I responded to similar questions in this thread, and won't be retyping. Laptops at least have firewalls; and further you have the option of public/private network behavior on modern Windows versions such that you can be certain that apps you don't want talking over public wifi won't be talking.
Alright, let's say an app exists for monitoring traffic (and I don't know that it does for all phone platforms) - but once the traffic is sent, it's too late. You can't know what is being sent until it's sent; and you can't stop it from being sent after learning about it -- but before it leaves the device -- on android or iphone.
But for argument's sake, let us suppose that such an app exists that presents a fake network interface, allowing you to completely manage all device outbound traffic. The problem there is that users like defaults, and they're not going to out of their way to install an app to correct a problem that they're only marginally aware of if at all.
While I agree, this goes beyond that. The specific google components are only one piece; the wider problem here is that when you're allowing a smartphone to connect to *any* network (especially if it's Android or iPhone; but by default BlackBerry too - you have to go out of your way to configure paranoid connection mode), you don't know what your apps are doing. You don't know what servers they're connecting to, what protocol they're using, what data they're sending, or to whom they're sending it to(but that's a different issue in itself). You certainly don't know who else is watching that data.
Given that, allowing your phone access to an unencrypted wireless network is tantamount to shouting out all of your most personal information to anyone on the same network.
While encrypted wifi is certainly no more secure once it leaves the wifi network, at least you're reducing the likelihood of somebody sniffing your data.
If you only use encrypted networks, you may still have problems in that you don't know who is getting your data at the end point... but at least you can be reasonably certain. (Though obviously this also only goes so far - as it can be picked up anywhere along the way once it *;eaves* the encrypted network.
When I don't know and can't control what data is going in and out of my device? No, of course I don't. Does that mean you actually do let your phone use unencrypted wifi hotspots?
And don't install apps that need access to the network, since you don't have the ability to veto them on a per-connection basis* . (Or don't use unencrypted wifi, which may be a more practical answer.)
* unlike BB, which gives you very fine grained control over the connections each application makes -- if you take the time to use it.
And? What kind of idiot uses unencrypted WiFi on their phones these days -- especially because you can't know what applications are sending or receiving in the background.
While I see where you're going, we *are* talking about a group where each individual member can do pretty much whatever he wants and claim to be doing it on behalf of Anonymous. From that perspective,it's not so hard to believe that - as this group begins high profile activity - that there's a lot of internal dissent and disagreement; and I don't doubt that many yearn for the "good old days" when all of the members were of a [generally] like mind.
Valid point - and something they make it easy to do, apparently: http://www.lodsys.com/our-patents.html
At least based on the description (and I know you can't really go by that, but I don't have time to do the same digging I did for the first one - maybe someone else can) they're not immediately/obviously related.
So did I. But what was the search engine specified by default in that initial screen? I don't know about you, but for me on IE8 it was Bing. Remember, when it comes to defaults: if you provide a default, even if you prompt to change it - most users will just click through without considering. They want to be browsing the web, not setting up the web browser, and clicking through is the most direct route to that.
Their responses are all - naturally - based on the assumption that their claims are valid. However, they have yet to explain how their patent -- which specifically encompasses a method of providing feedback to content creators from content consumers... has relevance to an in-app upgrade purchase. Nothing of the sort is referenced in the patent. The suggestion that such a purchase is a form of feedback is specious at best: the customer is offering no suggestions for improving or changing the product (the common example specified in the patent itself), but is rather paying continue using or unlock already-existing functionality.
Agreed. Bitcoins is a real danger to the otherwise rational people who seem to be taking it seriously. To the rest of us, it's just vaguely amusing in an "awww, baby is smearing his poop on his face!" kind of way.
When presented with a poll, and given the option... 70% of self-selected solid liberals picked the option that they "wanted to compromise" while 79% of self-selected staunch conservatives picked the option that said "stick to their positions".
I think we can agree that people as a whole tend to think of themselves as better than they are - more true of their ideals. All this poll "proves" is that 70% of liberals think they would compromise; while 79% of conservatives think they'd stick to their positions.
If anything, I'd say that this shows only that the conservatives are more honest with themselves;)
In my case, as time goes on I've learned that if someone really believes something preposterous... no logical argument on my part will dissuade them from that belief. In much the same way that people will self-select content that confirms their bias (making this issue a non-issue to begin with: even if the content providers don't filter, people will filter on their own), most are remarkably resistant when exposed to anything that does *not* confirm their bias.
So now I'll smile vaguely, nod my head, and change the subject when someone makes an stupid statement and is obviously convinced of its merit as a fact. I have better things to do than engage in a mental masturbation exercise which only frustrates me and annoys the other person.
The interesting thing is that when I (as an American) see the moderations, my opinion is that the mods tend to have viewpoints that typically oppose the exact same things you state they affirm.
I think that may show that it really is more diverse than either of us thinks. I can point out countless instances where "left-leaning" moderators are obviously taking over here, but I also have no doubt that you can point just as many examples to support your statement. .
It probably also says something interesting on the things that stand out for us individually - in my case, it's those that tend to not support my viewpoints (eg, the "American" viewpoint you mentioned above).
Not really a problem at all. Let's say the filtering didn't exist -- it wouldn't change people's minds. Most of them would skip over the stuff that didn't affirm their beliefs; the only difference is that it takes them longer to find what they were looking for in the first place.
Someone open-minded enough to want this already gets it and doesn't need it. Someone who wouldn't want it won't benefit from it anyway.
What's actually really surprising considering this is that they're a *distant* second place. That means they're so bad that a significant portion of IE users are going out of their way to *not* use the default search... and for a user to not use the default option for anything is pretty exceptional by itself.
It's not the message, it's the messenger. Packt is here at least once a week now (at least they've found someone else besides Rick Wagner to bribe for the reviews), and the reviews are almost always telling us how wonderful the book is.
No, it's not that we have a problem with CiviCRM; nor that we have a problem with a review being posted to Slashdot about the same.
No, the problem here is that we rarely see reviews that aren't for new hot-off-the-presses Packt books. The problem is that almost every single Packt book review gives a rating of 8 or 9, with one memorable exception last week or the week before. (Memorable because it's the only one that scored below an 8 in recent history.). The problem is that they rarely say anything negative about the book, which is in and of itself suspect - when was the last time you read a reference book and thought there was no room for improvement?
All in all, the problem is that these Packt reviews smack heavily of astroturfing. They also generate comparatively few comments, and most of the comments are of the "WTF, Packt again?" variety.
So... ultimately... the problem is that we're tired of seeing Packt Publishing doing their astroturfing here and a) wish they'd stop and b) don't understand why slashdot continues to publish these articles that - at best - a very small minority of their readership is interested in. If you were a borderline conspiracy nut, you *might* think that they should just stamp these articles with "Paid Advertisement" and have done with it.
Now... it's possible that Packt publishing just makes nothing but incredible books. They give away free copies to reviewers, and reviewers really do love them so much... that they feel compelled to post glowing reviews here and elsewhere.
Most of us are a bit more cynical than to believe that though.
Why the hell are these still showing up here? I'm fairly confident nobody is upvoting them in firehose, they get minimal comments (half of which are complaining about Packt and shills, and valid complaints they are)... so what gives?
Slashdot Mirror
That depends entirely on which arbitrary numbering scheme this particular project is following.
No, I think he's proposing an innovative and new idea. In fact, I should like to subscribe to his newsletter to hear more of the same.
Alright, let's say an app exists for monitoring traffic (and I don't know that it does for all phone platforms) - but once the traffic is sent, it's too late. You can't know what is being sent until it's sent; and you can't stop it from being sent after learning about it -- but before it leaves the device -- on android or iphone.
But for argument's sake, let us suppose that such an app exists that presents a fake network interface, allowing you to completely manage all device outbound traffic. The problem there is that users like defaults, and they're not going to out of their way to install an app to correct a problem that they're only marginally aware of if at all.
Given that, allowing your phone access to an unencrypted wireless network is tantamount to shouting out all of your most personal information to anyone on the same network.
While encrypted wifi is certainly no more secure once it leaves the wifi network, at least you're reducing the likelihood of somebody sniffing your data. If you only use encrypted networks, you may still have problems in that you don't know who is getting your data at the end point... but at least you can be reasonably certain. (Though obviously this also only goes so far - as it can be picked up anywhere along the way once it *;eaves* the encrypted network.
When I don't know and can't control what data is going in and out of my device? No, of course I don't. Does that mean you actually do let your phone use unencrypted wifi hotspots?
The update is quite good; but seriously ... 1.99? What happens if you find a critical bug - you'll have to go 1.991... when does the insanity end?!
* unlike BB, which gives you very fine grained control over the connections each application makes -- if you take the time to use it.
And? What kind of idiot uses unencrypted WiFi on their phones these days -- especially because you can't know what applications are sending or receiving in the background.
While I see where you're going, we *are* talking about a group where each individual member can do pretty much whatever he wants and claim to be doing it on behalf of Anonymous. From that perspective,it's not so hard to believe that - as this group begins high profile activity - that there's a lot of internal dissent and disagreement; and I don't doubt that many yearn for the "good old days" when all of the members were of a [generally] like mind.
Valid point - and something they make it easy to do, apparently: http://www.lodsys.com/our-patents.html At least based on the description (and I know you can't really go by that, but I don't have time to do the same digging I did for the first one - maybe someone else can) they're not immediately/obviously related.
Netwhats?
Man, you're friggin productive. Which monitor is slashdot in? :D
So did I. But what was the search engine specified by default in that initial screen? I don't know about you, but for me on IE8 it was Bing. Remember, when it comes to defaults: if you provide a default, even if you prompt to change it - most users will just click through without considering. They want to be browsing the web, not setting up the web browser, and clicking through is the most direct route to that.
Their responses are all - naturally - based on the assumption that their claims are valid. However, they have yet to explain how their patent -- which specifically encompasses a method of providing feedback to content creators from content consumers... has relevance to an in-app upgrade purchase. Nothing of the sort is referenced in the patent. The suggestion that such a purchase is a form of feedback is specious at best: the customer is offering no suggestions for improving or changing the product (the common example specified in the patent itself), but is rather paying continue using or unlock already-existing functionality.
It's no longer true.
Agreed. Bitcoins is a real danger to the otherwise rational people who seem to be taking it seriously. To the rest of us, it's just vaguely amusing in an "awww, baby is smearing his poop on his face!" kind of way.
I've got just the thing for you! Try viewing it through this filter!
When presented with a poll, and given the option ... 70% of self-selected solid liberals picked the option that they "wanted to compromise" while 79% of self-selected staunch conservatives picked the option that said "stick to their positions".
I think we can agree that people as a whole tend to think of themselves as better than they are - more true of their ideals. All this poll "proves" is that 70% of liberals think they would compromise; while 79% of conservatives think they'd stick to their positions.
If anything, I'd say that this shows only that the conservatives are more honest with themselves ;)
So now I'll smile vaguely, nod my head, and change the subject when someone makes an stupid statement and is obviously convinced of its merit as a fact. I have better things to do than engage in a mental masturbation exercise which only frustrates me and annoys the other person.
I think that may show that it really is more diverse than either of us thinks. I can point out countless instances where "left-leaning" moderators are obviously taking over here, but I also have no doubt that you can point just as many examples to support your statement. .
It probably also says something interesting on the things that stand out for us individually - in my case, it's those that tend to not support my viewpoints (eg, the "American" viewpoint you mentioned above).
Not really a problem at all. Let's say the filtering didn't exist -- it wouldn't change people's minds. Most of them would skip over the stuff that didn't affirm their beliefs; the only difference is that it takes them longer to find what they were looking for in the first place.
Someone open-minded enough to want this already gets it and doesn't need it. Someone who wouldn't want it won't benefit from it anyway.
What's actually really surprising considering this is that they're a *distant* second place. That means they're so bad that a significant portion of IE users are going out of their way to *not* use the default search... and for a user to not use the default option for anything is pretty exceptional by itself.
Are you sure you didn't mean to post to this article?
No, it's not that we have a problem with CiviCRM; nor that we have a problem with a review being posted to Slashdot about the same.
No, the problem here is that we rarely see reviews that aren't for new hot-off-the-presses Packt books. The problem is that almost every single Packt book review gives a rating of 8 or 9, with one memorable exception last week or the week before. (Memorable because it's the only one that scored below an 8 in recent history.). The problem is that they rarely say anything negative about the book, which is in and of itself suspect - when was the last time you read a reference book and thought there was no room for improvement?
All in all, the problem is that these Packt reviews smack heavily of astroturfing. They also generate comparatively few comments, and most of the comments are of the "WTF, Packt again?" variety.
So ... ultimately... the problem is that we're tired of seeing Packt Publishing doing their astroturfing here and a) wish they'd stop and b) don't understand why slashdot continues to publish these articles that - at best - a very small minority of their readership is interested in. If you were a borderline conspiracy nut, you *might* think that they should just stamp these articles with "Paid Advertisement" and have done with it.
Now... it's possible that Packt publishing just makes nothing but incredible books. They give away free copies to reviewers, and reviewers really do love them so much ... that they feel compelled to post glowing reviews here and elsewhere.
Most of us are a bit more cynical than to believe that though.
Why the hell are these still showing up here? I'm fairly confident nobody is upvoting them in firehose, they get minimal comments (half of which are complaining about Packt and shills, and valid complaints they are)... so what gives?