In addition to removing it from device administrators. Which is like 2 actual steps. It's very tame compared to what it _could_ take.
Yes, since they're a "security" company, they're taking the Norton approach and making the instructions as scary and as lengthy as they could make them.
First of all, if the device is under a device administrators' control, I doubt very much that the phone would have gotten infected in the first place. And second of all, I can understand the normal Chinese grandma not understanding the instructions:
"Just uninstall the 'naked girls' application, there is nothing more to it than that. "
But at the very least, this one instruction should be more than enough for a device administrator to know what to do. And it should also be more than enough for the Chinese grandfather who originally installed the 'naked girls' application in the first place and who knew enough about his phone to enable the "allow applications from unknown sources". So making two different sets of instructions, one for the administrator and one for the user, and hiding them between one more level of links on the web site, is only making it seem more difficult than it really is.
Also, I'd love to know where they got "that is said to have infected 500,000 devices", they don't quote anyone actually saying that. One can only assume this is a figure that the "Security" company itself made entirely up, based on what? they don't actually say.
Besides, how much money are you going to spend to fight them in court? Me thinks, not much.
Joyent is preparing for an IPO.
This $499 amount reminds of a guy who "claimed" he invested $500 very early on in Facebook. Whether you believe his claim, or not, he really ended up being a pain in the ass for Facebook and ended up costing them a lot of money.
Now imagine a couple of hundreds (or dozens, I actually don't know the number) of account holders who "claim" they made the lifetime payment $499 as an investment in Joyent and as a very risky bet that the company was going to survive for a very long time (despite the clear evidence that most other internet startups were flaming out left and right). Those account holders could become very troublesome for Joyent. I don't expect many of them to sit still and do nothing when the VCs that invested at the same time are given a hundred-fold, or a thousand-fold, of what they invested initially.
This really has nothing to do with hardware costs. Joyent could have easily continued supporting these users for the next 5 to 10 years. Right now, the early investors, VCs, and employees, are jockeying for position and clarifying potential equity problems and potential obligations that could later on easily blow up in their face during an IPO.
If you live in California, why do a class action lawsuit when you could just as easily sue them in Small Claims Court? Even if $499 (minus the small filing fee) for a half-days' work is not reward enough for you, at least do it for the fame and karma that Slashdot will bestow upon you for posting back your results on here.
Erm, please click this link to log in and change your password?
Ah ok! Now, I get it. I had not thought of that scenario. I was thinking of the account set up process when they first send you an email, or an sms, with a code in there for you to reenter in the web site, or send back to them.
Indeed, you're right. What you're describing is a problem.
I don't understand why people even do banking on a device that is so easily lost.
So we avoid situations like yours below.
And before people start screaming at me, please know that this is coming from someone who had his bank account broken into from using only legitimate ATMs from actual banks(didn't even know there was such a thing as a card skimmer).
Assuming I don't lose my phone, if someone ever makes an unauthorized transaction on my account -- I'll know it within 5 to 10 seconds.
What about you?
How long did it take *you* to find out someone was using your account? And if I do lose my phone, I'm assuming that my pin isn't a good means of security either, but usually if my phone is missing, I'll notice that it is missing within the hour.
Now I'm not saying my set up is secure by any means, it's not, but then again nothing is really secure. And in my opinion, doing security by obscurity doesn't work, security by obscurity will only make banking less convenient for me and it will make the system more obscure to me as well -- thus nullifying my ability to rectify the situation quickly should something unexpected happen.
Lovely fail there since a lot of sites use SMS for some sort of authentication, Google, and Blizzard among them.
Yes, but even if you can spoof the sms from header? How are you going to guess the code they send you?
Notice, the same thing can be done with emails and even http requests. It's easy to forge the headers on those, but if a site implements only half of a handshake without sending back a token to the originating address for two-way verification, then it's the web site that is deemed insecure, not the client.
It's called "alternate revenue streams" and they will try to nickle&dime-XXL you for almost everything. A one-time charge would be plausible, but a MONTHLY fee? This is gauging. But... guess what? There's nothing you can do.
At the very least, I'd like to see them getting sued for false advertising.
If they advertise a base rate of $99 per month for instance (I'm not an actual Verizon customer, so I don't know what rate is normal for Verizon) a consumer could reasonably assume that this rate already includes an unlisted number. And such a consumer would be able to compare different cell phone plans more accurately.
As it stands, the $99 rate will probably have a little star next to it, referencing a tiny little footnote that says that the rate is only good for a listed phone number that they'll sell to their marketing partners and associates, but since that little footnote is not even readable on most televisions, I don't think it should count as a valid form of clarification.
The UK government has already stated that they will not let Assange leave the country, so he's stuck in that embassy anyway. There have been rumors of smuggling him to the airport in a diplomatic limo, or hiring him as a diplomat, but those are not practical and the UK could detain him once he left the embassy grounds.
Assange could always hold a get-me-the-hell-out-of-the-UK rally.
If he plans this well, he could get a couple of tens of thousands of people to show up. If they dress like him, they could also act as decoys. And if a successful escape doesn't look like it's going to work, he could always back out, and stay at the embassy.
[Slashdot just gave me an error, here is the rest of my post]
...had read the article -- which clearly you did not. It's not like the quote above is buried deep in there.
The only thing Apple is "guilty" of is being the first company to make tablets that did not suck big green ones and that people actually wanted to buy and use. Nobody was able to make the technology popular before them.
Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah.. Bla...
Listen to me, I didn't read a single line of the article, but I know Apple is innocent!! I know it for sure.
I have special psychic abilities that make me know everything. That's why I can have an elaborate absolute opinion on an article, that I haven't even read. And I don't care what anybody else says. I probably won't even read your replies either. I'll just reply to your replies instantaneously, until at least one of us gives up.
This is likely going to be so easy that I, a non-lawyer, could competently handle this part of the case for Apple. 1) Did you sue anyone in the past for "stealing" your tablet work? No? Thought not.
He never said they stole his design. That's the journalist saying that.
Fildler did say that Apple employees had been "exposed" to his ideas and designs mid-90s.
The fact whether his mid-90s designs were similar to the iPad design (which came much later than mid-90s) is anybody's guess. Aside from posting an inflammatory assertion about Apple, the journalist/blogger didn't post any pictures, or anything, of any pictures or drawings that might have been submitted to the court.
2) Do you know that other companies, including Microsoft, pushed tablet technology years before the iPad came out?
Are you some kind of Apple fundamentalist? Or just an idiot?
“My original assumptions were that it would be a touchscreen without a stylus,” Fidler testified.
I know it's customary on Slashdot not to read articles before posting an opinion, but you're arguing as if you actu
The plaintiffs are located in the US, and the BitCoin exchange site is located in Singapore.
Barring extraordinary circumstances, or barring a special clause about jurisdiction/arbitration in their contract, it's not like the plaintiffs would really have sued in a Malaysian court for something that happened in Singapore, or in their country of residence.
And the same goes for the Facebook co-founder. He was a US citizen, a Singapore resident since 2009, and he was originally born in Brazil. So when it came time to shopping for tax jurisdictions pre-IPO, I speculate that Singapore was a tad better than Brazil, or even the US, in his final tax IPO windfall calculations.
Before anybody else gets hurt, I need to say that Singapore is NO tax heaven.
I said "haven", not "heaven". A "heaven" for taxes in my opinion is too strong a word.
In any case, you're right for the most part, but Singapore still has no capital gains tax and so this fact may apply in this very special case of accrued imaginary BitCoins, just like it applied to the co-founder of Facebook and the imaginary capital gains of his stocks during Facebooks' initial public offering.
And good luck suing for untaxed, untraceable, and unregulated currency.
Generally speaking, even internet income or internet capital gains is supposed to be taxable for US citizens, so don't expect the Californian/US justice system to come running to help you if you give them any inkling that you purposefully invested in bitcoins to avoid giving them a piece of the action.
If I had been one of the victims, I would have sued the site directly in Singapore court. A small tax haven and tax shelter like Singapore is much more likely to want to encourage this type of industry and therefore encourage straight dealings in those types of transactions. Furthermore, it will be much easier to demand discovery and collect damages from a Singapore company in Singapore than trying to do the same remotely from a Superior Court in San Francisco.
No web access, no pic sending, no games, no playing or recording video. Just Phone, text, camera, music, alarm, and long battery life. Something that just works and works for a long time.
Why does a feature phone even need a camera for? My grandma doesn't use the camera.
Make the numbers really big, so that she can dial a number, without having first to ask her grandson. And please, just forget the qwerty keyboard and the mp3 player. She just needs a working cell phone, not a freaking jukebox.
I cannot believe someone could even remotely think that doing something like this would be a good idea. Someone else's body is not just an object. Jesus Christ people, get a fucking clue - this sort of attitude makes for a very poor environment all around.
The same thing happened to me during a New Years' Eve party, and I'm a straight guy, and this was done to me by another guy.
At the macro level, the problem here is not the hacker culture, or the conference itself, it's more the free unlimited open bars during the parties that usually accompany such conferences or the parties that are hosted by sponsoring companies just right after those conferences.
If conferences/sponsors are really interested in eliminating those types of incidents, printing more fine prints on conference brochures and making more threats at the beginning of each conference, is not the way to do it. The out of control people, with drinking problems, usually don't care about the consequences of their actions anyway.
The real solution is to limit the individual consumption of free alcohol that is served per event during those conferences, and to also require any participating sponsor to abide by the same free alcohol limits for any of the neighboring events they sponsor.
I speculate the biggest issue will be compatibility between the different kinds of cars.
The Microsoft cars for instance probably won't want to flock with the Linux cars and some of the Linux cars will have to pretend to be Microsoft cars if they ever want to go somewhere in a flock where no other Linux car is going.
And of course, there will be endless talk of Flock 5.0, a supposedly compatible way to flock between car OSes, but that standard will mean different things to everybody and will take quite a while to implement.
In Washington State drivers that are the first to a four way stop will often wait for another driver to go first. This has got to confuse an AI system.
This would confuse the hell out of me too, but a computer has patience, it could just wait the other driver out. At least, being in a self-driving car would free both my hands to open the window, give them the finger, yell at the top of my lungs, and throw things at the other car.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to removing it from device administrators. Which is like 2 actual steps. It's very tame compared to what it _could_ take.
Yes, since they're a "security" company, they're taking the Norton approach and making the instructions as scary and as lengthy as they could make them.
First of all, if the device is under a device administrators' control, I doubt very much that the phone would have gotten infected in the first place. And second of all, I can understand the normal Chinese grandma not understanding the instructions:
"Just uninstall the 'naked girls' application, there is nothing more to it than that. "
But at the very least, this one instruction should be more than enough for a device administrator to know what to do. And it should also be more than enough for the Chinese grandfather who originally installed the 'naked girls' application in the first place and who knew enough about his phone to enable the "allow applications from unknown sources". So making two different sets of instructions, one for the administrator and one for the user, and hiding them between one more level of links on the web site, is only making it seem more difficult than it really is.
Also, I'd love to know where they got "that is said to have infected 500,000 devices", they don't quote anyone actually saying that. One can only assume this is a figure that the "Security" company itself made entirely up, based on what? they don't actually say.
The Mac OS has an App Store? Do people actually use that? Forgive my ignorance, I do not actually have a Mac.
If MplayerX won't sell in the app store, some other product will fill the void in that market.
Yes, Android is filling that need as we speak.
Besides, how much money are you going to spend to fight them in court? Me thinks, not much.
Joyent is preparing for an IPO.
This $499 amount reminds of a guy who "claimed" he invested $500 very early on in Facebook. Whether you believe his claim, or not, he really ended up being a pain in the ass for Facebook and ended up costing them a lot of money.
Now imagine a couple of hundreds (or dozens, I actually don't know the number) of account holders who "claim" they made the lifetime payment $499 as an investment in Joyent and as a very risky bet that the company was going to survive for a very long time (despite the clear evidence that most other internet startups were flaming out left and right). Those account holders could become very troublesome for Joyent. I don't expect many of them to sit still and do nothing when the VCs that invested at the same time are given a hundred-fold, or a thousand-fold, of what they invested initially.
This really has nothing to do with hardware costs. Joyent could have easily continued supporting these users for the next 5 to 10 years. Right now, the early investors, VCs, and employees, are jockeying for position and clarifying potential equity problems and potential obligations that could later on easily blow up in their face during an IPO.
They are now offering a refund or 5 years of hosting.
I'll probably take it and move on.
Are you serious? If they're really going for an IPO, as an early investor, you should get in on that.
If you live in California, why do a class action lawsuit when you could just as easily sue them in Small Claims Court? Even if $499 (minus the small filing fee) for a half-days' work is not reward enough for you, at least do it for the fame and karma that Slashdot will bestow upon you for posting back your results on here.
Erm, please click this link to log in and change your password?
Ah ok! Now, I get it. I had not thought of that scenario. I was thinking of the account set up process when they first send you an email, or an sms, with a code in there for you to reenter in the web site, or send back to them.
Indeed, you're right. What you're describing is a problem.
I don't understand why people even do banking on a device that is so easily lost.
So we avoid situations like yours below.
And before people start screaming at me, please know that this is coming from someone who had his bank account broken into from using only legitimate ATMs from actual banks(didn't even know there was such a thing as a card skimmer).
Assuming I don't lose my phone, if someone ever makes an unauthorized transaction on my account -- I'll know it within 5 to 10 seconds.
What about you?
How long did it take *you* to find out someone was using your account? And if I do lose my phone, I'm assuming that my pin isn't a good means of security either, but usually if my phone is missing, I'll notice that it is missing within the hour.
Now I'm not saying my set up is secure by any means, it's not, but then again nothing is really secure. And in my opinion, doing security by obscurity doesn't work, security by obscurity will only make banking less convenient for me and it will make the system more obscure to me as well -- thus nullifying my ability to rectify the situation quickly should something unexpected happen.
Lovely fail there since a lot of sites use SMS for some sort of authentication, Google, and Blizzard among them.
Yes, but even if you can spoof the sms from header? How are you going to guess the code they send you?
Notice, the same thing can be done with emails and even http requests. It's easy to forge the headers on those, but if a site implements only half of a handshake without sending back a token to the originating address for two-way verification, then it's the web site that is deemed insecure, not the client.
It's called "alternate revenue streams" and they will try to nickle&dime-XXL you for almost everything. A one-time charge would be plausible, but a MONTHLY fee? This is gauging. But... guess what? There's nothing you can do.
At the very least, I'd like to see them getting sued for false advertising.
If they advertise a base rate of $99 per month for instance (I'm not an actual Verizon customer, so I don't know what rate is normal for Verizon) a consumer could reasonably assume that this rate already includes an unlisted number. And such a consumer would be able to compare different cell phone plans more accurately.
As it stands, the $99 rate will probably have a little star next to it, referencing a tiny little footnote that says that the rate is only good for a listed phone number that they'll sell to their marketing partners and associates, but since that little footnote is not even readable on most televisions, I don't think it should count as a valid form of clarification.
So who's being paid $720 an hour for doing it?
The CEO?
The UK government has already stated that they will not let Assange leave the country, so he's stuck in that embassy anyway. There have been rumors of smuggling him to the airport in a diplomatic limo, or hiring him as a diplomat, but those are not practical and the UK could detain him once he left the embassy grounds.
Assange could always hold a get-me-the-hell-out-of-the-UK rally.
If he plans this well, he could get a couple of tens of thousands of people to show up. If they dress like him, they could also act as decoys. And if a successful escape doesn't look like it's going to work, he could always back out, and stay at the embassy.
Thankfully, no one seems to object to the .lesbian TLD
[Slashdot just gave me an error, here is the rest of my post]
The only thing Apple is "guilty" of is being the first company to make tablets that did not suck big green ones and that people actually wanted to buy and use. Nobody was able to make the technology popular before them.
Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah.. Bla...
Listen to me, I didn't read a single line of the article, but I know Apple is innocent!! I know it for sure.
I have special psychic abilities that make me know everything. That's why I can have an elaborate absolute opinion on an article, that I haven't even read. And I don't care what anybody else says. I probably won't even read your replies either. I'll just reply to your replies instantaneously, until at least one of us gives up.
This is likely going to be so easy that I, a non-lawyer, could competently handle this part of the case for Apple.
1) Did you sue anyone in the past for "stealing" your tablet work? No? Thought not.
He never said they stole his design. That's the journalist saying that.
Fildler did say that Apple employees had been "exposed" to his ideas and designs mid-90s.
The fact whether his mid-90s designs were similar to the iPad design (which came much later than mid-90s) is anybody's guess. Aside from posting an inflammatory assertion about Apple, the journalist/blogger didn't post any pictures, or anything, of any pictures or drawings that might have been submitted to the court.
2) Do you know that other companies, including Microsoft, pushed tablet technology years before the iPad came out?
Are you some kind of Apple fundamentalist? Or just an idiot?
“My original assumptions were that it would be a touchscreen without a stylus,” Fidler testified.
I know it's customary on Slashdot not to read articles before posting an opinion, but you're arguing as if you actu
Questioned by whom? The MAFIA/RIAA payment enforcers/debt collectors? Or somebody else?
See my original point.
The plaintiffs are located in the US, and the BitCoin exchange site is located in Singapore.
Barring extraordinary circumstances, or barring a special clause about jurisdiction/arbitration in their contract, it's not like the plaintiffs would really have sued in a Malaysian court for something that happened in Singapore, or in their country of residence.
And the same goes for the Facebook co-founder. He was a US citizen, a Singapore resident since 2009, and he was originally born in Brazil. So when it came time to shopping for tax jurisdictions pre-IPO, I speculate that Singapore was a tad better than Brazil, or even the US, in his final tax IPO windfall calculations.
Before anybody else gets hurt, I need to say that Singapore is NO tax heaven.
I said "haven", not "heaven". A "heaven" for taxes in my opinion is too strong a word.
In any case, you're right for the most part, but Singapore still has no capital gains tax and so this fact may apply in this very special case of accrued imaginary BitCoins, just like it applied to the co-founder of Facebook and the imaginary capital gains of his stocks during Facebooks' initial public offering.
why would anyone willing to put their life saving in something that is not even FDIC insured?
Aren't most investments not FDIC insured?
Besides, governments rise and fall, but bitcoins are forever.
And good luck suing for untaxed, untraceable, and unregulated currency.
Generally speaking, even internet income or internet capital gains is supposed to be taxable for US citizens, so don't expect the Californian/US justice system to come running to help you if you give them any inkling that you purposefully invested in bitcoins to avoid giving them a piece of the action.
If I had been one of the victims, I would have sued the site directly in Singapore court. A small tax haven and tax shelter like Singapore is much more likely to want to encourage this type of industry and therefore encourage straight dealings in those types of transactions. Furthermore, it will be much easier to demand discovery and collect damages from a Singapore company in Singapore than trying to do the same remotely from a Superior Court in San Francisco.
No web access, no pic sending, no games, no playing or recording video. Just Phone, text, camera, music, alarm, and long battery life. Something that just works and works for a long time.
Why does a feature phone even need a camera for? My grandma doesn't use the camera.
Make the numbers really big, so that she can dial a number, without having first to ask her grandson. And please, just forget the qwerty keyboard and the mp3 player. She just needs a working cell phone, not a freaking jukebox.
I cannot believe someone could even remotely think that doing something like this would be a good idea. Someone else's body is not just an object. Jesus Christ people, get a fucking clue - this sort of attitude makes for a very poor environment all around.
The same thing happened to me during a New Years' Eve party, and I'm a straight guy, and this was done to me by another guy.
At the macro level, the problem here is not the hacker culture, or the conference itself, it's more the free unlimited open bars during the parties that usually accompany such conferences or the parties that are hosted by sponsoring companies just right after those conferences.
If conferences/sponsors are really interested in eliminating those types of incidents, printing more fine prints on conference brochures and making more threats at the beginning of each conference, is not the way to do it. The out of control people, with drinking problems, usually don't care about the consequences of their actions anyway.
The real solution is to limit the individual consumption of free alcohol that is served per event during those conferences, and to also require any participating sponsor to abide by the same free alcohol limits for any of the neighboring events they sponsor.
He is not a psych patient so all his healthcare info legally belongs to the him...
How do you know? May be, he was just having a panic attack and they implanted an Altoids Tin Can into his chest to trigger the Placebo effect.
I speculate the biggest issue will be compatibility between the different kinds of cars.
The Microsoft cars for instance probably won't want to flock with the Linux cars and some of the Linux cars will have to pretend to be Microsoft cars if they ever want to go somewhere in a flock where no other Linux car is going.
And of course, there will be endless talk of Flock 5.0, a supposedly compatible way to flock between car OSes, but that standard will mean different things to everybody and will take quite a while to implement.
In Washington State drivers that are the first to a four way stop will often wait for another driver to go first. This has got to confuse an AI system.
This would confuse the hell out of me too, but a computer has patience, it could just wait the other driver out. At least, being in a self-driving car would free both my hands to open the window, give them the finger, yell at the top of my lungs, and throw things at the other car.