Put an object that is of a class known to the system class loader into an Intent extra. Broadcast the intent it such at it will be received by the system (by possibly targeting an intent filter that's already handled by something in the system process). The system, as soon as it reference any of the Intent extras, will deserialize all of them, including the malicious object (that's how the Bundle object, which backs intent extras works). Eventually, even if that object was never used, it's finalize() method will be called. Depending on the fields that were present in the serialized form, there is potentially an exploit. This could happen if the implementation of that system class's finalize() method could be tricked into doing something funny by the data in the serialized fields in the object.
This is only a theoretical exploit. It depends on finding a system class with a vulnerability that can be exploited by crafting the data in it's fields, and the usage of those fields in it's finalize() methods.
i don't know if legally the issue is the time of hovering i'm not claiming to have any insight on that, but people are focusing on it here. point is, the level of tech available makes hover time, speed, and even elevation irrelevant to the argument. your privacy can be invaded regardless of those factors.
So, you are saying it is OK to film a family in their private back yard?
the primary argument here seems to be over how long the drone hovered. i'm saying that's technically irrelevant. what's relevant is that it's legal to flyover recording video, period.
There was no risk to any human or animal life. Shooting is the only way he would likely every be able to ask questions and identify the idiots flying it.
unloading a firearm in the air is dangerous because believe it or not, the bullets don't escape into outer space.
mythbusters tested this, and found that bullets shot straight up would tumble and hence have limited velocity on the way down, but there are reports of bullets fired in an arc that maintained their gyroscopic stability on the way down resulting in death. harder to test since it's going to be difficult to predict the location where the bullet hits the ground.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
does it really matter? so i speed over your property at 30MPH with a 60fps camera. i can review every fine detail of the flyover.
Yes, I own plenty of guns. I have a fishing boat and a couple of four wheel drives. And guess what? I've never voted for a Republican in my life and abhor most of the crap coming out of the NRA today.
if someone offered you a million dollars to guess if this stranger with pickup trucks, guns and a fishing boat was an R or a D, what would you guess?
F*cking idiotic attitude.
i am have the misconception that gun-toting fishermen from california are prone to outbursts of profanity in public forums.
It actually doesn't matter what the reason is. There are people in sensitive situations, and there are people to whom privacy simply matters. It's my choice.
sure is your choice. let me ask, is someone holding a gun to your head making you use google? it's perfectly fine if you don't want to use google because of privacy reasons, but that's not what this thread is about is it?
there are some nuts here that refused to use g+ because of the shared data, but that has nothing to do with why it failed en masse.
every google-related thread gets co-opted with 10k posts about "well i don't use google because of blah blah privacy blah blah ads". it's a waste of bits.
I found myself relying upon the privacy ethics of google and, for me, that was like trying to stand on quicksand.
you think it's unethical for one division of a corporation to share data with another? guess what, ALL corporation do that. do you think when sony's display division comes to their gaming division and asks for access to their user data, the VP says "no i'm sorry, that wouldn't be ethical."
then don't use facebook, or google. they aren't for you. that's the tradeoff. ads for digital services. if you don't like that, move on. we all know the deal. most of us don't care and consider it a fair trade. no one's forcing us to use these services.
At least with Facebook, you generally knew what non-FB sites would post on your FB, as it would ask for your FB login
which of google search and google youtube count as "non-google" sites? that's a terrible analogy. the analogy would be facebook chat had a different login from facebook proper. it doesn't.
. . . and is made immeasurably worse by the real name policy. If you want me to participate in an online community in a lasting and meaningful way, there's no way in hell I'm using my real name.
slashdot. where people come to state their oddities to the world in some vane notion that they are relevant.
How many people think they've had any change of heart vs. thinking (as I've seen expressed here) they've found some other sneaky way to "link" you across their services?
how many people care, outside of the few excessively posting privacy nuts here? having a common login across services is a massive convenience for 99% of us. i can't even understand the objection. because when i do something illegal on youtube, they'd be able to link that to my gmail address? because when i search for "taylor swift" on youtube, i might be shown a taylor swift ad in google search. my god!
google isn't for you. don't use it. stop complaining that it doesn't meet your anachronistic principles. just move on. you aren't the great educator informing the masses of the evils of google. we all know what they do. most of us consider it more than fair trade for the value we get from them.
let me guess, you love to play games, and fancy yourself a geek because you know the specs of all the latest graphics cards... but know nothing about software development or game development.
the proof is in the fact they games aren't ported unless there's an obvious revenue stream. if it was "easy" as setting some constant to "LINUX" they'd do that and make a few extra $. or, maybe all those game development studios and everyone employed therein are idiots and just waiting for someone with your insight on game development to enlighten them.
consoles have very custom hardware. i really can't listen to you if you are going to sit here and tell me they are "just PCs". they aren't. go do some reading. nothing could be further from the truth.
Furthermore, if there were magic future proof hardware, they would just put that in PCs as well.
the difference? consoles make money from people buying games. the console itself is a loss which is why they future proof them. if they had to R&D new consoles every two years they'd never make a profit. with PCs, the vendors make money from selling you hardware. they have zero interest in future proofing their designs.
Also, I can play high end games on a 10 year old PC. I just need to turn down all the graphics settings, which is exactly what the version of games running on old consoles do.
Xbox 360 outperforms your 10 year old PC in gaming. period.
If at first you don't succeed, fucking blame someone else.
Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.
You read the part where Google patched AOSP in 48 hours right? WTF do you want them to do? They don't have the ability push updates to phones issued by Verizon et al., let alone some oddball carrier in Thailand.
That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one
considering the conditions under which we will be able to drive them (insurance, liability, and so) are largely not understood, i'm surprised it's that low.
the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one
so people have questions about a a brand new product that for the most part isn't for sale yet, that 99.999% of them have never experienced. surprising stuff!
I keep thinking that we are going to see Google collapse in on itself when people realize that every dollar spent on internet ads leads to less than a dollar worth of increased sales.
except that's not true. it's all tracked. do you really think that despite seeing that ads don't result in clickthroughs, businesses still are happy to toss their $ in the garbage?
Slashdot Mirror
Put an object that is of a class known to the system class loader into an Intent extra. Broadcast the intent it such at it will be received by the system (by possibly targeting an intent filter that's already handled by something in the system process). The system, as soon as it reference any of the Intent extras, will deserialize all of them, including the malicious object (that's how the Bundle object, which backs intent extras works). Eventually, even if that object was never used, it's finalize() method will be called. Depending on the fields that were present in the serialized form, there is potentially an exploit. This could happen if the implementation of that system class's finalize() method could be tricked into doing something funny by the data in the serialized fields in the object.
This is only a theoretical exploit. It depends on finding a system class with a vulnerability that can be exploited by crafting the data in it's fields, and the usage of those fields in it's finalize() methods.
i don't know if legally the issue is the time of hovering i'm not claiming to have any insight on that, but people are focusing on it here. point is, the level of tech available makes hover time, speed, and even elevation irrelevant to the argument. your privacy can be invaded regardless of those factors.
So, you are saying it is OK to film a family in their private back yard?
the primary argument here seems to be over how long the drone hovered. i'm saying that's technically irrelevant. what's relevant is that it's legal to flyover recording video, period.
Yeah BULLETS are dangerous being shot into the air
so you agree with me? did i make any claims otherwise?
nah, you are right. it should be legal to discharge shotguns in the air in urban environments. you got me on this one. cooler heads have prevailed.
There was no risk to any human or animal life. Shooting is the only way he would likely every be able to ask questions and identify the idiots flying it.
unloading a firearm in the air is dangerous because believe it or not, the bullets don't escape into outer space.
mythbusters tested this, and found that bullets shot straight up would tumble and hence have limited velocity on the way down, but there are reports of bullets fired in an arc that maintained their gyroscopic stability on the way down resulting in death. harder to test since it's going to be difficult to predict the location where the bullet hits the ground.
So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.
ask some of the early adopters of google glass.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
does it really matter? so i speed over your property at 30MPH with a 60fps camera. i can review every fine detail of the flyover.
Yes, I own plenty of guns. I have a fishing boat and a couple of four wheel drives. And guess what? I've never voted for a Republican in my life and abhor most of the crap coming out of the NRA today.
if someone offered you a million dollars to guess if this stranger with pickup trucks, guns and a fishing boat was an R or a D, what would you guess?
F*cking idiotic attitude.
i am have the misconception that gun-toting fishermen from california are prone to outbursts of profanity in public forums.
it's called a rhetorical question. there's also a little sarcasm mixed in there. let me know if you have any further questions.
It actually doesn't matter what the reason is. There are people in sensitive situations, and there are people to whom privacy simply matters. It's my choice.
sure is your choice. let me ask, is someone holding a gun to your head making you use google? it's perfectly fine if you don't want to use google because of privacy reasons, but that's not what this thread is about is it?
there are some nuts here that refused to use g+ because of the shared data, but that has nothing to do with why it failed en masse.
every google-related thread gets co-opted with 10k posts about "well i don't use google because of blah blah privacy blah blah ads". it's a waste of bits.
... and why did Google+ fail? was it over outrage of their privacy policy? (answer: no).
There are many reasons why you wouldn't want to be tracked and monitored.
we are waiting ...
I found myself relying upon the privacy ethics of google and, for me, that was like trying to stand on quicksand.
you think it's unethical for one division of a corporation to share data with another? guess what, ALL corporation do that. do you think when sony's display division comes to their gaming division and asks for access to their user data, the VP says "no i'm sorry, that wouldn't be ethical."
??!?
No, only the ads are horrendous.
then don't use facebook, or google. they aren't for you. that's the tradeoff. ads for digital services. if you don't like that, move on. we all know the deal. most of us don't care and consider it a fair trade. no one's forcing us to use these services.
At least with Facebook, you generally knew what non-FB sites would post on your FB, as it would ask for your FB login
which of google search and google youtube count as "non-google" sites? that's a terrible analogy. the analogy would be facebook chat had a different login from facebook proper. it doesn't.
. . . and is made immeasurably worse by the real name policy. If you want me to participate in an online community in a lasting and meaningful way, there's no way in hell I'm using my real name.
slashdot. where people come to state their oddities to the world in some vane notion that they are relevant.
How many people think they've had any change of heart vs. thinking (as I've seen expressed here) they've found some other sneaky way to "link" you across their services?
how many people care, outside of the few excessively posting privacy nuts here? having a common login across services is a massive convenience for 99% of us. i can't even understand the objection. because when i do something illegal on youtube, they'd be able to link that to my gmail address? because when i search for "taylor swift" on youtube, i might be shown a taylor swift ad in google search. my god!
google isn't for you. don't use it. stop complaining that it doesn't meet your anachronistic principles. just move on. you aren't the great educator informing the masses of the evils of google. we all know what they do. most of us consider it more than fair trade for the value we get from them.
let me guess, you love to play games, and fancy yourself a geek because you know the specs of all the latest graphics cards ... but know nothing about software development or game development.
the proof is in the fact they games aren't ported unless there's an obvious revenue stream. if it was "easy" as setting some constant to "LINUX" they'd do that and make a few extra $. or, maybe all those game development studios and everyone employed therein are idiots and just waiting for someone with your insight on game development to enlighten them.
consoles have very custom hardware. i really can't listen to you if you are going to sit here and tell me they are "just PCs". they aren't. go do some reading. nothing could be further from the truth.
Furthermore, if there were magic future proof hardware, they would just put that in PCs as well.
the difference? consoles make money from people buying games. the console itself is a loss which is why they future proof them. if they had to R&D new consoles every two years they'd never make a profit. with PCs, the vendors make money from selling you hardware. they have zero interest in future proofing their designs.
Also, I can play high end games on a 10 year old PC. I just need to turn down all the graphics settings, which is exactly what the version of games running on old consoles do.
Xbox 360 outperforms your 10 year old PC in gaming. period.
Consoles are basically just PC's in a special box running special software.
and special hardware. that's what allows a console made 10 years ago with zero upgrades to still play high-end games. try that with a 10 year old PC.
Yep. No console can drive my 4k TV.
http://shield.nvidia.com/andro...
then porting the game to other platforms including steamos should be relatively easy
that is a massive simplification of the game development process.
also in news: my hard drive is faster that my internet connection.
If at first you don't succeed, fucking blame someone else.
Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.
You read the part where Google patched AOSP in 48 hours right? WTF do you want them to do? They don't have the ability push updates to phones issued by Verizon et al., let alone some oddball carrier in Thailand.
That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one
considering the conditions under which we will be able to drive them (insurance, liability, and so) are largely not understood, i'm surprised it's that low.
the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one
so people have questions about a a brand new product that for the most part isn't for sale yet, that 99.999% of them have never experienced. surprising stuff!
I keep thinking that we are going to see Google collapse in on itself when people realize that every dollar spent on internet ads leads to less than a dollar worth of increased sales.
except that's not true. it's all tracked. do you really think that despite seeing that ads don't result in clickthroughs, businesses still are happy to toss their $ in the garbage?