Wouldn't it be the case that, for people with rooted devices, patching the vulnerability would be as simple as copying a couple library files into/system/lib or somewhere?
So what about the other 99.999999999999999999999999999% of Android users that wouldn't know how to Root their phone, or even what that means, if their lives literally depended on it?
Until there's an actual wide-scale exploit that hits vulnerable users, the carriers aren't going to care. They'd rather sell you a new phone and contract than keep supporting old devices that are off contract.
Even though there seem to be a fair amount of vulnerabilities and Android is the leading platform for most, if not all of the world, there really haven't been any huge exploits or massive attacks similar to what we saw back in the heyday of Windows and any large outbreaks that have occurred seem mostly limited to China.
Pray tell, how can you KNOW that your personal data hasn't been siphoned off your Android (besides leaving it "off" in the drawer, or in "Airplane Mode")?
Unlike in the 90s, pretty much ALL exploits want to do is suck down your personal data, not delete it. The former is fairly hard for the average person to discover, until it's far, far too late...
Interestingly enough, I notice the lack of three people who constantly scream about their iDevices and how glorious they are. Ah well... I don't have anything against Apple but I do find some of their believers to be a bit much. I'd think it a bit more honest of them to come in here and accept the music rather than trying to minimize it or ignore it.
Yeah, it has a security issue. So? Everything out there probably does. Give someone incentive and it will be found. Nothing is secure. Blindly following a greedy corporation is just silly.
Well, if it is only accessible through Chrome, then it is more likely a Chrome vulnerability than an iOS one. But it still sounds fairly "real".
The question is, is this something that is exploitable as a "Drive-By", or does it have so many moving parts that the only people that will be "exploited" will be those who WANT to JailBreak their iPhones?
in ways unintended by the manufacturer
It works that way, it was manufactured, it passed QA and was sold. Of course it was intended to work that way. Q.E.D.
What a maroon!
Just because something SLIPS THROUGH QA, doesn't mean it was INTENDED.
Fucking Fucktard.
And then you have the hubris to feign knowledge of Latin...
Being too lazy to sort through the issues is not the same as having no choice. Besides, it's the user's responsibility to follow the law, not Google's.
You MIGHT be right; and EVENTUALLY a COURT might agree... But multiply that "Eventually" by however many lawsuits it COULD generate, and I think that a REASONABLE person (which you don't appear to be, BTW) would understand Google's position.
So, stop being a CHEAPSKATE, and use a non-free method for your recordings, and you'll be able to do whatever SCAM you have in mind.
Or, here's a thought: Just TELL the other party(ies) that you are recording.
You have a choice: Don't use Google Voice, FFS!
Newsflash! The world does NOT owe you "Free" methods for everything you want to do. Or, here's a thought: Since you are OBVIOUSLY smarter than everyone else, why don't you just write your OWN version of Google Voice? Then you can make it do whatever you want.
I think you may be misunderstanding. I'm not trying to stop Google Voice from recording the call; quite the opposite: I'm trying to turn call recording on, but when I do, Google Voice plays a message (that the other person can hear) saying "this call is now being recorded" or similar. I want it to record the call, but not play that message since I'm under no obligation to notify the other party that I'm recording.
Slashdot ate my carefully-crafted response, but...
Google has no choice, because of the variability of audio-recording consent laws state to state (12 U.S. States require all parties to consent) and country to country (????), let alone if video is involved. Now, add to that the fact that, with things like VPNs, etc., any party can EASILY be in one place in meatspace, and APPEAR to be placing (or participating) in a recorded conversation from a completely different place.
No, Google just can't get in the middle of a legal battle like that.
Hence the Beep. If I were Google, I'd have it, too. And so would you.
I'm not aware of the politics in this, are they saying the systemd people are rude, or that they just refuse to make their code compatible?
Both.
People have found bugs that make systemd incompatible with existing programs, and rather than fix the bugs in systemd, the systemd people responded that the people who found the bugs should work around systemd and systemd didn't need to be compatible with existing code.
Basically systemd completely wrecks the UNIX way and makes the distros that use it absolutely unmaintainable if you're a sysadmin.
Would you like some Cheese with that WHINE?
Apple, the creator of launchd, of which systemd is a (bad) clone, have been using launchd since OS X 10.4 (Tiger), pretty much without a hitch, and CERTAINLY without all the wringing-of-hands and gnashing-of-teeth that all the supposedly code-savvy Linux Devs on this forum have expressed for what, like two YEARS now?
I won't say that there has NEVER been an OS X Dev. bitch about having to change their code to work with launchd; but it's not anything like this ridiculous Holy War against systemd!
Get OVER yourselves! I have NEVER seen such a bunch of immature POSERS in all my 40 years as an embedded developer!
No, because then they would look completely incompetent for being pretty much the only major paid streaming content provider that didn't have an app ready on or around the day that the first Apple TV shipped.
This already happened. On sale now. It supports apps and plex announced that they will build an app. It will be interesting to see if Amazon follows suit (I'm guessing not).
He trolls almost every thread with political hate. Just another deer caught in GOP headlights knowing Dems are doomed come 2016 due to a president who actually managed to piss off the nation worse than Bush Jr (no small feat), and the weak corrupt socialist candidates Dems are propping up like cardboard cut outs for target practice when the real pie throwing contest begins.
I'm not a Republicrat or a Demlican; but I don't think the R's have anything particularly to crow about in their comically-huge candidate lineup, either.
iOS != tvOS (jeez, what an inspired name, Apple - almost as inspired as "Apple TV"...) And regardless of the APIs, it's a totally different screen/UI and input method.
Sure, there is nothing clever about the name "Apple TV". Or about "Apple Watch", for example. But potential customers know immediately that it is an Apple product, and it has something to do with TV or Watch. Just like "iPhone" tells you it is a phone. And not just _any_ phone, but an iPhone. There are fewer people saying "That's a clever name", but more people saying "I'll buy that".
And the proof of that marketing genius is that almost everyone who is non-technical refers to ANY Tablet as an iPad, and a good many refer to ANY Smartphone as an iPhone.
iOS != tvOS (jeez, what an inspired name, Apple - almost as inspired as "Apple TV"...) And regardless of the APIs, it's a totally different screen/UI and input method.
Oh, cry me a river! Amazon didn't write the first iOS App. They contracted an iOS Developer Team to do it. Same with a TVOS App. And I took a look at the APIs for TVOS, and they are pretty straightforward. So what they have to refactor a bit of the App; that's what happens.
There really isn't an excuse for Chromecast, but not supporting or selling Apple TV makes perfect sense.
Only a complete Apple Fanboy could complain about a streaming service not supporting Apple TV as an ANTITRUST issue, since the main reason streaming services don't support Apple TV is that Apple wants to take 30% of their GROSS on every transaction if they do "support" it.
Shut up, fool. Apple do not sell Amazon products in their store, neither do google. You're just another Apple zealot, whaa whaaa whaaa, Apple apple apple kiss kiss kiss.
They CERTAINLY Offer Amazon's APPs in their App Store.
I have had a Kindle App on my iPad for years. Don't use it, because it feels like one big advertisement. But it's there.
Same with the Amazon Prime TV App (whatever it's called). It has been on the Apple App Store for however long since they submitted it.
Slashdot Mirror
Try this.
Boy, was THAT hard. Took longer to prune the URL of it's unnecessary tracking bullshit than to do the search.
I have a 2.5 year old phone that I otherwise love and while it's EOL, I still use it extensively.
The idea that a phone can be not even 3 years old and not have any hope of getting updates is something I balk STRONGLY at.
I have a solution for that...
Wouldn't it be the case that, for people with rooted devices, patching the vulnerability would be as simple as copying a couple library files into /system/lib or somewhere?
So what about the other 99.999999999999999999999999999% of Android users that wouldn't know how to Root their phone, or even what that means, if their lives literally depended on it?
Until there's an actual wide-scale exploit that hits vulnerable users, the carriers aren't going to care. They'd rather sell you a new phone and contract than keep supporting old devices that are off contract. Even though there seem to be a fair amount of vulnerabilities and Android is the leading platform for most, if not all of the world, there really haven't been any huge exploits or massive attacks similar to what we saw back in the heyday of Windows and any large outbreaks that have occurred seem mostly limited to China.
Pray tell, how can you KNOW that your personal data hasn't been siphoned off your Android (besides leaving it "off" in the drawer, or in "Airplane Mode")?
Unlike in the 90s, pretty much ALL exploits want to do is suck down your personal data, not delete it. The former is fairly hard for the average person to discover, until it's far, far too late...
As many have already pointed out before, Chrome on iOS is just a skin for Safari since Apple doesn't allow 3rd party browser engines.
Um, apparently NOT; since Safari doesn't do it, and Chrome does.
Man, listen to what are you saying. Months ago a simple crafted SMS message would instantly reboot the iPhone
From what I heard from people trying it, it was anything BUT "simple crafted".
Interestingly enough, I notice the lack of three people who constantly scream about their iDevices and how glorious they are. Ah well... I don't have anything against Apple but I do find some of their believers to be a bit much. I'd think it a bit more honest of them to come in here and accept the music rather than trying to minimize it or ignore it.
Yeah, it has a security issue. So? Everything out there probably does. Give someone incentive and it will be found. Nothing is secure. Blindly following a greedy corporation is just silly.
Well, if it is only accessible through Chrome, then it is more likely a Chrome vulnerability than an iOS one. But it still sounds fairly "real".
;-)
The question is, is this something that is exploitable as a "Drive-By", or does it have so many moving parts that the only people that will be "exploited" will be those who WANT to JailBreak their iPhones?
Oh, and now, who were the other two?
Yeah, now they have to pay a few million to have it delivered to them on a silver platter. What a bummer!
If you're talking about the NSA, You mean:
"Yeah, now we have to pay a few million to have it delivered to them on a silver platter."
FTFY.
in ways unintended by the manufacturer It works that way, it was manufactured, it passed QA and was sold. Of course it was intended to work that way. Q.E.D.
What a maroon!
Just because something SLIPS THROUGH QA, doesn't mean it was INTENDED.
Fucking Fucktard.
And then you have the hubris to feign knowledge of Latin...
Being too lazy to sort through the issues is not the same as having no choice. Besides, it's the user's responsibility to follow the law, not Google's.
You MIGHT be right; and EVENTUALLY a COURT might agree... But multiply that "Eventually" by however many lawsuits it COULD generate, and I think that a REASONABLE person (which you don't appear to be, BTW) would understand Google's position.
So, stop being a CHEAPSKATE, and use a non-free method for your recordings, and you'll be able to do whatever SCAM you have in mind.
Or, here's a thought: Just TELL the other party(ies) that you are recording.
You have a choice: Don't use Google Voice, FFS!
Newsflash! The world does NOT owe you "Free" methods for everything you want to do. Or, here's a thought: Since you are OBVIOUSLY smarter than everyone else, why don't you just write your OWN version of Google Voice? Then you can make it do whatever you want.
I think you may be misunderstanding. I'm not trying to stop Google Voice from recording the call; quite the opposite: I'm trying to turn call recording on, but when I do, Google Voice plays a message (that the other person can hear) saying "this call is now being recorded" or similar. I want it to record the call, but not play that message since I'm under no obligation to notify the other party that I'm recording.
Slashdot ate my carefully-crafted response, but...
Google has no choice, because of the variability of audio-recording consent laws state to state (12 U.S. States require all parties to consent) and country to country (????), let alone if video is involved. Now, add to that the fact that, with things like VPNs, etc., any party can EASILY be in one place in meatspace, and APPEAR to be placing (or participating) in a recorded conversation from a completely different place.
No, Google just can't get in the middle of a legal battle like that.
Hence the Beep. If I were Google, I'd have it, too. And so would you.
I'm not aware of the politics in this, are they saying the systemd people are rude, or that they just refuse to make their code compatible?
Both.
People have found bugs that make systemd incompatible with existing programs, and rather than fix the bugs in systemd, the systemd people responded that the people who found the bugs should work around systemd and systemd didn't need to be compatible with existing code.
Basically systemd completely wrecks the UNIX way and makes the distros that use it absolutely unmaintainable if you're a sysadmin.
Would you like some Cheese with that WHINE?
Apple, the creator of launchd, of which systemd is a (bad) clone, have been using launchd since OS X 10.4 (Tiger), pretty much without a hitch, and CERTAINLY without all the wringing-of-hands and gnashing-of-teeth that all the supposedly code-savvy Linux Devs on this forum have expressed for what, like two YEARS now?
I won't say that there has NEVER been an OS X Dev. bitch about having to change their code to work with launchd; but it's not anything like this ridiculous Holy War against systemd! Get OVER yourselves! I have NEVER seen such a bunch of immature POSERS in all my 40 years as an embedded developer!
I guess OS X Devs must just be better coders...
Show me a link to a confederate flag on Amazon and I'll buy one. You can't. Who gives a phuck about a rainbow flag?
Howabout a Confederate Rainbow Flag?
By the way, I checked. No, they don't.
No, because then they would look completely incompetent for being pretty much the only major paid streaming content provider that didn't have an app ready on or around the day that the first Apple TV shipped.
Prepare the Completely Incompetent Banner...
This already happened. On sale now. It supports apps and plex announced that they will build an app. It will be interesting to see if Amazon follows suit (I'm guessing not).
From this response, I would be guessing "No".
I think the best thing Apple could do is make the AppleTV and iOS device, so that the Apps can run on it.
Um, which is EXACTLY what they did. Except Amazon. And that is AMAZON's doing, NOT Apple's.
I won't buy an AppleTV because I need a device that supports Plex.
Plex just happens to be one of the Apps available at Launch of the new Apple TV.
Even Slashdot noticed. Where were you?
Amazon has clearly stated that it could drop any streaming devices that don't support Prime Video.
Of course, the "Weasel Word" in that sentence is "COULD".
But everyone knows, they WON'T.
What is interesting?
That actually sounds pretty dam good. A lot of companies, eg Apple, could learn a lot about customer service from Amazon.
Sure. That's why Apple is CONSISTENTLY rated at, or very near, the top of Customer Support ratings, year after year, decade after decade.
(On a side note, it is total bullshit that services like Google Voice don't have a way to turn the "this call is being recorded" notification off.)
Why? In the case of Google Voice, it's probably true.
He trolls almost every thread with political hate. Just another deer caught in GOP headlights knowing Dems are doomed come 2016 due to a president who actually managed to piss off the nation worse than Bush Jr (no small feat), and the weak corrupt socialist candidates Dems are propping up like cardboard cut outs for target practice when the real pie throwing contest begins.
I'm not a Republicrat or a Demlican; but I don't think the R's have anything particularly to crow about in their comically-huge candidate lineup, either.
iOS != tvOS (jeez, what an inspired name, Apple - almost as inspired as "Apple TV"...) And regardless of the APIs, it's a totally different screen/UI and input method.
Sure, there is nothing clever about the name "Apple TV". Or about "Apple Watch", for example. But potential customers know immediately that it is an Apple product, and it has something to do with TV or Watch. Just like "iPhone" tells you it is a phone. And not just _any_ phone, but an iPhone. There are fewer people saying "That's a clever name", but more people saying "I'll buy that".
And the proof of that marketing genius is that almost everyone who is non-technical refers to ANY Tablet as an iPad, and a good many refer to ANY Smartphone as an iPhone.
iOS != tvOS (jeez, what an inspired name, Apple - almost as inspired as "Apple TV"...) And regardless of the APIs, it's a totally different screen/UI and input method.
Oh, cry me a river! Amazon didn't write the first iOS App. They contracted an iOS Developer Team to do it. Same with a TVOS App. And I took a look at the APIs for TVOS, and they are pretty straightforward. So what they have to refactor a bit of the App; that's what happens.
There really isn't an excuse for Chromecast, but not supporting or selling Apple TV makes perfect sense.
Only a complete Apple Fanboy could complain about a streaming service not supporting Apple TV as an ANTITRUST issue, since the main reason streaming services don't support Apple TV is that Apple wants to take 30% of their GROSS on every transaction if they do "support" it.
Then why has there been a Kindle App and Amazon Prime Video TV App on the Apple App Store for a long time?
Shut up, fool. Apple do not sell Amazon products in their store, neither do google. You're just another Apple zealot, whaa whaaa whaaa, Apple apple apple kiss kiss kiss.
They CERTAINLY Offer Amazon's APPs in their App Store.
I have had a Kindle App on my iPad for years. Don't use it, because it feels like one big advertisement. But it's there.
Same with the Amazon Prime TV App (whatever it's called). It has been on the Apple App Store for however long since they submitted it.
And it is AMAZON that REFUSES to submit their App for Apple's TVOS Store. Not Apple.