I think it's also important to note that the security of Mac OS X extends to the iPhone as well; hackers are apparently unable to successfully compromise the much larger installed base of iPhones, having to content themselves with the much smaller population that has been jailbroken (read, "security compromised").
Obviously you do not remember how the early firmwares were jailbroken.
All you had to do was visit a website.
Except, everyone loves it when there's a new exploit discovered for the iPhone, and pretends not to recognize how that could easily have been used to spread a malicious worm instead.
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, feng shui has been officially deemed as a "feudalistic superstitious practice" and a "social evil" according to the state's atheistic Communist ideology and discouraged or even outright banned at times [39][40]. Persecution was the most severe during the Cultural Revolution, when feng shui was classified as a custom under the so-called Four Olds to be wiped out. Feng shui practitioners were beaten and abused by Red Guards and their works burned. After the death of Mao Zedong and the end of the Cultural Revolution, the official attitude became more tolerant but restrictions on feng shui practice are still in place in today's China. It is illegal in the PRC today to register feng shui consultation as a business and similarly advertising feng shui practice is banned, and there have been frequent crackdowns on feng shui practitioners on the grounds of "promoting feudalistic superstitions" such as one in Qingdao in early 2006 when the city's business and industrial administration office shut down an art gallery converted into a feng shui practice [41]. Communist officials who had consulted feng shui were sacked and expelled from the Communist Party [42].
So it does indeed seem to be banned to some extent.
In any case, I don't see anything in the comment that makes fun of the fengshui culture. It's the actions of the Chinese that is being mocked. If he is in fact Taiwanese, I'd be inclined to believe it's just a misunderstanding caused by the language barrier.
The change may be small, but it is significant. This brings back bad memories of yahoo's takeover of webring.org nearly a decade ago. Their first step was also to integrate yahoo IDs. I don't know if anyone here remembers or even used webring, but back then it was a cool concept. I had a ring there with several thousand members, and I could not secure a single new member after the takeover. Soon they began to push for a "migration" to yahoo accounts and servers, but it was riddled with problems, and I ended up losing control of the ring. They eventually backed out of webring, but it was never the same again. That was actually when I started hating yahoo. They just came along, took a beautiful idea, and totally ruined it. It was brutal.
The flickr takeover has actually been far smoother than I had expected, and I'm surprised that they didn't try to yahooify flickr (too much, at least). Still, I hope this change isn't a sign of further changes or "integrations". If I wanted my photo album "integrated" with yahoo services, I would use yahoo photos. Flickr is successful because of what it is right now. Just let it be, and don't try to change that. Yahoo's "better" isn't necessarily our "better". It's always a pity when corporate interests intervene and destroy great ideas.
If by "outside world" you mean just the US, then yes, there hasn't been too much of a disruption, but connections to other parts of Asia were MAJORLY affected. I'm also using Hinet ADSL and up until yesterday connections to Hong Kong, in particular, were still very much dead. I know because I was separated from all my savings for at least three days, until HSBC switched their online banking servers. It is still very, very slow at the moment. I hear they've only got 50% of the connectivity back at the moment.
Yes, anybody gan get to Google News. But not anybody can get to Google News logged in as you (Well obviously now they can, but they shouldn't be able to, anyway). If you login to Google in a different window (either through GMail, Google IG, or some other Google service), and then test this script, you will see that the data it returns to you will show you logged in. It doesn't need to know if you're logged in to anything. It just needs to wait for the average Joe who happens to be logged in and executes the script.
The vulnerability is real and exploitable. I do not understand why they didn't fix it as it was clearly already disclosed in April.
The browser does not allow AJAX style connetions to any domain outside of the one you are currently on. To 'get around this' Secunia has connected to a page on thier server which then goes and gets the code. Probaly using a readfile command. Here is why this is NOT a browser bug: The page that they are calling is on thier server which means that it does not have your cookies or your session data. The server page that they are opening can only view the page from the stand point of an not-logged-in user.
Yes, that would be great if it actually worked like you say (that is, like it's supposed to). Problem is, if Secunia doesn't have my session and cookies for google news, why is it that the news.google page they're showing me displays me as logged in, complete with my custom channels and personalizations, and my e-mail, and, one click away, my search history?
Actually, that is not what is really happening. The offending pictures are being actively removed. The single image about the incident you see on page 3 was probably indexed by accident. You will also notice the page is no longer accessible.
I cannot see any obvious way analog could be more useful than digital, so I'd really like to know why you feel that way about analog. Would you be so kind as to explain your point of view?
You make it sound like it's so easy. Designing a good system for people to be able to submit their content and view that content is harder than you think. And you have to make them want to submit their content in the first place! What's mor, the more successful you become, the harder it becomes to maintain such a system. As nice as this business model sounds, it's no free lunch.
No - a huge percentage of the population have no idea that sound permanently damages their ears.
I don't think they "have no idea". They do, but they simply think the symptoms won't be affecting them at least for a long long time.
Point is - experience teaches people that you can listen to loud music and your ears may ring but, they get back to "normal" the next day. People can't seem to grasp that hearing damage is cumulative, even when told.
Which further proves my point: "This will solve nothing."
As you said, "people can't seem to grasp that hearing damage is cumulative, even when told." So why is this so called invention going to change that anytime soon? I don't think they're suddenly going to put on their ear plugs just because the weird gadget says so. The only people that are more likely going to heed the warning are probably already wearing ear plugs!
Most people who listen to loud music do so with full knowledge that listening to music so loud might be bad for their hearing. And they choose to do so anyway. Some sort of device or software that "makes users aware of unsafe volumes" will not do much to stop them from listening at that volume. It's not like most people don't already know. The EU already tried to force iPods to limit their volumes, and European consumers went out of their way to circumvent those restrictions. What's this new invention going to do to try to stop me?
discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong.
While I do not agree that they have the right to force Google to give them this information, I do not believe this privacy justification is really that justified. I think we are all going a bit extreme here whenever this topic appears. First of all, the information they want is not personally identifiable, as in they will not know who searched for these terms. All they will have is a bunch of search terms and their statistics, but no personally identifiable information. This is akin to a hospital releasing statistics of diseases of patients it has diagnosed in the past year and their corresponding mortality rates. For example, I would probably not want anyone to know without my consent if I have AIDS or cancer, but I could hardly say the statistics violated my privacy. I think this whole thing is just a publicity stunt for Google, and a chance for them to display their "commitment" to "do no evil". The privacy concerns have been blown out of proportion. The only legitimate violation of privacy is Google's privacy. Since they have done nothing wrong, I don't think they are in any way obliged to give any information. It's their privacy they're trying to protect, in the name of ours.
'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to a gaming environment manipulated by user inputs on consumer entertainment console systems and their controllers'.
This is quite enough to constitute a patent that's too broad. It essentially authorizes a monopoly on all force feedback game controllers. It is the implementation that shuold be patented, not the idea, and as long as Sony's implementation of vibrating controllers is different it should not be a problem. Otherwise something like 'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to an incoming transmission on portable communications equipment' would effectively require all mobile phone makers to pay royalties.
Why is this news? The software is doing exactly what it's supposed to. If you don't like that feature, turn it off. Be exposed to the risks.
Now that's some weird logic. How about I just block your internet connection for you? I guarantee you'll be 100% safe from outside intrusion! And then if you don't like the feature you can just turn it off! Be exposed to the risks! Isn't that great!
No, actually, what the software is really supposed to do is ensure that nothing will happen when startkeylogger is received through IRC.
I have to wonder, how many people in China are actually unaware of what happened there?
You'd be surprised.
The Chinese masses are led to believe that the protesters were rebels who deserved to be killed. Either that, or that the whole thing never happened.
Chinese propaganda is dangerously powerful stuff... Don't try it at home...
In other words, to Congress I say, put your god damm money where your mouth is. Take a stand yourself before you start demanding that others do it for you. This is just complete and total scapegoating. Why is this country looking to Google to lead the way on spreading free speech? When did we decide that the spread of the basic freedoms should be privitized?
That's all easier said than done. Unfortunately, in the capitalist world, governments (just like corporations) have to put their god damn mouths where the money is, not the other way round. There are lots of "correct" things that governments should do, but never actually get around to doing, mostly because it is not in their national interests (by interests I mean lots of cash, of course). Profit is what drives the capitalist society, my friend, not rightfulness. Money runs the show. Right now, China is where the money is. So much for freedom and liberty. Take care Taiwan, Tibet, and Falun Gong. We'll think of you.... while we count our cash...
Yup. And they're right. It is pretty similar. To pretend that we are somehow better than the Chinese government would require us to discount certain historical information such as information about the Nazis being made illegal in Germany...
You are right. The illegality of pro-nazi websites in Germany is against the principles of free speech. However, there is a crucial difference between the German censorship and the Chinese censorship. The Germans are censoring themselves, for the good of others. The Chinese, however, are censoring everyone solely for the good of the upper echelons of the CCP. The former is altruistic, the latter is egoistic.
...to discount the secret courts in the name of "national security"... to discount the way the news media has been kowtowing to the Bush administration... to discount the Bush administration repeatedly threatening members of the press with losing their news service's White House credentials if they ask questions or present a story in a way that is critical of the President.
And why is it that you know about these "secret" courts? And how do you know the media is kowtowing? How do you know about the threats to the press? True, these situations exist, and they should be condemned. But would you have known if this had happened in China?
No, we in the West parade around with our freedom of speech and wear it on our sleeves, but yet anything that is critical of our government ends up getting slammed...(snip)...Instead of criticizing the Chinese government for dodging the issue, we should be criticizing our own government for repeatedly dodging the same issue---taking the Western governments to task for decades of free press violations. Don't you think it's time?
Yes it is. And if enough people stand up and take a stand, things might actually change. Along the way we might be threatened with losing credentials, we might be out of our jobs, we might be slammed as being a bunch of nuts, but no one can take away our right to bitch about it. And it is precisely that right that makes us so different from the empire of the CCP.
Oh, it's idiotic indeed, but that's exactly what they've been doing for the past few years...
Generally, new iPods are officially old in just over a month.
I know, because we have four in our family, and a month after each time we buy, we wish we had waited.
Oh and I forgot to mention that my 4G iPod was officially dead a week after its warranty.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's also important to note that the security of Mac OS X extends to the iPhone as well; hackers are apparently unable to successfully compromise the much larger installed base of iPhones, having to content themselves with the much smaller population that has been jailbroken (read, "security compromised").
Obviously you do not remember how the early firmwares were jailbroken.
All you had to do was visit a website.
Except, everyone loves it when there's a new exploit discovered for the iPhone, and pretends not to recognize how that could easily have been used to spread a malicious worm instead.
Is russia supposed to be in asia or something?
DAMN YOU AND YOUR OFFENSIVE STORIES!
Offensive? How so?
I find far more offensive your insinuation that being considered part of Asia would be offensive.
In any case, I don't see anything in the comment that makes fun of the fengshui culture. It's the actions of the Chinese that is being mocked. If he is in fact Taiwanese, I'd be inclined to believe it's just a misunderstanding caused by the language barrier.
The change may be small, but it is significant. This brings back bad memories of yahoo's takeover of webring.org nearly a decade ago. Their first step was also to integrate yahoo IDs. I don't know if anyone here remembers or even used webring, but back then it was a cool concept. I had a ring there with several thousand members, and I could not secure a single new member after the takeover. Soon they began to push for a "migration" to yahoo accounts and servers, but it was riddled with problems, and I ended up losing control of the ring. They eventually backed out of webring, but it was never the same again. That was actually when I started hating yahoo. They just came along, took a beautiful idea, and totally ruined it. It was brutal.
The flickr takeover has actually been far smoother than I had expected, and I'm surprised that they didn't try to yahooify flickr (too much, at least). Still, I hope this change isn't a sign of further changes or "integrations". If I wanted my photo album "integrated" with yahoo services, I would use yahoo photos. Flickr is successful because of what it is right now. Just let it be, and don't try to change that. Yahoo's "better" isn't necessarily our "better". It's always a pity when corporate interests intervene and destroy great ideas.
If by "outside world" you mean just the US, then yes, there hasn't been too much of a disruption, but connections to other parts of Asia were MAJORLY affected. I'm also using Hinet ADSL and up until yesterday connections to Hong Kong, in particular, were still very much dead. I know because I was separated from all my savings for at least three days, until HSBC switched their online banking servers. It is still very, very slow at the moment. I hear they've only got 50% of the connectivity back at the moment.
Japan - the new China.
Yes, anybody gan get to Google News. But not anybody can get to Google News logged in as you (Well obviously now they can, but they shouldn't be able to, anyway). If you login to Google in a different window (either through GMail, Google IG, or some other Google service), and then test this script, you will see that the data it returns to you will show you logged in. It doesn't need to know if you're logged in to anything. It just needs to wait for the average Joe who happens to be logged in and executes the script.
The vulnerability is real and exploitable. I do not understand why they didn't fix it as it was clearly already disclosed in April.
The browser does not allow AJAX style connetions to any domain outside of the one you are currently on. To 'get around this' Secunia has connected to a page on thier server which then goes and gets the code. Probaly using a readfile command. Here is why this is NOT a browser bug: The page that they are calling is on thier server which means that it does not have your cookies or your session data. The server page that they are opening can only view the page from the stand point of an not-logged-in user.
Yes, that would be great if it actually worked like you say (that is, like it's supposed to). Problem is, if Secunia doesn't have my session and cookies for google news, why is it that the news.google page they're showing me displays me as logged in, complete with my custom channels and personalizations, and my e-mail, and, one click away, my search history?
Actually, that is not what is really happening. The offending pictures are being actively removed. The single image about the incident you see on page 3 was probably indexed by accident. You will also notice the page is no longer accessible.
C N and http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen&hl=zh- CN
The rest of the pages do not have one single picture of the massacre.
Two links worth two million words: http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen&hl=zh-
That's not cultural bias. It's blatant censorship.
oops.. I actually own one...
I cannot see any obvious way analog could be more useful than digital, so I'd really like to know why you feel that way about analog. Would you be so kind as to explain your point of view?
You make it sound like it's so easy. Designing a good system for people to be able to submit their content and view that content is harder than you think. And you have to make them want to submit their content in the first place! What's mor, the more successful you become, the harder it becomes to maintain such a system. As nice as this business model sounds, it's no free lunch.
i don't care what happens to him. he picked the wrong side.
You sound awfully like Osama.
He doesn't care what happens to you either. You picked the wrong side.
No - a huge percentage of the population have no idea that sound permanently damages their ears.
I don't think they "have no idea". They do, but they simply think the symptoms won't be affecting them at least for a long long time.
Point is - experience teaches people that you can listen to loud music and your ears may ring but, they get back to "normal" the next day. People can't seem to grasp that hearing damage is cumulative, even when told.
Which further proves my point: "This will solve nothing."
As you said, "people can't seem to grasp that hearing damage is cumulative, even when told."
So why is this so called invention going to change that anytime soon? I don't think they're suddenly going to put on their ear plugs just because the weird gadget says so. The only people that are more likely going to heed the warning are probably already wearing ear plugs!
Most people who listen to loud music do so with full knowledge that listening to music so loud might be bad for their hearing. And they choose to do so anyway. Some sort of device or software that "makes users aware of unsafe volumes" will not do much to stop them from listening at that volume. It's not like most people don't already know. The EU already tried to force iPods to limit their volumes, and European consumers went out of their way to circumvent those restrictions. What's this new invention going to do to try to stop me?
discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong.
While I do not agree that they have the right to force Google to give them this information, I do not believe this privacy justification is really that justified. I think we are all going a bit extreme here whenever this topic appears. First of all, the information they want is not personally identifiable, as in they will not know who searched for these terms. All they will have is a bunch of search terms and their statistics, but no personally identifiable information. This is akin to a hospital releasing statistics of diseases of patients it has diagnosed in the past year and their corresponding mortality rates. For example, I would probably not want anyone to know without my consent if I have AIDS or cancer, but I could hardly say the statistics violated my privacy. I think this whole thing is just a publicity stunt for Google, and a chance for them to display their "commitment" to "do no evil". The privacy concerns have been blown out of proportion. The only legitimate violation of privacy is Google's privacy. Since they have done nothing wrong, I don't think they are in any way obliged to give any information. It's their privacy they're trying to protect, in the name of ours.
'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to a gaming environment manipulated by user inputs on consumer entertainment console systems and their controllers'.
This is quite enough to constitute a patent that's too broad. It essentially authorizes a monopoly on all force feedback game controllers. It is the implementation that shuold be patented, not the idea, and as long as Sony's implementation of vibrating controllers is different it should not be a problem. Otherwise something like 'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to an incoming transmission on portable communications equipment' would effectively require all mobile phone makers to pay royalties.
oh oh oh! but with microsoft, you can win a vacation on the blue sea of death! Can gnuplot win that?
Why is this news? The software is doing exactly what it's supposed to. If you don't like that feature, turn it off. Be exposed to the risks.
Now that's some weird logic. How about I just block your internet connection for you? I guarantee you'll be 100% safe from outside intrusion! And then if you don't like the feature you can just turn it off! Be exposed to the risks! Isn't that great!
No, actually, what the software is really supposed to do is ensure that nothing will happen when startkeylogger is received through IRC.
dear lord.... Africa is now our only hope!
You should dig a littler deeper too...
Click on the image, and you'll see:
"Text - Error Message: Object reference not set to an instance of an object."
China:1, Google:0
I have to wonder, how many people in China are actually unaware of what happened there?
You'd be surprised. The Chinese masses are led to believe that the protesters were rebels who deserved to be killed. Either that, or that the whole thing never happened. Chinese propaganda is dangerously powerful stuff... Don't try it at home...
In other words, to Congress I say, put your god damm money where your mouth is. Take a stand yourself before you start demanding that others do it for you. This is just complete and total scapegoating. Why is this country looking to Google to lead the way on spreading free speech? When did we decide that the spread of the basic freedoms should be privitized? That's all easier said than done. Unfortunately, in the capitalist world, governments (just like corporations) have to put their god damn mouths where the money is, not the other way round. There are lots of "correct" things that governments should do, but never actually get around to doing, mostly because it is not in their national interests (by interests I mean lots of cash, of course). Profit is what drives the capitalist society, my friend, not rightfulness. Money runs the show. Right now, China is where the money is. So much for freedom and liberty. Take care Taiwan, Tibet, and Falun Gong. We'll think of you.... while we count our cash...
Oh, it's idiotic indeed, but that's exactly what they've been doing for the past few years... Generally, new iPods are officially old in just over a month. I know, because we have four in our family, and a month after each time we buy, we wish we had waited. Oh and I forgot to mention that my 4G iPod was officially dead a week after its warranty.