Rein your spooks in. I see what they did there.
41 posts • joined 4 Oct 2009
I used to love me the hell out of Sony product. I bought my Vita based on my historical love for them. The fact that it had a built in 3G connection that could be used for all of... nothing... combined with an outdated idea of how an appstore should run turned me off hard.
For seriously, the 3G connection couldn't even be used. Any time you attempted to use it for anything, you got a message telling you that you were attempting to use too much data. This, despite the fact that no data has been used, because you couldn't use it. Limitations of the platform were so severe, I gave up hope of Sony ever having a clue.
Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!
Everyone wants to point fingers at everyone else like they're responsible for any of the choices made by this guy, but at the end of the day, he's fully responsible for every decision he made. From breaking the law to ending his life, the entire onus is on him. What ever happened to owning up to your actions? Did Mitnick off himself because of a six month summer camp trip? Did Manning? What about Assange? The kid had problems that a slight case of prosecution didn't cause.
Sony is so gonna get sued for copying the iWatch, especially since they stole the white/metal/rounded corners design of the iWatch over a year and a half before the iWatch was released. Also, they have the same functions, what with all those phone integration features and whatnot.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --First Amendment, 1789
I'm not sure where in there it says it's only for being able to challenge my rulers. In fact, ti seems to simply say "freedom of speech." It seems to also address the right of the people to assemble. If the WBC decides to go stand on a street near a graveyard, and speak to the tenets of their religion, twisted or not, they seem to be satisfying the text of the Amendment. Thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees that the definition of freedom of speech and assembly has no restrictions when it comes to only applying to speech about the government. Where you got that idea is beyond me.
...verbose, complicated terms and conditions...
This application will be able to:
Post Tweets for you.
Those terms aren't verbose or complicated. There's no real conditions involved in that one. Yes, malicious users can have a field day if you authorize an untrusted source to publish information using your information. It becomes trivial at that point, since you've expressly authorized code you have zero control of from a developer you have zero knowledge of to have near complete access to your account.
The more and more people move to social media and feel it's okay to authorize whatever little crap they find to have complete access to the details of their account, the more and more you will see actions like this occur. Call me an old stick in the mud, but I rarely post any form of information sensitive to social media sites, and don't use many apps with them, because I do not like the authorizations required for most of them. In fact, I'm the same way with my phone. When some little game wants access to my contacts and ability to monitor phone calls, it is not installed.
This also has implications among law enforcement techniques, as well. If Farmville has complete, unfettered access to your Facebook and cell phone, what stops the feds from issuing a secret subpoena to Farmville to kill two birds with one stone?
Re: If I was Google
I love this type of overblown reaction. Pull a product out of an entire country just to prove a minor point. Sorry, peoples, you have spoken, and you have said you don't want our service. The only problem with this is that no company has the cajones to take a small hit on their bottom line to stand up for themselves. They whimper and pander to the crap they get. Like when Fallout 3 got OMG BANNED in the AU for having morphine. Bowed and changed it to Med X for the entire world, rather than just tell the AU people, "Welp, you've spoken, and you don't want to play this game because your rating system doesn't allow for the fact that adults might want to play games, so you've censored our product. Sounds good to me."
If only companies WOULD do this type of thing. We'd see more and more issues get properly dealt with in the political machine, because people WOULD be angry that some idiot law has actually impacted their ability to do something they want.
On one hand, I love the QOS I get on the Verizon network. On the other hand, I hate the data limits and extreme pricing on high bandwidth packages. He's right in a way that consumers are "choosing" to move away from it, because most consumers aren't willing to pony up $500 for a new phone. That said, my current lack of an unlimited plan leaves me hurting for bandwidth, and constantly checking my data usage.
I'd love to youtube and netflix the crap out of things. Why? Not because there's no lack of wifi, it's just that my workplace doesn't allow personal devices on the wireless. When I'm traveling, which happens somewhat often, I find my choice sometimes rests between using my own data connection or paying an extra $15 a night for hotel wifi services.
I want unlimited, but unfortunately, I also want network quality and speed. Since quality and speed matter more to me than unlimited, I'm stuck firmly on VZW.
After watching that video...
...I'm convinced much attention is being paid to garbage. He didn't successfully attack any system. He had a test system he bounced some goofy crap off of that really didn't do anything. Since most IVR systems I've used use # and * for the vast majority of the actions you can do, * is rarely interpreted as "times." I tried this YAY MATH approach with the IVR for my bank just now, and as soon as I mash *, I'm greeted with a lovely voice telling me I've entered an invalid response.
Much dumd in this.
I was on T-Mobile for years, and loved it. However, a few months ago, I decided I wanted more and more performance than I was getting, and I wanted a new phone, too. I went to Verizon due to the snappy and awesome LTE network they have. Already, I've been disappointed a bit with Verizon as a company, but pleased to hell by the network performance. If T-Mobile can field an LTE network that compares with Verizons, I will be back with T-Mobile in minutes.
If you take "It's really fast at not working" as "promise performance" there's something skewed. They did great on W7, but everything they've done with 8 has been crap. Sure, 8 will do fine on a tablet, but not every computer is a tablet, nor will it be. Production Windows systems require more than M$'s Metro crap and hokey multimonitor functionality.
Re: No, You need to get real.
This is why counterfeit money should be legal. We're not stealing the money, we're just making copies of it. In fact, all counterfeit goods should be legal. Nobody should have any sort of protection on the creations they make, and we should all be allowed to freely benefit from and monetize anybodies creations, without their ability to stop us. I totally agree with you. Copyright infringement isn't theft at all. I'm sick of fascists who believe that just because they invested time and money into the creation of something, they should be the only ones to benefit from the sweat of their brow. Hell, they didn't even create it. They paid someone fair wages to create it for them, so why should we have to pay for it?
I, for one...
Welcome our new AR overlords. I've been looking forward to a big player trying to productize AR for a while. If Google can solve some of the technical issues with the technology and get a product out to the consumers for the cheap with good quality, other companies will have to follow suit, and the AR revolution will begin. Smart phones will become relegated towards off interface computing and auxiliary input.
...I'm going to have to suddenly add a second nomination. Netflix just recommended to me, as part of what they cryptically refer to as my "Top 10" this particular jewel:
"Shriek If You Know What I Did Friday 13th
In this goofy horror spoof, a masked slasher stalks the teens of BF High on what happens to be Friday the 13th and Halloween night at the same time."
Without even watching it, I'll go ahead and nominate it on the basis of confusing the 13th of October for when Halloween falls, spoof or not.
Re: worst movies
The Thing (2011) DID end where the first one began, with the survivors chasing the dog in a helicopter and trying to shoot it. As much as I love the original (remake, whatever) Carpenter film, and for as much as I'll admit the prequel didn't meet it, it was still enjoyable for me.
For real? I tell you what, when I google for the word "maps," it's because I'm being lazy and want a quick link to Google Maps. Honestly, I don't care about any other vendor. Why? Because Google has provided the services I need with an ease that defies other companies. I'm not a Google fanboy; if someone can create such a well integrated set of tools, with more usability and functionality, I'll start using their suite. As it is, I can google an interest of mine, read a few pages, and then click one button to see a fucking map of places related to that near my home. In one click, I can instantly see anything related to my search interest, from news to videos, from reviews to maps showing me stores I can buy it at, and directions on how to get there.
I can use their services easily from my N900, I can receive an email from someone containing Microsoft Word documents, and view them instantly, edit, save, and send them back on a platform that cannot install Microsoft Word. Everything I need is there, and it does what I want.
As far as some of Google's other ventures, such as Chrome or Droid, I'm not as interested. Those don't work for me the way their web services do. I don't use Chrome, and I don't own a Droid product. I can't stand them.
But how does my experience with Google represent a fair business practice? It's simple free market principles. Google provides a free product on the market with X capabilities. Competitors also provide a free product on the market with J capabilities. I use a few of these products, I find them sorely lacking from what I require, and I select the product that provides me with a consistently good experience. I use Google. I play with some of the features in Google Labs, and I find my experience rewarding. I continue to use Google. Someone creates an "OMG GOOGLE KILLER" so I try it out and find that it doesn't have anywhere near the functionality of Google, so I continue to use Google some more.
At the end of the day, this story is played out by millions and millions of people, who fairly and democratically decide via free market that Google provides them with the best solution to their immediate needs.
No, I'm sorry
If you're too ignorant to know that when you're using a god damned radio to broadcast your unencrypted credit card number into the homes of all your neighbors, then you're too ignorant to be allowed to complain when one of your neighbors starts using it. If the Googlecars are driving around in the street are able to pick your shit out of the air, take a fucking minute to stop and think about how many cars drive down that street. Each of those are capable of doing the same damn thing. If you think Google is a villain because they accidentally wiresharked your email when they were driving about, you need to stop and worry about the assholes that actually want to target you. The ones that are going to cause you serious pain.
I don't get it.
People didn't encrypt their radio traffic, and are now complaining that someone listened in when they broadcast it all over the place? This is like standing on your front porch and having a conversation with a friend on your cellphone using a bullhorn. And then complaining when someone driving down the street with a tape recorder gets a snippet of your conversation.
There's a simple solution to this that has existed since the dawn of time. Encrypt your damn traffic. This isn't some magical system of invisible fairies that fly your internet connection to your laptop. This isn't some super technological servant that will consider your needs and actively work to ensure nobody knows what you're doing.
This is a radio system. Using WiFi with no encryption broadcasts your radio signal for all to hear. So many devices these days come with WiFi radios, and using no encryption on your traffic does let all of those devices just sit and listen.
So Google got an email, or some http headers, or whatever misc payload data was floating about in the air.
The chances of them being complete assholes with it are far less than the guy down the street who has been capturing your traffic for months. Encrypt your traffic.
Pic related. It's what you're doing when you don't encrypt.
Re: Lazy coders
Lazy coders in and of themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that learning resources don't teach all the concepts of security required to mitigate the vast majority of possible attacks. College classes on web design, coding tutorials, etc, just don't take the time to explain how every single attack against the application could work. Allow by Default only exacerbates this issue, because now you have developers who aren't entirely aware of what their application can be made to do, and the application is going to do it by default now.