploits aren't patched yet or aren't even known about outside of the bad guys, that kind of thing... at a minimum. If you have the authority, trying to actually stop the bad guys - e.g., arrest them - is the next logical step to the tit-for-tat game you play otherwise. That's not a fun game to play, because if you're not going after the bad guys, you're the only one with something to lose. Given enough time, you will.