Great! I sincerely hope that the websites add code that blocks anything with userAgent ios9.
First: It would infuriate people to the terrible behaviors advertisers do. Second: It would make most Apple users grab any of the browers that CAN fix the userAgent string already, such as Atomic, Mercury, etc. This is nice because more users would have alternate browsers. Minor benefit. Third and most importantly: Safari would finally support this sort of spoofing by default. That's clutch, because it's a very basic feature we still don't have.
And this isn't about Apple's security. Remember, YOU MUST JAILBREAK for this to bite you. Much more than just jailbreak. Not only do you have to give some Chinese hacker group admin permission on your PC (which seems to be totally safe, but hey, this would normally be a red flag, right?), then you have to tell your phone that you trust what's going on. Then you have to take the jailbroken thing which provides its own repo of code, and say "nope, still not dangerous enough", then find some russian hacker repo and add that to trusted, then download a thing out of that, and THAT thing is what fucks you.
So don't put this on Apple. Don't put this on TaiG or Pangu. Don't put this on Cydia. This requires a serious level of idiocy on the user's end, combined with persistence. Apple is safe. Jailbreaking is mostly safe. Jailbreaking your Apple then adding fly by night bullshit that the standard jailbreak community doesn't trust is not safe. Fucking derp?
Don't slander Pangu. They have a reputation to uphold, and they are already trusted with root on many jailbroken devices- because they have written several of the jailbreaks. All the guys that make jailbreaks happen don't want to see people fucking with jailbreakers.
Errr... not sure where you are going with that. The top definition is man-made, because that's what it means. And certainly, nothing about the wasp is non-natural. A wasp stabbing a caterpillar is neither artificial nor non-natural nor unreal.
Also, what is that gray box? The one you copy pasted that from? It's not the definition of the word (which you imply by your copy past). The top definition according to merriam-webster is:
humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made
If I type in "red", the #1 definition is: "of the color red / having red as a distinguishing color", but the gray box (that you quoted from) says "having the color of blood". That's a not a traditional definition, I dunno what that is.
AC: > The motherboard also has to support vPro technology for the backdoor to work. vPro support only in the CPU will not do much. Most gaming and consumer motherboards do not support vPro.
So look for a mobo without "vPro", or disable "vPro" in teh BIOS?
Inflation is only a tax on those who are holding currency, or who have chosen to trade a given service or good (such as time worked) for currency at a fixed rate. Non cash capital, money, and property are not affected by inflation. So inflation is not, in practice, a tax on those who are in favor of inflation.
> For me the iPhone is what it is: a phone. Talking to people, texting, chatting, reading e-mail and surfing the web.
>a phone >reading e-mail and surfing the web
No, you're using it as a smartphone. You just are happy with a feature set. It's not some fundamental or elemental set- it's still doing stuff a phone couldn't do. You're taking a subset of the native apps and saying, "ok, verily, this is blessed".
This thing is also an mp3 player, a camera, a video camera- and all that stuff is built in, not some hack job.
I think the overall article point is a very good one. Apple knows full well that a 32 GB model is absolutely the best selling one, because it fits a good combination of music collection, media you created, apps you may have, podcasts, etc, without having to feel too compressed. But the article isn't really about that fact, which isn't up for debate- it's about why they select sizes explicitly to make a more aggressive sale, when that just feels absolutely superflous. Did you know that the black leather band on the apple watch is no longer something you can get WITH the watch? That's a pretty popular thing, but if you want it now you have to buy a version without it, and add it on. This is similar- they are using their market studies to really push customers around- customers who generally are willing to be blind to price and deliver a ludicrous profit are also pushed to *feel dumb*.
And that's a real problem, and one that creeps up on your userbase. If you have users who are ok paying almost whatever, you don't also need to be like "... and you should be willing to pay almost whatever for not even the thing you want!". "Oh customers want 32? We'll offer 16, 64, 128. Anything but deliver that 32!"
I know it when I see it. But it's an interesting question. The simplest is "it does something the user doesn't want". But this gets bogged down in questions.
I propose that any software that fits (1) AND (2) is malware, *no exceptions*.
1- The software does ANY of the following: - Hides its presence from the user (registry malarkey, malicious RAM stuff, etc) - Tricks the user into being installed (packaged in other software, straight up virus piggyback, checkbox you must unclick) - Is inside a package via sponsorship, deception, or coercion of the pacakger, as an addition to an actual product (including most of the download.com stuff) - Fights user attempts to uninstall (including disabling unrelated features, reinstalling itself, etc)
*Sponsorship should handle all cases where a packager includes an element in the package that is not why you chose to get the package. Coercion includes, say, a government or company that forces by law or other method to include code in such a package, and deception involves a packager who is not aware of the malware they are packing along.
2- The software does EITHER of the following: - Is not strictly needed for the operation the user intends, offering a data leak (personal data, envelope information about user activity) or unarguably malicious feature (blackmail, data deletion, display of advertisements) instead of its advertised or apparent purpose. - Is installed entirely in secret and from an activity that should not result in software installation.
By this definition, you could argue that some elements of Windows 10 qualify (and they probably do), that the Ask.com garbage pile qualifies (and it definitely does), along with drive by downloads. This excludes a game that shows you advertisements, but includes one that installs an advertising thing on your desktop.
What am I missing? Gimme some false positives or false negatives with this pls.
So we have OJ confessing, and a guy overhears it, and it gets thrown out as possible evidence. It's reasonable to throw it out for a jury trial, but it still happened.
Trials are not reality. Trials capture some subset of reality. You can look up false convictions, and we have a system rigged in favor of the defendant, so it's utterly irrational to assume that there would be more false positives (false convictions) than false negatives (guilty man walks free).
I didn't really think there were still people who think he's innocent. I mean, what's the other narrative?
"This guy who is abusive has a wife who is cheating on him. She knows he's furious with her, she tells everyone he's gonna kill her. She gets killed with his blood everywhere by some totally non-OJ guy who just fucking lept out of nowhere to murder her and then disappeared like some high level final fantasy ninja, leaving no evidence or sign, a literal hit job that is unprecedented outside of story books. Tragically, innocent OJ is targeted, so he tries real hard to run from cops, then he half-confesses to people who he trusts, and then he's correctly found innocent. He swears to hunt down the killer. He is sued in civil court and immediately found liable for her death. He hunts down the killer by golfing in Miami and writing a book "If I did it" where he lays down how he could have murdered his wife if it wasn't done by the unidentified high level ninja who has no motivation or material evidence."
I have seriously never talked to anyone who thinks he didn't murder her. It's surreal. No one has offered any other explanation of how she died and why he looks so damned guilty, besides, he's guilty. In court, of course, this doesn't matter- you don't need to produce the guilty party to go free. But in reality, yes, it does matter.
Nope. In fact, only a retard would fail to distinguish between knowing something and being able to prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone. Fucking. Knows. It.
And for good reason. He did it.
You would expect guilty men to go free in a society with high standards of proof of guilt. It's reasonable (and correct) to assume someone not found guilty is, did, in fact, do the time.
OJ essentially confesses in a book, and also there was even more stuff that would have been "evidence" that came out after the fact. He wasn't found guilty of the crime he did. That's fact.
Everyone believes OJ did it because OJ did it. When you say "that's not the way it's supposed to work", I think you mean that we aren't supposed to consider someone who was not found guilty to be guilty- that it's a failure of the system that we do. But the standards of evidence are different- it's reasonable to assume a system will find that someone who did commit a crime to not be provably guilty some reasonable percent of the time, because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Everyone knows OJ did it. But it couldn't be proven in court. But he still fucking murdered his wife lol. He even wrote a book, "If I did it". Brazen.
Your counterexample is concise, but is it generally applicable? I mean, how many companies have tried to be Apple, and failed? And there sure are a lot of successful grocery stores.
I'm not saying you are incorrect, merely that your example doesn't make a good case. You'd want to look at the median case of companies that tried to fill "wants" versus "needs", by some metric that, uh, you get to run by APK. Hopefully you aren't in his hosts file...
Wait, they are super advanced, but they hate anything that evolved in any but a set of totally noncompetitive circumstances? What you just said applies to *every species on earth*. So because of the circumstances of our evolution, they write off every animal on the planet, humans included, as fundamentally evil?
They had backups. What they didn't have was enough off-site backups, though even then, they did have plenty. How well would your data hold up if an army killed you and destroyed everything you had? Would it all be safe, or maybe just some of it? Would your friends and family be able to get it all without your guidance (again, killed by a whole army)?
Bitcoin gets crapped on a lot. Mostly it's justified. But it, and a few other fictional number based virtual moneys, are still around.
And this is why!
We already are in a situation where the #1 thing to do to attack user websites that don't have an army of lawyers is to get them banned from getting cash. You simply have a bunch of people spam where they get their money from, and that instantly goes away. This mini-financial crusade is instant, final, and is primarily worked around using bitcoin. Just a few years ago, when financial providers would not act this way, the desire for an uncontrolled way of exchanging cash was a whole lot lower.
The equivalent of this is if the government could just wave a wand and suddenly you were incapable of gaining wealth- you couldn't pick something up if it had value, be it off the ground or in an exchange of goods. It's a wholly new risk generated by previously politically neutral organizations.
We don't know that dark matter or dark energy exist. At all. They are leading candidates, but they get that way from Occam's razor like reasoning, not direct observation or really even indirect observation.
> Given the historical amounts of epic stupidity committed in the name of men showing off for women
Did you misspell "society"? Or are you just trashing macho guys because it's safe? Men's motivation to impress women has been responsible for far many great things than derp moments. In fact, you'd be cherry picking to find cases where men trying to impress women has ended badly. You'd be cherry picking so hard you didn't include a single example, that's how hard them cherries are to find.
Slashdot Mirror
Great! I sincerely hope that the websites add code that blocks anything with userAgent ios9.
First: It would infuriate people to the terrible behaviors advertisers do.
Second: It would make most Apple users grab any of the browers that CAN fix the userAgent string already, such as Atomic, Mercury, etc. This is nice because more users would have alternate browsers. Minor benefit.
Third and most importantly: Safari would finally support this sort of spoofing by default. That's clutch, because it's a very basic feature we still don't have.
And this isn't about Apple's security. Remember, YOU MUST JAILBREAK for this to bite you. Much more than just jailbreak. Not only do you have to give some Chinese hacker group admin permission on your PC (which seems to be totally safe, but hey, this would normally be a red flag, right?), then you have to tell your phone that you trust what's going on. Then you have to take the jailbroken thing which provides its own repo of code, and say "nope, still not dangerous enough", then find some russian hacker repo and add that to trusted, then download a thing out of that, and THAT thing is what fucks you.
So don't put this on Apple. Don't put this on TaiG or Pangu. Don't put this on Cydia. This requires a serious level of idiocy on the user's end, combined with persistence. Apple is safe. Jailbreaking is mostly safe. Jailbreaking your Apple then adding fly by night bullshit that the standard jailbreak community doesn't trust is not safe. Fucking derp?
Don't slander Pangu. They have a reputation to uphold, and they are already trusted with root on many jailbroken devices- because they have written several of the jailbreaks. All the guys that make jailbreaks happen don't want to see people fucking with jailbreakers.
Errr... not sure where you are going with that. The top definition is man-made, because that's what it means. And certainly, nothing about the wasp is non-natural. A wasp stabbing a caterpillar is neither artificial nor non-natural nor unreal.
Also, what is that gray box? The one you copy pasted that from? It's not the definition of the word (which you imply by your copy past). The top definition according to merriam-webster is:
humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made
If I type in "red", the #1 definition is: "of the color red / having red as a distinguishing color", but the gray box (that you quoted from) says "having the color of blood". That's a not a traditional definition, I dunno what that is.
Artificial means man-made, so it is not artificial.
It's certainly not developing as the caterpillar "intends", that's for sure.
AC:
> The motherboard also has to support vPro technology for the backdoor to work. vPro support only in the CPU will not do much. Most gaming and consumer motherboards do not support vPro.
So look for a mobo without "vPro", or disable "vPro" in teh BIOS?
On Linux, you can kill sshd and disable it so it won't start on your next boot. Depending on your security needs, this may already be the case.
How can I make my Intel processor not take external commands? How can I "turn off the daemon"?
Can this be disabled?
Inflation is only a tax on those who are holding currency, or who have chosen to trade a given service or good (such as time worked) for currency at a fixed rate. Non cash capital, money, and property are not affected by inflation. So inflation is not, in practice, a tax on those who are in favor of inflation.
> For me the iPhone is what it is: a phone. Talking to people, texting, chatting, reading e-mail and surfing the web.
>a phone
>reading e-mail and surfing the web
No, you're using it as a smartphone. You just are happy with a feature set. It's not some fundamental or elemental set- it's still doing stuff a phone couldn't do. You're taking a subset of the native apps and saying, "ok, verily, this is blessed".
This thing is also an mp3 player, a camera, a video camera- and all that stuff is built in, not some hack job.
I think the overall article point is a very good one. Apple knows full well that a 32 GB model is absolutely the best selling one, because it fits a good combination of music collection, media you created, apps you may have, podcasts, etc, without having to feel too compressed. But the article isn't really about that fact, which isn't up for debate- it's about why they select sizes explicitly to make a more aggressive sale, when that just feels absolutely superflous. Did you know that the black leather band on the apple watch is no longer something you can get WITH the watch? That's a pretty popular thing, but if you want it now you have to buy a version without it, and add it on. This is similar- they are using their market studies to really push customers around- customers who generally are willing to be blind to price and deliver a ludicrous profit are also pushed to *feel dumb*.
And that's a real problem, and one that creeps up on your userbase. If you have users who are ok paying almost whatever, you don't also need to be like "... and you should be willing to pay almost whatever for not even the thing you want!". "Oh customers want 32? We'll offer 16, 64, 128. Anything but deliver that 32!"
I think it's a good point.
I know it when I see it. But it's an interesting question.
The simplest is "it does something the user doesn't want". But this gets bogged down in questions.
I propose that any software that fits (1) AND (2) is malware, *no exceptions*.
1- The software does ANY of the following:
- Hides its presence from the user (registry malarkey, malicious RAM stuff, etc)
- Tricks the user into being installed (packaged in other software, straight up virus piggyback, checkbox you must unclick)
- Is inside a package via sponsorship, deception, or coercion of the pacakger, as an addition to an actual product (including most of the download.com stuff)
- Fights user attempts to uninstall (including disabling unrelated features, reinstalling itself, etc)
*Sponsorship should handle all cases where a packager includes an element in the package that is not why you chose to get the package. Coercion includes, say, a government or company that forces by law or other method to include code in such a package, and deception involves a packager who is not aware of the malware they are packing along.
2- The software does EITHER of the following:
- Is not strictly needed for the operation the user intends, offering a data leak (personal data, envelope information about user activity) or unarguably malicious feature (blackmail, data deletion, display of advertisements) instead of its advertised or apparent purpose.
- Is installed entirely in secret and from an activity that should not result in software installation.
By this definition, you could argue that some elements of Windows 10 qualify (and they probably do), that the Ask.com garbage pile qualifies (and it definitely does), along with drive by downloads. This excludes a game that shows you advertisements, but includes one that installs an advertising thing on your desktop.
What am I missing? Gimme some false positives or false negatives with this pls.
Facedabase?
Here a fast google finds this:
http://www.ocregister.com/arti...
So we have OJ confessing, and a guy overhears it, and it gets thrown out as possible evidence. It's reasonable to throw it out for a jury trial, but it still happened.
Trials are not reality. Trials capture some subset of reality. You can look up false convictions, and we have a system rigged in favor of the defendant, so it's utterly irrational to assume that there would be more false positives (false convictions) than false negatives (guilty man walks free).
I didn't really think there were still people who think he's innocent. I mean, what's the other narrative?
"This guy who is abusive has a wife who is cheating on him. She knows he's furious with her, she tells everyone he's gonna kill her. She gets killed with his blood everywhere by some totally non-OJ guy who just fucking lept out of nowhere to murder her and then disappeared like some high level final fantasy ninja, leaving no evidence or sign, a literal hit job that is unprecedented outside of story books. Tragically, innocent OJ is targeted, so he tries real hard to run from cops, then he half-confesses to people who he trusts, and then he's correctly found innocent. He swears to hunt down the killer. He is sued in civil court and immediately found liable for her death. He hunts down the killer by golfing in Miami and writing a book "If I did it" where he lays down how he could have murdered his wife if it wasn't done by the unidentified high level ninja who has no motivation or material evidence."
I have seriously never talked to anyone who thinks he didn't murder her. It's surreal. No one has offered any other explanation of how she died and why he looks so damned guilty, besides, he's guilty. In court, of course, this doesn't matter- you don't need to produce the guilty party to go free. But in reality, yes, it does matter.
** It's reasonable (and correct) to assume someone not found guilty did, in fact, do the crime.
Nope. In fact, only a retard would fail to distinguish between knowing something and being able to prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone. Fucking. Knows. It.
And for good reason. He did it.
You would expect guilty men to go free in a society with high standards of proof of guilt. It's reasonable (and correct) to assume someone not found guilty is, did, in fact, do the time.
OJ essentially confesses in a book, and also there was even more stuff that would have been "evidence" that came out after the fact. He wasn't found guilty of the crime he did. That's fact.
Everyone believes OJ did it because OJ did it. When you say "that's not the way it's supposed to work", I think you mean that we aren't supposed to consider someone who was not found guilty to be guilty- that it's a failure of the system that we do. But the standards of evidence are different- it's reasonable to assume a system will find that someone who did commit a crime to not be provably guilty some reasonable percent of the time, because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Everyone knows OJ did it. But it couldn't be proven in court. But he still fucking murdered his wife lol. He even wrote a book, "If I did it". Brazen.
Your counterexample is concise, but is it generally applicable? I mean, how many companies have tried to be Apple, and failed? And there sure are a lot of successful grocery stores.
I'm not saying you are incorrect, merely that your example doesn't make a good case. You'd want to look at the median case of companies that tried to fill "wants" versus "needs", by some metric that, uh, you get to run by APK. Hopefully you aren't in his hosts file...
I wish the mods would come in and somehow make your post a nobler green. Or maybe just like, 3D. Or (Score: 7, Poignantly Sad And Explanatory).
Wait, they are super advanced, but they hate anything that evolved in any but a set of totally noncompetitive circumstances? What you just said applies to *every species on earth*. So because of the circumstances of our evolution, they write off every animal on the planet, humans included, as fundamentally evil?
The fuck?
They had backups. What they didn't have was enough off-site backups, though even then, they did have plenty. How well would your data hold up if an army killed you and destroyed everything you had? Would it all be safe, or maybe just some of it? Would your friends and family be able to get it all without your guidance (again, killed by a whole army)?
Bitcoin gets crapped on a lot. Mostly it's justified. But it, and a few other fictional number based virtual moneys, are still around.
And this is why!
We already are in a situation where the #1 thing to do to attack user websites that don't have an army of lawyers is to get them banned from getting cash. You simply have a bunch of people spam where they get their money from, and that instantly goes away. This mini-financial crusade is instant, final, and is primarily worked around using bitcoin. Just a few years ago, when financial providers would not act this way, the desire for an uncontrolled way of exchanging cash was a whole lot lower.
And what's illegal will be determined by a non-law enforcement process arbitrarily and quickly. Sounds just, ever so solid.
No, that is nothing like money laundering.
The equivalent of this is if the government could just wave a wand and suddenly you were incapable of gaining wealth- you couldn't pick something up if it had value, be it off the ground or in an exchange of goods. It's a wholly new risk generated by previously politically neutral organizations.
We don't know that dark matter or dark energy exist. At all. They are leading candidates, but they get that way from Occam's razor like reasoning, not direct observation or really even indirect observation.
> Given the historical amounts of epic stupidity committed in the name of men showing off for women
Did you misspell "society"? Or are you just trashing macho guys because it's safe? Men's motivation to impress women has been responsible for far many great things than derp moments. In fact, you'd be cherry picking to find cases where men trying to impress women has ended badly. You'd be cherry picking so hard you didn't include a single example, that's how hard them cherries are to find.