The reason for this IMO is the same reason why most people complain about living paycheck to paycheck: They use credit cards instead of savings to buy this year's Christmas presents. Then they end up spending most of their income on interest.
I keep having to say this over and over again, but I actually live rather comfortably on an under $10k per year income. I pay my own bills, but I have zero debt and a large cash surplus that continues to build (which was acquired entirely by saving my income.)
Living on debt is MUCH more expensive than living on a cash surplus. We're talking easily 3 times what you actually spend on your junk because of the way interest on credit cards and mortgages compounds.
Actually that isn't it at all. They've just announced record subscriber growth and record revenues. The reason they're in the red is because they are spending a lot on both upgrading their network and advertising.
If their subscriber growth continues at its current rate (and all indications seem to indicate it will) they'll be very VERY profitable by the end of this year.
I don't believe directv itself provides any internet services. There's hughesnet, but I don't recall if they're a sister company or a parent company. Even if they are the same company these days, the service is crap anyways; it's horribly capped and the latency is awful, and I can't see a merger making it any worse.
Anyways, IMO this only stands to harm pay TV content providers. And you know what? I say let it happen. The pay TV content providers have been fucking us over for decades and are THE biggest reason for cable price hikes. They are given government sanctioned monopolies over their content that they use to strong arm the rest of us, so let them see what happens when they get strong-armed by a worse monopoly.
As for pay TV prices, I no longer give a fuck. I stopped watching pay TV last year. Popcorn time, sickbeard, and couchpotato will get you anything you want in that on-demand style; the later two via the pirate bay which has strongly withstood even the most demanding attacks by the **AAs.
Right well "signed by anybody" isn't that much different from a code safety perspective than unsigned code, you still have to trust who it is signed by and while they might not be able to modify existing apps we can see that from the malware examples on Android (even though I don't believe that many are particularly widely circulated) that this doesn't make much of a difference in terms of their ability to be malicious.
It very much does, actually. Your phone stores a keyring of known publishers for your apps. If you try to patch an app that has a different certificate, you'll be made well aware that something is off.
The one you refer to was a research project, it's hardly a "major slipup" (I'm sure platform fanboys would like it portrayed that way but I don't have a religious devotion to any technology platform), in fact it had exactly zero impact on anybody, period.
Of course, the iOS one was found only after the Android app of the same name was discovered. Nobody would have checked otherwise and it would have still been in the wild by now. And that wasn't the first either:
In fact in all three of these incidents, Apple never discovered any of them. If there is any other real malware in the wild, the authors aren't going to tell Apple about it first of all, and second of all, no independent security researchers outside of Apple are allowed to vet them (except for jailbroken users.) Unless the malware author makes a major screwup like creating an Android malware app of the same name, (or making it blatantly obvious to the end user) it'll never be found.
No i don't think that's true at all, I guess I'm an Apple user (amongst Windows, Android and Gentoo) and I pointed out that whilst they are very good they are not perfect, which is the same as Google with the Play Store.
If you don't think apple users commonly go around spouting that "Macs don't get viruses," then I've got a bridge to sell you. Fuck, Apple even had a commercial effectively making a similar claim.
Obviously if you restrict yourself to the Google Play store it is very much the same thing as using an iOS device which is restricted to the Apple App Store. But that negates the biggest advantage of Android.
That's just the thing: You don't HAVE to do so. For most users, it's a pretty good idea, and they do exactly that. However for people like me, I'll get apps such as adfree, or like how I patched the Kindle app myself to show ebook PIDs so I could dedrm my own kindle ebooks. Try that on an ipad. In fact I'll answer for you because I already own one: It can't be done.
Neither is inherently more secure, it comes down to flexibility and if you provide the freedom to do whatever the user wants and they take it then - just like on desktop systems - the user needs to take on additional responsibility, which they usually aren't capable of or willing to do.
Other than sticking to the play store, right? On the contrary, there really is no good standard app source on Windows or OSX unless you want a good selection of mostly crappy ones.
Malware for Android is no different from malware for Windows or for OS X, the bulk of it is due to being able to run any code you want (where unless you wrote it you probably don't know what it does) and most people will just click through warnings about unsigned code, virtually none will ever vet any code ever.
Absolutely 100% incorrect. I don't think you understand android that well. Android will refuse to run unsigned apps - they MUST have a signature, though there is no certificate authority they have to go through. But, apps with differing signatures can't interfere with one another. This means that malware app A can't steal or inject information into facebook app B. However facebook app C can manipulate facebook app B if that's what the publisher who holds the keys wants it to do. You are free to alter these rules on your own if you'd like, either through rooting or putting your own signature on both APKs. Neither involves a simple warning that you have to click through; it's a rather manual process. This results in Android being inherently very secure by design.
The flip side of that is that on iOS you place all your trust in Apple to make sure that they vet code properly, by and large they do a pretty good job of that but that isn't to say they couldn't have a major slipup (in the style of goto-fail) in the future.
Wrong again; Apple already has made a major slipup. In fact they've made a few of them, the most recent being this one:
And of course, that is only what's known. Apple users assume that everything they do is 100% secure once vetted by Apple, but they couldn't be more wrong. iOS has a "city wall" but no guards to maintain order inside of the gates. Anybody with any security background will tell you why this is a horrible idea, as opposed to a layered security model, which is what Android sticks to.
Generally if you live in a first world country, malware on Android isn't a problem in the slightest. Most first worlders don't sideload apps, except for pirates, power users, and developers. In third world countries, especially China, piracy is often the first choice for obtaining software rather than getting it through app stores. It's in these countries where the malware is common.
US users who buy antivirus software for Android are flat out wasting their money. Malware found on the Play store is removed from your device by play services when it is identified; so just by that alone you already have all of the malware protection you need. The only people who really need that are the ones who pirate their apps (and you can pirate safely, but it's inherently less safe to do so because you can't validate the original publisher's signature) however chances are if you already pirate your apps, you probably aren't terribly interested in paying for an antivirus app to begin with.
Nonetheless, what I said above won't stop companies like F-Secure from giving sensationalist figures like "99% of malware is aimed at android," because their product can't sell unless they're somehow able to scare their users into buying it. The same is true of ID theft services such as lifelock that don't actually do anything as well as ripoff home security services like ADT and Brinks.
Urine doesn't contain any of the above unless the person has a bladder infection. Your kidneys are pretty good at removing those from your urine for this exact reason (avoiding bladder infections.)
I doubt it, all they have to do is state that they never intended it for medical use. So long as they don't advertise it as such, they're fine, any liability is on the doc and/or hospital.
Not exactly reinventing the wheel here. Bitcoin can't be counterfeited and the supply is mostly finite (more can't be manufactured, or dug out of this planet or another one.) These two alone make it something that hasn't been done before. (The concept of virtual money HAS been done though; most US dollars for example don't exist as physical cash, and the virtual ones are created and destroyed by the billions daily.)
Bitcoin is actually very democratic when you think about it. More can be created, but only if the majority of existing bitcoin holders agree to do so. Anonymity can be achieved with BIP0032.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for this IMO is the same reason why most people complain about living paycheck to paycheck: They use credit cards instead of savings to buy this year's Christmas presents. Then they end up spending most of their income on interest.
I keep having to say this over and over again, but I actually live rather comfortably on an under $10k per year income. I pay my own bills, but I have zero debt and a large cash surplus that continues to build (which was acquired entirely by saving my income.)
Living on debt is MUCH more expensive than living on a cash surplus. We're talking easily 3 times what you actually spend on your junk because of the way interest on credit cards and mortgages compounds.
Actually that isn't it at all. They've just announced record subscriber growth and record revenues. The reason they're in the red is because they are spending a lot on both upgrading their network and advertising.
If their subscriber growth continues at its current rate (and all indications seem to indicate it will) they'll be very VERY profitable by the end of this year.
I don't believe directv itself provides any internet services. There's hughesnet, but I don't recall if they're a sister company or a parent company. Even if they are the same company these days, the service is crap anyways; it's horribly capped and the latency is awful, and I can't see a merger making it any worse.
Anyways, IMO this only stands to harm pay TV content providers. And you know what? I say let it happen. The pay TV content providers have been fucking us over for decades and are THE biggest reason for cable price hikes. They are given government sanctioned monopolies over their content that they use to strong arm the rest of us, so let them see what happens when they get strong-armed by a worse monopoly.
As for pay TV prices, I no longer give a fuck. I stopped watching pay TV last year. Popcorn time, sickbeard, and couchpotato will get you anything you want in that on-demand style; the later two via the pirate bay which has strongly withstood even the most demanding attacks by the **AAs.
Right well "signed by anybody" isn't that much different from a code safety perspective than unsigned code, you still have to trust who it is signed by and while they might not be able to modify existing apps we can see that from the malware examples on Android (even though I don't believe that many are particularly widely circulated) that this doesn't make much of a difference in terms of their ability to be malicious.
It very much does, actually. Your phone stores a keyring of known publishers for your apps. If you try to patch an app that has a different certificate, you'll be made well aware that something is off.
The one you refer to was a research project, it's hardly a "major slipup" (I'm sure platform fanboys would like it portrayed that way but I don't have a religious devotion to any technology platform), in fact it had exactly zero impact on anybody, period.
How about this one then:
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/f...
Of course, the iOS one was found only after the Android app of the same name was discovered. Nobody would have checked otherwise and it would have still been in the wild by now. And that wasn't the first either:
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.co...
In fact in all three of these incidents, Apple never discovered any of them. If there is any other real malware in the wild, the authors aren't going to tell Apple about it first of all, and second of all, no independent security researchers outside of Apple are allowed to vet them (except for jailbroken users.) Unless the malware author makes a major screwup like creating an Android malware app of the same name, (or making it blatantly obvious to the end user) it'll never be found.
No i don't think that's true at all, I guess I'm an Apple user (amongst Windows, Android and Gentoo) and I pointed out that whilst they are very good they are not perfect, which is the same as Google with the Play Store.
If you don't think apple users commonly go around spouting that "Macs don't get viruses," then I've got a bridge to sell you. Fuck, Apple even had a commercial effectively making a similar claim.
Obviously if you restrict yourself to the Google Play store it is very much the same thing as using an iOS device which is restricted to the Apple App Store. But that negates the biggest advantage of Android.
That's just the thing: You don't HAVE to do so. For most users, it's a pretty good idea, and they do exactly that. However for people like me, I'll get apps such as adfree, or like how I patched the Kindle app myself to show ebook PIDs so I could dedrm my own kindle ebooks. Try that on an ipad. In fact I'll answer for you because I already own one: It can't be done.
Neither is inherently more secure, it comes down to flexibility and if you provide the freedom to do whatever the user wants and they take it then - just like on desktop systems - the user needs to take on additional responsibility, which they usually aren't capable of or willing to do.
Other than sticking to the play store, right? On the contrary, there really is no good standard app source on Windows or OSX unless you want a good selection of mostly crappy ones.
Malware for Android is no different from malware for Windows or for OS X, the bulk of it is due to being able to run any code you want (where unless you wrote it you probably don't know what it does) and most people will just click through warnings about unsigned code, virtually none will ever vet any code ever.
Absolutely 100% incorrect. I don't think you understand android that well. Android will refuse to run unsigned apps - they MUST have a signature, though there is no certificate authority they have to go through. But, apps with differing signatures can't interfere with one another. This means that malware app A can't steal or inject information into facebook app B. However facebook app C can manipulate facebook app B if that's what the publisher who holds the keys wants it to do. You are free to alter these rules on your own if you'd like, either through rooting or putting your own signature on both APKs. Neither involves a simple warning that you have to click through; it's a rather manual process. This results in Android being inherently very secure by design.
The flip side of that is that on iOS you place all your trust in Apple to make sure that they vet code properly, by and large they do a pretty good job of that but that isn't to say they couldn't have a major slipup (in the style of goto-fail) in the future.
Wrong again; Apple already has made a major slipup. In fact they've made a few of them, the most recent being this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
And of course, that is only what's known. Apple users assume that everything they do is 100% secure once vetted by Apple, but they couldn't be more wrong. iOS has a "city wall" but no guards to maintain order inside of the gates. Anybody with any security background will tell you why this is a horrible idea, as opposed to a layered security model, which is what Android sticks to.
Generally if you live in a first world country, malware on Android isn't a problem in the slightest. Most first worlders don't sideload apps, except for pirates, power users, and developers. In third world countries, especially China, piracy is often the first choice for obtaining software rather than getting it through app stores. It's in these countries where the malware is common.
US users who buy antivirus software for Android are flat out wasting their money. Malware found on the Play store is removed from your device by play services when it is identified; so just by that alone you already have all of the malware protection you need. The only people who really need that are the ones who pirate their apps (and you can pirate safely, but it's inherently less safe to do so because you can't validate the original publisher's signature) however chances are if you already pirate your apps, you probably aren't terribly interested in paying for an antivirus app to begin with.
Nonetheless, what I said above won't stop companies like F-Secure from giving sensationalist figures like "99% of malware is aimed at android," because their product can't sell unless they're somehow able to scare their users into buying it. The same is true of ID theft services such as lifelock that don't actually do anything as well as ripoff home security services like ADT and Brinks.
Urine doesn't contain any of the above unless the person has a bladder infection. Your kidneys are pretty good at removing those from your urine for this exact reason (avoiding bladder infections.)
I doubt it, all they have to do is state that they never intended it for medical use. So long as they don't advertise it as such, they're fine, any liability is on the doc and/or hospital.
So now instead of this we have this?
Not exactly reinventing the wheel here. Bitcoin can't be counterfeited and the supply is mostly finite (more can't be manufactured, or dug out of this planet or another one.) These two alone make it something that hasn't been done before. (The concept of virtual money HAS been done though; most US dollars for example don't exist as physical cash, and the virtual ones are created and destroyed by the billions daily.)
Bitcoin is actually very democratic when you think about it. More can be created, but only if the majority of existing bitcoin holders agree to do so. Anonymity can be achieved with BIP0032.
Alternatively we could keep using our bitcoins and just adopt BIP 32:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0032