The news is that mobile malware developers are now adopting the technique for Android, rendering all the usual antivirus apps ineffective. It's a YAAM (Yet Another Android Malware) story.
This technique is known as server-side polymorphism and has already existed in the world of desktop malware for many years, but mobile malware creators have only now begun to adopt it.
That conclusion differs vastly from the OECD report, which ranks Canada as 26th, or seventh most-expensive among its membership. The disparity comes from different methodologies employed by the two reports.
Hey, kids, create whichever study results you want simply by changing your methodologies!
They should regret it. The position is stupid. As noted in the article, librarians shush you if you talk too loudly. When obsession with unrealistic libertarian free speech ideas go so far as to reward insensitive, self-absorbed weirdos and punish normal people who are genuinely being distracted in a setting that's supposed to be quiet and conducive to research, it becomes a stupidly idealistic position with no practical applicability.
If anything goes because OMG-MY-FREE-SPEECH-RIGHTS, then I can just stroll into the library screaming "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" for three hours straight, and those prudes shouldn't be able to stop me. And as a real-world troll, I'll successfully drive away library visitors and ruin the whole purpose of the damn place. All in the name of some head-in-the-cloud ideal of freedom.
If you don't have any enforcement of civility, the jerks in society will ruin all good things. Please let's not allow weirdos to watch scat porn in the library just because you read Ayn Rand last week.
So apparently all the weekend libertarians are going to come out and defend the library. By your logic, if someone is talking too loudly in the library and is disturbing you, you should leave. In fact, if anyone is being obnoxious, annoying, or offensive, it's somehow everyone else's fault. And the self-absorbed jerks get to rule the world.
Are people here seriously going to defend some creepy fuck watching porn at the public library? Really? Can I bring a stereo into the library playing loud gangsta rap? Free speech, mothafucka!
It's not a "moral judgement" any more then telling someone to be quiet is a moral judgement. It's just creating an accommodating environment for the other library patrons. Do you really think some woman wants to look over and see some anal sex video on the screen? There is a point where a little consideration of others contributes to a better society. What kind of creepy asshole goes to the public library to watch porn?
By your logic, someone can come into a library loudly cussing up a storm for an hour, and nobody is supposed to tell him to shut up because OMG HIS FREE SPEECH.
The commitment to information access is admirable, but the article says that the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that libraries can filter content. Besides, I would want to make as many of my library patrons as comfortable as possible, as well as make it as family-friendly as possible, so I'd probably prohibit jerkin' it to the pr0n. Making people, potentially children, inadvertent viewers of pornography isn't something most governments are keen on supporting, and I suspect the library's policies will change after this media coverage.
This part made me laugh:
The dilemma was summed up by another library patron, Jessica Christensen, who told Seattle PI, "What I find ironic is that you can't talk too loudly at the Seattle Public Libraries or you'll be asked to keep it down so as not to distract the other patrons. You know, the patrons viewing pornography."
But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.
Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source? Genuinely curious here.
I get what point you're trying to make, and I think there is validity in addressing double standards having to do with copyright enforcement, but painting all of Slashdot with one brush only makes people dismiss your position.
Secondly, as someone with such a low Slashdot account number (with a star too!), I'm really disappionted in you for having such an attitude regarding internet accounts. I expected better from you and everyone who modded you up.
I'm not really sure what attitude you're referring to. I never claimed that having a registered account guaranteed anonymity. Anonymity can never be guaranteed, nor can any form of security, but it can be greatly strengthened.
I don't get the exclusive association between Apple and Foxconn presented by the tech press. Foxconn is the world's largest electronics manufacturer and makes products for Dell, Sony, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Microsoft, HP, and pretty much every other major computer-related company. The fact they're the largest also means that there really isn't much of an option for companies like Dell or Apple to stop using Foxconn, because nobody else can assemble products at the volume required.
The Foxconn suicides that originally drew so much media attention were the result of several external factors including several labor strikes and poor economic conditions throughout China in 2010. The working conditions are actually comparatively good for Chinese factories, and the suicide rate is less than that of the general population, but the idea of an industry darling like Apple using "slave labor" to make its products was a narrative too juicy for the media to ignore.
Though investigations did find overtime and other managerial abuses by Foxconn (making them not unlike Walmart), it's amusing to see thousands lining up to work there in contradiction to the extremely negative portrayal by the Western media such as that offered by the first linked article in the summary.
They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
"[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's.... Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power." - EFF
Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information. They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments.
I don't see how that's fine-worthy. That's the market working. If the consumers of those products are not smart enough to read between the lines, and recognize that building products on top of free services is a bad idea, then Google deserves the win in my book - they bought into a system where they're beholden to someone, and that someone ought to be able to monetize that situation at some point or another.
I never thought I'd see this sentiment on Slashdot, the community that watched the Microsoft antitrust trial with bated breath, but apparently standards change when it's a Linux-based company. I mean, you're actually arguing that it's okay for a company that arguably has a monopoly position in one market to take over other markets with free products funded with monopoly revenues, and then turn around and charge for that product when they're the only option left. Whether or not Google really did that, or if it was their intent all along, that's certainly worth debating, but it is most certainly the reason Google got fined.
Is Linux unfair competition for Windows because it's given away for free? It's a stupid argument. If a group wants to give something away for free, let them. You can compete with free.
That's not necessarily true. If a company is generating massive revenues from a dominant product (in this case web search advertising), using that revenue to fund development of a free product in another market can be viewed as an anticompetitive abuse of monopoly position. Competitors who don't have a source of monopoly revenues have to offset their costs by charging for their product. To make your comparison more accurate, imagine if Ubuntu supplanted Windows as the dominant desktop OS by giving away a free product, and then once all competitors were completely marginalized, began charging for Ubuntu Linux. People would have little choice but to pay because it would be the dominant OS that everything ran on.
Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionism fines Google Maps for succeeding". No, that's not what they were fined for. They were fined for what French competitor Bottin claimed would happen two years ago--Google would offer Maps for free, make their competitors go bankrupt, and then start charging for Maps once they controlled the market. That's precisely what ended up happening!
You can't be serious. The App Store is a company's private service for games and apps. Not getting hosted there isn't a violation of human rights or an oppression of third-world societies.
You falsely claimed this in another post as well. There is no backdoor here making censorship useless; NCR URLs will just get blocked by governments. Google has specifically made it more easy and convenient for them to comply with government censorship requests: The point of this move is so they can claim to be in compliance with a takedown request in one country while keeping the content up in others so they can retain advertising hits. The people in the censored country get fucked.
You're citing absurd examples like selling booze in Islamic countries or banning Nazi content that makes Germans uncomfortable. Government censorship is far more sinister, silencing criticism of leaders and quieting stories of the government abuses or the punishment of political dissidents. It's also not something that "comes and goes" like a summer breeze. Overturning an all-powerful government structure is extremely difficult and often bloody. We're talking about people's lives here.
If this wasn't Google, it might not be considered as huge an issue in relation to other companies' foreign censorship compliance, but there are two contributing factors: 1.) Google's dominant presence on the web, and 2.) Google's public embrace of concepts like openness and freedom, seemingly when it suits them. Their power and ideology give them a greater moral responsibility; that's the drawback of being #1 in a given industry.
Slashdot Mirror
The news is that mobile malware developers are now adopting the technique for Android, rendering all the usual antivirus apps ineffective. It's a YAAM (Yet Another Android Malware) story.
"mobile malware" = Android malware
Hey, kids, create whichever study results you want simply by changing your methodologies!
They should regret it. The position is stupid. As noted in the article, librarians shush you if you talk too loudly. When obsession with unrealistic libertarian free speech ideas go so far as to reward insensitive, self-absorbed weirdos and punish normal people who are genuinely being distracted in a setting that's supposed to be quiet and conducive to research, it becomes a stupidly idealistic position with no practical applicability.
If anything goes because OMG-MY-FREE-SPEECH-RIGHTS, then I can just stroll into the library screaming "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" for three hours straight, and those prudes shouldn't be able to stop me. And as a real-world troll, I'll successfully drive away library visitors and ruin the whole purpose of the damn place. All in the name of some head-in-the-cloud ideal of freedom.
If you don't have any enforcement of civility, the jerks in society will ruin all good things. Please let's not allow weirdos to watch scat porn in the library just because you read Ayn Rand last week.
So apparently all the weekend libertarians are going to come out and defend the library. By your logic, if someone is talking too loudly in the library and is disturbing you, you should leave. In fact, if anyone is being obnoxious, annoying, or offensive, it's somehow everyone else's fault. And the self-absorbed jerks get to rule the world.
Are people here seriously going to defend some creepy fuck watching porn at the public library? Really? Can I bring a stereo into the library playing loud gangsta rap? Free speech, mothafucka!
It's not a "moral judgement" any more then telling someone to be quiet is a moral judgement. It's just creating an accommodating environment for the other library patrons. Do you really think some woman wants to look over and see some anal sex video on the screen? There is a point where a little consideration of others contributes to a better society. What kind of creepy asshole goes to the public library to watch porn?
By your logic, someone can come into a library loudly cussing up a storm for an hour, and nobody is supposed to tell him to shut up because OMG HIS FREE SPEECH.
The commitment to information access is admirable, but the article says that the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that libraries can filter content. Besides, I would want to make as many of my library patrons as comfortable as possible, as well as make it as family-friendly as possible, so I'd probably prohibit jerkin' it to the pr0n. Making people, potentially children, inadvertent viewers of pornography isn't something most governments are keen on supporting, and I suspect the library's policies will change after this media coverage.
This part made me laugh:
What a totally arbitrary flamebait post.
Don't count out Microsoft. They broke Sony's stranglehold at the height of the PS2.
Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source? Genuinely curious here.
I get what point you're trying to make, and I think there is validity in addressing double standards having to do with copyright enforcement, but painting all of Slashdot with one brush only makes people dismiss your position.
I'm not really sure what attitude you're referring to. I never claimed that having a registered account guaranteed anonymity. Anonymity can never be guaranteed, nor can any form of security, but it can be greatly strengthened.
I don't get the exclusive association between Apple and Foxconn presented by the tech press. Foxconn is the world's largest electronics manufacturer and makes products for Dell, Sony, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Microsoft, HP, and pretty much every other major computer-related company. The fact they're the largest also means that there really isn't much of an option for companies like Dell or Apple to stop using Foxconn, because nobody else can assemble products at the volume required.
The Foxconn suicides that originally drew so much media attention were the result of several external factors including several labor strikes and poor economic conditions throughout China in 2010. The working conditions are actually comparatively good for Chinese factories, and the suicide rate is less than that of the general population, but the idea of an industry darling like Apple using "slave labor" to make its products was a narrative too juicy for the media to ignore.
Though investigations did find overtime and other managerial abuses by Foxconn (making them not unlike Walmart), it's amusing to see thousands lining up to work there in contradiction to the extremely negative portrayal by the Western media such as that offered by the first linked article in the summary.
Pseudonymity is one form of anonymity.
They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
"[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's. ... Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power." - EFF
Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information. They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments.
I never thought I'd see this sentiment on Slashdot, the community that watched the Microsoft antitrust trial with bated breath, but apparently standards change when it's a Linux-based company. I mean, you're actually arguing that it's okay for a company that arguably has a monopoly position in one market to take over other markets with free products funded with monopoly revenues, and then turn around and charge for that product when they're the only option left. Whether or not Google really did that, or if it was their intent all along, that's certainly worth debating, but it is most certainly the reason Google got fined.
Is Linux unfair competition for Windows because it's given away for free? It's a stupid argument. If a group wants to give something away for free, let them. You can compete with free.
That's not necessarily true. If a company is generating massive revenues from a dominant product (in this case web search advertising), using that revenue to fund development of a free product in another market can be viewed as an anticompetitive abuse of monopoly position. Competitors who don't have a source of monopoly revenues have to offset their costs by charging for their product. To make your comparison more accurate, imagine if Ubuntu supplanted Windows as the dominant desktop OS by giving away a free product, and then once all competitors were completely marginalized, began charging for Ubuntu Linux. People would have little choice but to pay because it would be the dominant OS that everything ran on.
Market share is a percentage. How would it decrease if there aren't any competitors?
Why would it?
Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionism fines Google Maps for succeeding". No, that's not what they were fined for. They were fined for what French competitor Bottin claimed would happen two years ago--Google would offer Maps for free, make their competitors go bankrupt, and then start charging for Maps once they controlled the market. That's precisely what ended up happening!
Apple never claimed to have invented any of those things.
Once consequence of there being no copyright law would be that the GPL wouldn't have any legal power. The GPL is a copyright license.
You can't be serious. The App Store is a company's private service for games and apps. Not getting hosted there isn't a violation of human rights or an oppression of third-world societies.
You falsely claimed this in another post as well. There is no backdoor here making censorship useless; NCR URLs will just get blocked by governments. Google has specifically made it more easy and convenient for them to comply with government censorship requests: The point of this move is so they can claim to be in compliance with a takedown request in one country while keeping the content up in others so they can retain advertising hits. The people in the censored country get fucked.
You're citing absurd examples like selling booze in Islamic countries or banning Nazi content that makes Germans uncomfortable. Government censorship is far more sinister, silencing criticism of leaders and quieting stories of the government abuses or the punishment of political dissidents. It's also not something that "comes and goes" like a summer breeze. Overturning an all-powerful government structure is extremely difficult and often bloody. We're talking about people's lives here.
If this wasn't Google, it might not be considered as huge an issue in relation to other companies' foreign censorship compliance, but there are two contributing factors: 1.) Google's dominant presence on the web, and 2.) Google's public embrace of concepts like openness and freedom, seemingly when it suits them. Their power and ideology give them a greater moral responsibility; that's the drawback of being #1 in a given industry.