After reading the article, the other linked article, and the comments posted on the linked site, I have to ask what's more likely here: that approximately 30 people out of 100+ millions of iTunes users have infected systems with key-loggers and were phished, or that the App Store has some huge security problem?
Only the title. Having read the review of the study (not the 100 page study itself) it seems that the study is a comparison of the various forms of energy production in the U.S. The study shows that natural gas is comparatively the cheapest bridge source for electricity production in terms of both cost (dollars) to produce and cost (in CO2, etc) to the environment. So my question was, why the focus on natural gas at all in the title? It may seem like a small thing, but in terms of presentation to the public it's huge. The title they used reads like an ad for the gas industry. Whereas, they could have chosen an unbiased title to give the study more credibility.
Granted, the average Android user is a step above the average Facebook user, BUT, that's pretty much exactly what Facebook apps do and the majority of users click right on through. While we might wish that the general public understood the most basic tenets of information security, they don't, and the Android marketplace is, after all, for (predominantly) the general public (or at least the business side of it, which is only slightly better when it comes to IS).
Re:Oh good! The trolls are out in full force!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And the other 80% of the cellphone market that uses subscription crapware I can only get through the telco is different how?
You're welcome - but if you're using your phone as a computer, then you seriously need to set it down and step outside for an hour or ten. Hug a tree. Take a walk. Find a girl... okay, maybe that last is a bit unrealistic, but you get the idea. Starbucks will still be there when you get back, along with an email coupon for a free latte.
They are not buying a guy for use in the military... which would be to kill people. They are buying a gun for use outside of the military. I'm not at all worried about the army major with a gun to do his job, I'm worried about that same guy bringing his work home with him.
The army employs people to do something that is completely unacceptable any place else within our society. So someone using a gun within the confines and regulations that go along with a military career is different than the same person wanting a gun for personal use. In the later sense, they should be treated NO differently than anyone else.
I really don't understand this attitude. There aren't "plenty of other companies to choose from", there are _maybe_ FOUR of any quality and coverage, and they all do the same thing. Simply taking the 'regulation bad, freedom good' line is moronic. Complaining about telco atrocities is almost a standard pastime here on Slashdot, yet when someone suggests a possible solution via actually forcing the telcos to stop raping the consumer the response is 'no regulation'? WTF?! Like they are going to suddenly get all warm and fuzzy and do it on their own?
We seriously need a federal regulation making blocking of excessive fees ($5,000 increase in phone bill due to teenage txting) automatic. Allow the user to put a definable cap on their bill which requires a phone call to the telco to exceed. "I never want to pay more than $300 on my bill." It would cut off all but emergency service and calls to the telco itself if it hit the cap. It could even cut off all but voice service as the cap was approached.
Verizon does allow users to turn on and off various blocking services on their website, but more people don't care enough to even make that much of a decision.
Sorry to pick nits, but why would being an army major make it more or less acceptable to buy a gun? The fact that you might know how to use a gun has absolutely no bearing on your the level of psychotic behavior (beyond the negative implications of PTSD). It certainly doesn't mean that you would make a better candidate for ownership, or that you are ANY less likely to use it for a violent crime (quite the opposite actually).
That is interesting. Of course, one could say that now about any major news outlet. Fox news (cough) can basically say what they want to (and they do) regardless of actual facts. They can cover the stories they choose and exclude others at will. Is that not censorship?
The thing to me is that "apps" were never intended as a content medium. Sure, you CAN use them that way, but it's really a poor way to do so. It's slow (approval), and a lousy format (only works on Apple's stuff). The reason it's hot is because you have limited competition, high visibility, and an easy way to have people pay for your content.
iBooks, especially now that they support PDF, seems like a much better way to distribute actual content. Perhaps the whole censoring issue will evaporate as iBooks ramps up.
The problem may be that Apple (or rather developers using Apple) is presenting Apps as a content distribution media (iTunes). People with content that could easily be placed on the (unrestricted) web, are choosing to use Apps as a means of selling their wares. I doubt very much that Apple will restrict what books it sells on the iBooks store based on their content. Or maybe they will.
Wait... you actually believe that if I replace my entire engine in a car still under warrantee, that the dealer is going to honor that warrantee to replace something that fails that has ANYTHING at all to do with the engine? You're dreaming. Seriously. I have actually had mechanics tell me that many dealers REQUIRE you to get those mindless "first three oil changes for free at the dealer" or they will try to say that problems are your fault for using sub-grade oil changes.
The point was, THIS IS APPLE'S CAR. Yes, you own it, but it's their mechanic. Their design. Their plumbing. And we sign on with that when we buy the damn thing. Just because we might LIKE to be able to use a third-party mechanic or a third party carburetor, doesn't mean that they can't turn around and say, sorry, that's not covered.
True, but then Ford can turn around and say, "Sorry, you voided your warranty by using a third party engine." I think that analogy works with Apple as well. It's basically saying, no, you void your warranty if you use analytics.
You apparently missed the discussion I was referring to. You are correct about PDF's. They don't reflow well and they are designed for predefined page layout. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT. There are many types of books that do NOT do well with reflowing their content (technical papers, comic books, etc), and epub is a lousy format to try and force them into. Most books work just fine with epub, but certainly not all, and that was the major debate among publishers. Of course, they all want to make a new proprietary format of their own that everyone ELSE takes up, which is why there is such a push in the open formats community for epub. But including the option for PDF's in the iBook store fills that void and makes the discussion moot. And that, incidentally, is why the new announcement is important.
Re:This kinda tells about power of your brand...
on
Apple Announces iPhone 4
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, people should be in awe - and if you're Amazon you should be shitting your pants. One of the big debates lately in the publishing industry has been in regards to a unified format. Allowing PDF's in the iBooks part of iTunes basically makes that a moot point. Brilliant on Apple's part, and a death knell for traditional publishing.
Bullshit. That's how shareholders would LIKE it to be, but any corporation has to work within the confines of the law. In reality, corporate heads forget this when they see steep upward profit graphs, but that doesn't make it right.
Facebook screwed up. The CEO knows this, which is why he has recently gone public and tried to do a 180 on his stance on privacy. Can you say suck up?
And your right, yohong's link is fantastic... but he wasn't rebutting my post. It was yours.
And the technology remains almost the same. Sure, they have made slight improvements to quality, but if you're printing photos, it's ultimately cheaper and better to get them run off at CostCo. They won't fade or smear at the slightest drop of water, and they can do hundreds in an hour. For day to day printing needs, the printer market is mostly the same as it was a decade (even two) ago. There are lots of useless gimmicks (Instant print and card preview built into printers) but about the only 'feature' that I have felt even deserves real mention is adding wireless access. Where's the improvement in paper trays and feed? (25 sheets before you have to refill?? WTF?) Where's the bulk ink or toner system? All-in-one printers are nice and all, but why not make a printer that can do 11x14 scanning and printing? If it's inkjet tech, this is a no brainer? Where's the good stuff?!
Your street corner analogy fails because I never expected that I was standing in the open. From the very beginning, Facebook promised it's members again and again that their personal information could and would be kept private. Then they basically went and shared it with anyone who was willing to pay them for it. To use a slightly modified version of your analogy, it's like having a private wedding reception at a nice hotel. You invite a few dozen of your closest friends, but then the hotel opens the doors and invites in anyone who walks by on the street. You can try to close the doors, but the hotel then just opens one in the back.
Facebook's problem is not just that they have a crappy privacy policy, but that they administer it in a blatantly deceptive way, to people who may not even be old enough to understand the implications of what they are doing.
IANAL, but having an "open" network does not mean that everyone is legally free to use it. It just means that it isn't protected. Unless the owner of that network specifically says that it is freely "open to the public for use", I would assume that such packet sniffing would fall under standard wiretapping laws.
Slashdot Mirror
but then, I'm a lefty. Maybe we southpaws take a hit on reception, but get a bonus on the proximity issue.
After reading the article, the other linked article, and the comments posted on the linked site, I have to ask what's more likely here: that approximately 30 people out of 100+ millions of iTunes users have infected systems with key-loggers and were phished, or that the App Store has some huge security problem?
Just saying.
Do the various "services" have to be able to communicate with any kind of "IT product"?
Only the title. Having read the review of the study (not the 100 page study itself) it seems that the study is a comparison of the various forms of energy production in the U.S. The study shows that natural gas is comparatively the cheapest bridge source for electricity production in terms of both cost (dollars) to produce and cost (in CO2, etc) to the environment. So my question was, why the focus on natural gas at all in the title? It may seem like a small thing, but in terms of presentation to the public it's huge. The title they used reads like an ad for the gas industry. Whereas, they could have chosen an unbiased title to give the study more credibility.
Yes, it's a study. Hopefully, it's a scientific study. Are you too lunkheaded to understand basic scientific method?
So, is this just an advertisement for the natural gas industry? Why not title it something like, "The Future of Energy Production in the U.S.'?
Granted, the average Android user is a step above the average Facebook user, BUT, that's pretty much exactly what Facebook apps do and the majority of users click right on through. While we might wish that the general public understood the most basic tenets of information security, they don't, and the Android marketplace is, after all, for (predominantly) the general public (or at least the business side of it, which is only slightly better when it comes to IS).
And the other 80% of the cellphone market that uses subscription crapware I can only get through the telco is different how?
Dear Walt,
You're welcome - but if you're using your phone as a computer, then you seriously need to set it down and step outside for an hour or ten. Hug a tree. Take a walk. Find a girl... okay, maybe that last is a bit unrealistic, but you get the idea. Starbucks will still be there when you get back, along with an email coupon for a free latte.
Magically,
Steve
They are not buying a guy for use in the military... which would be to kill people. They are buying a gun for use outside of the military. I'm not at all worried about the army major with a gun to do his job, I'm worried about that same guy bringing his work home with him.
The army employs people to do something that is completely unacceptable any place else within our society. So someone using a gun within the confines and regulations that go along with a military career is different than the same person wanting a gun for personal use. In the later sense, they should be treated NO differently than anyone else.
I really don't understand this attitude. There aren't "plenty of other companies to choose from", there are _maybe_ FOUR of any quality and coverage, and they all do the same thing. Simply taking the 'regulation bad, freedom good' line is moronic. Complaining about telco atrocities is almost a standard pastime here on Slashdot, yet when someone suggests a possible solution via actually forcing the telcos to stop raping the consumer the response is 'no regulation'? WTF?! Like they are going to suddenly get all warm and fuzzy and do it on their own?
We seriously need a federal regulation making blocking of excessive fees ($5,000 increase in phone bill due to teenage txting) automatic. Allow the user to put a definable cap on their bill which requires a phone call to the telco to exceed. "I never want to pay more than $300 on my bill." It would cut off all but emergency service and calls to the telco itself if it hit the cap. It could even cut off all but voice service as the cap was approached.
Verizon does allow users to turn on and off various blocking services on their website, but more people don't care enough to even make that much of a decision.
Sorry to pick nits, but why would being an army major make it more or less acceptable to buy a gun? The fact that you might know how to use a gun has absolutely no bearing on your the level of psychotic behavior (beyond the negative implications of PTSD). It certainly doesn't mean that you would make a better candidate for ownership, or that you are ANY less likely to use it for a violent crime (quite the opposite actually).
I agree with the rest though.
That is interesting. Of course, one could say that now about any major news outlet. Fox news (cough) can basically say what they want to (and they do) regardless of actual facts. They can cover the stories they choose and exclude others at will. Is that not censorship?
The thing to me is that "apps" were never intended as a content medium. Sure, you CAN use them that way, but it's really a poor way to do so. It's slow (approval), and a lousy format (only works on Apple's stuff). The reason it's hot is because you have limited competition, high visibility, and an easy way to have people pay for your content.
iBooks, especially now that they support PDF, seems like a much better way to distribute actual content. Perhaps the whole censoring issue will evaporate as iBooks ramps up.
I didn't say ebook APP, I said iBooks, as in the epub books Apple sells on the iBooks section of iTunes. That was the whole point.
The problem may be that Apple (or rather developers using Apple) is presenting Apps as a content distribution media (iTunes). People with content that could easily be placed on the (unrestricted) web, are choosing to use Apps as a means of selling their wares. I doubt very much that Apple will restrict what books it sells on the iBooks store based on their content. Or maybe they will.
How is this different than say, Apple wanting to us it's own analytic engine on Google?
Wait... you actually believe that if I replace my entire engine in a car still under warrantee, that the dealer is going to honor that warrantee to replace something that fails that has ANYTHING at all to do with the engine? You're dreaming. Seriously. I have actually had mechanics tell me that many dealers REQUIRE you to get those mindless "first three oil changes for free at the dealer" or they will try to say that problems are your fault for using sub-grade oil changes.
The point was, THIS IS APPLE'S CAR. Yes, you own it, but it's their mechanic. Their design. Their plumbing. And we sign on with that when we buy the damn thing. Just because we might LIKE to be able to use a third-party mechanic or a third party carburetor, doesn't mean that they can't turn around and say, sorry, that's not covered.
True, but then Ford can turn around and say, "Sorry, you voided your warranty by using a third party engine." I think that analogy works with Apple as well. It's basically saying, no, you void your warranty if you use analytics.
You apparently missed the discussion I was referring to. You are correct about PDF's. They don't reflow well and they are designed for predefined page layout. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT. There are many types of books that do NOT do well with reflowing their content (technical papers, comic books, etc), and epub is a lousy format to try and force them into. Most books work just fine with epub, but certainly not all, and that was the major debate among publishers. Of course, they all want to make a new proprietary format of their own that everyone ELSE takes up, which is why there is such a push in the open formats community for epub. But including the option for PDF's in the iBook store fills that void and makes the discussion moot. And that, incidentally, is why the new announcement is important.
Actually, people should be in awe - and if you're Amazon you should be shitting your pants. One of the big debates lately in the publishing industry has been in regards to a unified format. Allowing PDF's in the iBooks part of iTunes basically makes that a moot point. Brilliant on Apple's part, and a death knell for traditional publishing.
Bullshit. That's how shareholders would LIKE it to be, but any corporation has to work within the confines of the law. In reality, corporate heads forget this when they see steep upward profit graphs, but that doesn't make it right.
Facebook screwed up. The CEO knows this, which is why he has recently gone public and tried to do a 180 on his stance on privacy. Can you say suck up?
And your right, yohong's link is fantastic... but he wasn't rebutting my post. It was yours.
And the technology remains almost the same. Sure, they have made slight improvements to quality, but if you're printing photos, it's ultimately cheaper and better to get them run off at CostCo. They won't fade or smear at the slightest drop of water, and they can do hundreds in an hour. For day to day printing needs, the printer market is mostly the same as it was a decade (even two) ago. There are lots of useless gimmicks (Instant print and card preview built into printers) but about the only 'feature' that I have felt even deserves real mention is adding wireless access. Where's the improvement in paper trays and feed? (25 sheets before you have to refill?? WTF?) Where's the bulk ink or toner system? All-in-one printers are nice and all, but why not make a printer that can do 11x14 scanning and printing? If it's inkjet tech, this is a no brainer? Where's the good stuff?!
Your street corner analogy fails because I never expected that I was standing in the open. From the very beginning, Facebook promised it's members again and again that their personal information could and would be kept private. Then they basically went and shared it with anyone who was willing to pay them for it. To use a slightly modified version of your analogy, it's like having a private wedding reception at a nice hotel. You invite a few dozen of your closest friends, but then the hotel opens the doors and invites in anyone who walks by on the street. You can try to close the doors, but the hotel then just opens one in the back.
Facebook's problem is not just that they have a crappy privacy policy, but that they administer it in a blatantly deceptive way, to people who may not even be old enough to understand the implications of what they are doing.
IANAL, but having an "open" network does not mean that everyone is legally free to use it. It just means that it isn't protected. Unless the owner of that network specifically says that it is freely "open to the public for use", I would assume that such packet sniffing would fall under standard wiretapping laws.