Where/when have I done this, so as to be lumped in with that group?
but then you complain there's only one Android made by Google that nobody even buys and we should ignore all the insecure, unsupported versions that 98% of people own?
I see, you're just trying to build a strawman. Try this on for size.
It is not the fault of Google or Android that manufacturers do not support their devices. Don't like Samsung's device support? Blame Samsung and don't buy Samsung anymore. Don't like LG's device support? Blame LG and don't buy LG anymore. Don't like HTC's device support? Blame HTC and don't buy HTC anymore. I could sit here and list every manufacturer, but I'm sure you get the point by now. Google does not have the same shitty support for the devices they sell directly; their support is actually quite good. That 98% of the population buys from manufacturers that just don't give a shit does not negate that 2% of us have brains and prefer to use them.
Logic fail!
Wow, most people who make those don't manage to identify them before posting. Good on you.
So they broke the pattern for a single release. Good start, let's see if they keep it up. The article you linked to even agrees with me regarding Apple's history of failing support for older iOS devices; if you read the very first sentence, you'd realize that. Here it is, for reference:
In theory, the release of a new OS version from Apple is supposed to be a reason to cheer, but if you own anything but the latest hardware, that’s rarely been the case.
And it's not like I don't have any iOS devices in my home, through which I might actually know what I'm talking about. The Gen1 iPad, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPhone 6 Plus (along with the iPhone 5 it replaced, the iPhone 4 that replaced, and the iPhone 3G that replaced) surely count for nothing. All of the iPads have been mine, while all of the iPhones have been my wife's, though the 1st gen iPad started out as hers and I did actually use the 3G for a few months.
Nope, no experience with iOS devices at all here. None whatsoever. Except for the past 5 and a half years. Of 8 years they've been on the market. So yeah, I might not have been an iOS user from day one, but I'm not unfamiliar with the platform by any measure.
But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?
No. They're not. Which makes the rest of your comment irrelevant. You see, the "s" in "loser" and "lose" has a "z" sound, while it retains its "s" sound in "looser" and "loose". That's ignoring the fact that the definitions differ vastly; "loser pays" implies that whoever loses pays, while "looser pays" might imply that whoever has the looser grip on their wallet must pony up the expenses. Despite the fact that you and I both clearly understood what as meant, a non-native English speaker might be confused by this; that is precisely why the difference between the two words actually does matter.
Further, one definition of "loose" is "set free; release" which, to a non-native English speaker, could indicate that a "looser" is one who has been set free, or released from allegations of malpractice, thus indicating that the winner pays legal expenses. I imagine that would be met with a thought of "stupid Americans make winners pay legal expenses, so nobody actually wins in court" rather than a thought of "silly spelling mistake".
Again, yes, it actually is important; not everybody is familiar enough with our language to be able to catch and correct these errors.
Apple made the claim that iOS is not affected, but these are all carrier-side vulnerabilities that only require the app have the ability to send raw packets to the internet, which can certainly be done from iOS, as well as Windows. It's how VoIP apps work.
Meanwhile, Nexus devices are guaranteed support for 3 years from first sale or 18mo from the final date of sale on Google Play, whichever is longer. I keep seeing claims from iPhone users that "my 4 year old phone has the latest updates" while pointing out the 18mo EOL. It universally turns out that they have the model that was released 4 years prior and not an older model they simply bought 4 years ago, and that model is still being sold. What they fail to recognize is that software support for iOS devices stops the moment Apple stops selling the device (even when carriers may continue selling them for up to a year). Well, that and the fact that, while they might be running the most recent version of iOS, they only get the most recent features on the most recent devices (I'm glaring at iOS9 for the omission of splitscreening on the iPad Air [which I own], which is more than capable of supporting it; and the sad excuse that was given for Siri only being included in iOS for the 4s when it ran just gone on the 3gs as an app before Apple bought the company).
Android, and I mean true android (read: Nexus devices), on the other hand, only leaves out features that require hardware not present in the device. And, with Google's commitment to supporting the devices for a minimum of 18 months Google stops selling them, even with carriers selling the devices for up to a year after that, Nexus devices have support for at least 6 months after their last date of sale. Contrasted with iOS devices, which are still sold for up to a year after software support has ended, well, it's not hard to see why some of us prefer Android (again, Nexus).
From the perspective of the reader wanting to get as much information as quickly as possible, I suppose that's as close to perfect as a headline gets. From the perspective of a publication that wants eyeballs for as long as possible, it's the absolute opposite; something like "All Smartphones with Voice Control Compromised" would be ideal from that perspective. Of course, SEO needs to be considered, as well, in order to get in front of as many eyeballs as possible: "Android iPhone Siri Google Now Radio Hijack Hack Compromise" is about the best you can hope for from that perspective.
The headline we ended up with, I think, strikes a nice balance between the three. It provides enough detail to let the reader know, generally, what it is about while including a few highly-searched keywords and being vague enough that the reader must read at least the summary for more details.
In an ideal world, Slashdot wouldn't have to concern themselves with attracting (via SEO) and keeping (by putting details deeper on the page) eyeballs in order to provide us a service at no charge. However, we do not live in an ideal world and, to add to that, most of us aren't paying Slashdot to provide this service. So long as SEO and "eyeball-time" matter, this headline is fine.
Alright, Mr. Smartguy, care to suggest a better headline?
This headline accurately describes the issue. Of course it lacks the detail required to fully understand the issue, that's what the article is for; the summary should serve to provide enough detail to help determine whether the article might be interesting, and it also succeeds in its job.
There are plenty of opportunities to poke at Slashdot's "editorial" staff. This, however, is not one of them.
Actually, good headline. Had you read the summary, you'd know that this attack requires a wired headset to be plugged in. Essentially (and wihout reading the article as I actually did something similar a few years back), they're sending an AM signal to the device via tha headphone cable at a multiple of the sample rate being used by the device's ADC, fooling it into thinking the radio signal coming throuh the antenna is an audio signal. Rather than try to guess the sample rate, they probably transmit at a multiple of 8000 and 22050hz; 176.4mhz would cover 4000, 8000, 16000, 22050, 24000, 44100, 48000, and 96000hz, actually. IIRC, I used 705.6mhz and only needed a handful of watts; the device could have been made about the size of a small home router including batteries and an in-built mp3 player to relay commands, but battery life would have been short-ish.
What is it about a headset jack that makes a phone a cellphone, again? I mean, I recall having a 47mhz cordless phone with a headset jack. Was that a cellphone? No.
I read it aloud to my wife. Even though I prefaced it with "I uh... can't... just... these words... I... no... word... parsing error" she still asked me if I was having a stroke.
No, but that's because Napster became a legitimate music service which later became Rhapsody, thus it is no longer a filesharing service where this would be possible. There is plenty of.ipa piracy in the jailbreak world; they just use other services that still exist.
It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit.
And yet RGJ discussed it in the form of publishing their own article which, by and large, corroborates the story Tesla tells. In fact, they go one step further than Tesla's story, which mentioned the Sheriff arresting their photographer, and actually quote the Sheriff commenting negatively about their photographer.
You're forgetting the Sheriff who arrested one of the photographers. I'm also quite acutely aware of how complicated the newspaper's biases are; the photographer who was driving the van (e.g. the one who was arrested) was acting as their agent, in their behalf. Why, then, would they publish an article heavily slanted against their photographer and, thus, themselves, if Tesla was in the wrong?
Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.
Of course, when the news organization is presenting third-party information. In this case, both sources were party to the incident being reported; first-party sources are where the true story comes from.
Well, we have reports from both sides. Those reports agree with each other, the reporters are at fault. You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.
Well, when there is a dispute and you have reports from both sides, that's about as close to the full story as you're going to get. When reports from both sides agree about what happened, especially when one side reports negatively about their own involvement, the stories are much less suspect. Do you have a better source available?
Well, having read both articles, both sides are telling the same story; if neither are telling the whole truth, they're both hiding the same information and/or telling the same lies. What to make of that...
I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them. In an effort to be as fair as possible to the RGJ reporters involved, I referred to only the RGJ article when making this assessment; their own publication paints them in a negative light using the county sheriff, who arrested the driver and charged him with battery with a deadly weapon, as a source.
I'll just assume you didn't read either article, then. And even if you are correct and the security agents "broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt", the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.
Your vehicle was damaged in the course of committing criminal trespass and vehicular assault? Count your blessings that you aren't being charged with attempted murder.
Slashdot Mirror
Open, that's what all you nerds brag about
Where/when have I done this, so as to be lumped in with that group?
but then you complain there's only one Android made by Google that nobody even buys and we should ignore all the insecure, unsupported versions that 98% of people own?
I see, you're just trying to build a strawman. Try this on for size.
It is not the fault of Google or Android that manufacturers do not support their devices. Don't like Samsung's device support? Blame Samsung and don't buy Samsung anymore. Don't like LG's device support? Blame LG and don't buy LG anymore. Don't like HTC's device support? Blame HTC and don't buy HTC anymore. I could sit here and list every manufacturer, but I'm sure you get the point by now. Google does not have the same shitty support for the devices they sell directly; their support is actually quite good. That 98% of the population buys from manufacturers that just don't give a shit does not negate that 2% of us have brains and prefer to use them.
Logic fail!
Wow, most people who make those don't manage to identify them before posting. Good on you.
In theory, the release of a new OS version from Apple is supposed to be a reason to cheer, but if you own anything but the latest hardware, that’s rarely been the case.
And it's not like I don't have any iOS devices in my home, through which I might actually know what I'm talking about. The Gen1 iPad, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPhone 6 Plus (along with the iPhone 5 it replaced, the iPhone 4 that replaced, and the iPhone 3G that replaced) surely count for nothing. All of the iPads have been mine, while all of the iPhones have been my wife's, though the 1st gen iPad started out as hers and I did actually use the 3G for a few months.
Nope, no experience with iOS devices at all here. None whatsoever. Except for the past 5 and a half years. Of 8 years they've been on the market. So yeah, I might not have been an iOS user from day one, but I'm not unfamiliar with the platform by any measure.
Save your weak arguments for Android zealots.
But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?
No. They're not. Which makes the rest of your comment irrelevant. You see, the "s" in "loser" and "lose" has a "z" sound, while it retains its "s" sound in "looser" and "loose". That's ignoring the fact that the definitions differ vastly; "loser pays" implies that whoever loses pays, while "looser pays" might imply that whoever has the looser grip on their wallet must pony up the expenses. Despite the fact that you and I both clearly understood what as meant, a non-native English speaker might be confused by this; that is precisely why the difference between the two words actually does matter.
Further, one definition of "loose" is "set free; release" which, to a non-native English speaker, could indicate that a "looser" is one who has been set free, or released from allegations of malpractice, thus indicating that the winner pays legal expenses. I imagine that would be met with a thought of "stupid Americans make winners pay legal expenses, so nobody actually wins in court" rather than a thought of "silly spelling mistake".
Again, yes, it actually is important; not everybody is familiar enough with our language to be able to catch and correct these errors.
Apple made the claim that iOS is not affected, but these are all carrier-side vulnerabilities that only require the app have the ability to send raw packets to the internet, which can certainly be done from iOS, as well as Windows. It's how VoIP apps work.
But they run. Or so I hear.
Meanwhile, Nexus devices are guaranteed support for 3 years from first sale or 18mo from the final date of sale on Google Play, whichever is longer. I keep seeing claims from iPhone users that "my 4 year old phone has the latest updates" while pointing out the 18mo EOL. It universally turns out that they have the model that was released 4 years prior and not an older model they simply bought 4 years ago, and that model is still being sold. What they fail to recognize is that software support for iOS devices stops the moment Apple stops selling the device (even when carriers may continue selling them for up to a year). Well, that and the fact that, while they might be running the most recent version of iOS, they only get the most recent features on the most recent devices (I'm glaring at iOS9 for the omission of splitscreening on the iPad Air [which I own], which is more than capable of supporting it; and the sad excuse that was given for Siri only being included in iOS for the 4s when it ran just gone on the 3gs as an app before Apple bought the company).
Android, and I mean true android (read: Nexus devices), on the other hand, only leaves out features that require hardware not present in the device. And, with Google's commitment to supporting the devices for a minimum of 18 months Google stops selling them, even with carriers selling the devices for up to a year after that, Nexus devices have support for at least 6 months after their last date of sale. Contrasted with iOS devices, which are still sold for up to a year after software support has ended, well, it's not hard to see why some of us prefer Android (again, Nexus).
Loser.
I agree with your assessment, but... Loser.
That is to say, your grasp of the English language seems to be much looser than mine.
From the perspective of the reader wanting to get as much information as quickly as possible, I suppose that's as close to perfect as a headline gets. From the perspective of a publication that wants eyeballs for as long as possible, it's the absolute opposite; something like "All Smartphones with Voice Control Compromised" would be ideal from that perspective. Of course, SEO needs to be considered, as well, in order to get in front of as many eyeballs as possible: "Android iPhone Siri Google Now Radio Hijack Hack Compromise" is about the best you can hope for from that perspective.
The headline we ended up with, I think, strikes a nice balance between the three. It provides enough detail to let the reader know, generally, what it is about while including a few highly-searched keywords and being vague enough that the reader must read at least the summary for more details.
In an ideal world, Slashdot wouldn't have to concern themselves with attracting (via SEO) and keeping (by putting details deeper on the page) eyeballs in order to provide us a service at no charge. However, we do not live in an ideal world and, to add to that, most of us aren't paying Slashdot to provide this service. So long as SEO and "eyeball-time" matter, this headline is fine.
Alright, Mr. Smartguy, care to suggest a better headline?
This headline accurately describes the issue. Of course it lacks the detail required to fully understand the issue, that's what the article is for; the summary should serve to provide enough detail to help determine whether the article might be interesting, and it also succeeds in its job.
There are plenty of opportunities to poke at Slashdot's "editorial" staff. This, however, is not one of them.
Actually, good headline. Had you read the summary, you'd know that this attack requires a wired headset to be plugged in. Essentially (and wihout reading the article as I actually did something similar a few years back), they're sending an AM signal to the device via tha headphone cable at a multiple of the sample rate being used by the device's ADC, fooling it into thinking the radio signal coming throuh the antenna is an audio signal. Rather than try to guess the sample rate, they probably transmit at a multiple of 8000 and 22050hz; 176.4mhz would cover 4000, 8000, 16000, 22050, 24000, 44100, 48000, and 96000hz, actually. IIRC, I used 705.6mhz and only needed a handful of watts; the device could have been made about the size of a small home router including batteries and an in-built mp3 player to relay commands, but battery life would have been short-ish.
What is it about a headset jack that makes a phone a cellphone, again? I mean, I recall having a 47mhz cordless phone with a headset jack. Was that a cellphone? No.
and no, it wasn't finally discovered because it was OSS, but buy automated testing that works equally well on closed source
But the fix was able to be independently verified because it is OSS.
I read it aloud to my wife. Even though I prefaced it with "I uh... can't... just... these words... I... no... word... parsing error" she still asked me if I was having a stroke.
You mean the opt-in telemetry reporting that you have to enable during install? Spying is typically much more covert than that.
Through their partnership with T-Mobile, quite a few, actually.
You don't see people going Napster with iOS apps
No, but that's because Napster became a legitimate music service which later became Rhapsody, thus it is no longer a filesharing service where this would be possible. There is plenty of .ipa piracy in the jailbreak world; they just use other services that still exist.
If what has been reported is to believed from Teslas side, it won't likely matter.
Well, given that RGJ's published account of the events agrees with Tesla's, I'm leaning in that direction.
It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit.
And yet RGJ discussed it in the form of publishing their own article which, by and large, corroborates the story Tesla tells. In fact, they go one step further than Tesla's story, which mentioned the Sheriff arresting their photographer, and actually quote the Sheriff commenting negatively about their photographer.
You're forgetting the Sheriff who arrested one of the photographers. I'm also quite acutely aware of how complicated the newspaper's biases are; the photographer who was driving the van (e.g. the one who was arrested) was acting as their agent, in their behalf. Why, then, would they publish an article heavily slanted against their photographer and, thus, themselves, if Tesla was in the wrong?
LULZ. There is so much irony in your post that I can only assume you're going for a +5, Funny. I hope.
Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.
Of course, when the news organization is presenting third-party information. In this case, both sources were party to the incident being reported; first-party sources are where the true story comes from.
Well, we have reports from both sides. Those reports agree with each other, the reporters are at fault. You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.
Well, when there is a dispute and you have reports from both sides, that's about as close to the full story as you're going to get. When reports from both sides agree about what happened, especially when one side reports negatively about their own involvement, the stories are much less suspect. Do you have a better source available?
Well, having read both articles, both sides are telling the same story; if neither are telling the whole truth, they're both hiding the same information and/or telling the same lies. What to make of that...
I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them. In an effort to be as fair as possible to the RGJ reporters involved, I referred to only the RGJ article when making this assessment; their own publication paints them in a negative light using the county sheriff, who arrested the driver and charged him with battery with a deadly weapon, as a source.
I'll just assume you didn't read either article, then. And even if you are correct and the security agents "broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt", the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.
Your vehicle was damaged in the course of committing criminal trespass and vehicular assault? Count your blessings that you aren't being charged with attempted murder.