Posts by Charles 9

Re: I wonder

It could've been worse. There were plenty who lost all their assets when Mt. Gox crashed. And this one could've easily just shut all their doors, turned out the lights, and left you with nothing at all. As they say, better 2/3 of something than 100% of nothing...

Re: They should be banned from buying exploits

"The only 0 days they should be permitted to keep in their arsenal and not inform the vendor about are those they discover themselves."

What makes you think they DON'T discover them themselves and what we're seeing most of the time is parallel efforts to a single goal?

Re: Rain water into Hydrogen

"At best, it's an inefficient energy STORAGE mechanism. We have pretty good batteries already."

Pretty good? They're not really all that efficient, they don't scale well, they don't really last that long under prolonged use, and many have an issue with spontaneous combustion. We REALLY need something better.

Re: @Walter Bishop

"Clickable links wouldn't be a problem if they moved to the Industry Standard Lubuntu desktop."

They'll find a way. Remember the term "rooting" doesn't come from the Windows world.

Re: "still won't save you from the rise of street cameras and spy satellites..."

Like I said, pervasive cameras (Google cars) and spy satellites (commercial photography satellites).

"And since I'm using a company laptop, try measuring my care level...."

Pretty high, I would say, since they may eventually trace the zero point back to you, you get sacked, maybe charged with criminal negligence resulting in gross damages...

Re: Making legit look phishy

"As Mike said, have the legit e-mailers send harmless mail. Then the phishers can duplicate this to their hearts' content - they'll be sending harmless mail."

No, the problem is that they can make a harmless-looking e-mail harmful no matter what you try to do. Remember, you can't fix stupid. Even without direct links, you can make a stupid user copy and paste, even hand-type if need be, and use a similar domain the malcontents bought first or hijacked (so no unicode involved and it can't be removed because it was bought from a crooked vendor who can bribe or is immune to the authorities).

Re: Errm

Trouble is, sometimes you can exploit a system by feeding it CORRECT inputs, too.

Re: Making legit look phishy

But what's to stop a phisher from duplicating EVERY SINGLE THING the legit e-mail can throw, only to use legit-looking (maybe even Unicode) domain names so that you can't tell the two apart even with a poring of the source? That's how good phishers are getting: the point where the besieger's advantage is becoming harder for the besieged to counter.

Re: Samsung v Xiaomi

It's one reason I finally decided to retire my S4 for this (used in good condition), as S4 is off the Lollipop list, let alone Marshmallow (OTOH, my S5 is already there). It just took a while for the US carriers to catch up: T-Mobile most recently in June. I think AT&T is the only holdout.

"Watch that first step! It's a doozy!"

As in it's a pretty big one. One with a lot of substance to it. Term based on the old Duesenberg cars that hit their heyday in the 1930's and affectionately coined the phrase, "It's a doozy!" as a way to say, "Now here's a REAL car!"

Because of Stagefright and so on, Google's been forced to pay a lot of attention to security with Android N: particularly the ability to patch core functions of the OS that normally get obfuscated by carriers. In order to avoid getting investigated by governments for still letting hopelessly-vulnerable-and-unpatchable devices be approved, they need to slam that door hard. That's why you have things like seamless updates, which means updates don't take forever to install, and why IINM he core framework is being separated from the user interface (which is what the manufacturers and carriers want to control).

I still haven't heard any call for requiring the use of root-proof tech like ARM TrustZones and Secure Elements; this may have to do with catering to low-end device makers, though.

I wouldn't count on anything to run Android 7 well until after Android 7 itself comes out. This one looks to be a doozy in terms of changing the core functions, if you'll recall, since Google has been forced into a security focus with this update.

Re: Charles 9

"Your thinking like a customer, not a seller. If they make the battery replaceable, how will they sell you the Note 8?"

They can't. I look for a phone that ticks all the boxes, and then find the cheapest one. And for me, a non-replaceable battery (and a lack of microSD) is a deal-breaker based on firsthand past experience.

So until they cater to the customer (which as the adages go is #1 if the law is not involved), I'm not buying.

Re: Could be great

Thanks to SafetyNet and dm-verity, more apps are root- and custom-aware, so going stock is the only option for those situations. Plus don't Samsung devices have KNOX, which customizing also breaks?

Re: Got a Note 3 at launch...

"I think Samsung also understands that more and more people are extending their replacement cycles."

If that were true, they'd make the battery replaceable since that's one of the first things to go. I've replaced the battery on my S4 twice now to keep it going strong.

Re: Umm, some balance please

"It is literally criminal how they get away with blatantly saying "F U" to everyone's face and nobody lifts a finger in retaliation. I would send in the Marines and have them all shot for treason on site, no delay and no discussion."

OK, then. After you sweep ICANN clean, what would you replace it with? And how would you ensure it did its job properly while also preventing it being corrupted or subverted AGAIN?

You see, the big trouble with all these cries of "Throw the Bums Out!" is that no one ever bothers to consider what you're going to do AFTER they're gone. It's not like the Internet runs itself or can completely ignore political entities that can control the physical wires...

Re: And they have a famous chef, too

"You haven't been downwind of an open tin of Surströmming, have you?"

But at least that at worst only has a local influence. I'm talking international stinks.

Re: No problem!

I got news for you. That pretty much covers practically all the TV in the country.

INCLUDING the big broadcasters.

Disney (on the list) is the owner of ABC

Comcast (on the list) is the owner of NBCUniversal, also on that list itself.

Viacom (on the list) changed its name to National Amusements in 2006. It's is the majority owner of CBS.

And you've probably noticed the Fox Networks Group.

The only way you can effectively boycott is to get the Nielsen participants to unplug their TVs.

Re: Dangerous attempts to fix stupid?

This isn't a motorway. It's an arterial, which means traffic lights. If he was FIRST out of the light, pulled ahead, and there's not much between the light and the truck, he could easily have a large opening in front of him before encountering the truck.

"But if it occasionally confuses a plain white truck side for a threat-free path, that's unacceptable."

But here's the catch. How do we know it would be easy for a HUMAN to see it, too? Sometimes, we assume too much and don't take the assumption that the human could be as confused as well. Or the human could be tricked by illusions and other conditions a machine would be less prone. For example, a anisotropic painting of a kid in the middle of the road, or a whiteout condition.

The situation here is that human drivers and computer drivers approach perception from two completely different angles, and they don't overlap. The real question you have to ask is which of us can handle better in the overall scheme of things: human intuition that can't be taught because it's inborn even in toddlers (so we don't even know HOW we learn it) or tireless machine perception that's harder to fool objectively but likely easier to fool subjectively?

Re: No thanks

What if it becomes take it or leave it? As in take the self-driving car, pay crazy car insurance to keep the privilege, or just get off the road?

Unlikely, since the crash is likely to be so violent as to break the camera. Not even black boxes (and they're built to take a pounding) are immune. Plus, consider where the best place to put a camera would be (in the mirror or visor) and remember what part of the car got decapitated more than the driver.

Re: I remember that accident - only in 1967!

"The BEST are MANAC - dry van trailers in the U.S. under the name TRAILMOBILE. Their advantage is the supports of the Mansfield Bars are towards the outer end - where the worst damage occurs,"

But I doubt TRAILMOBILE rigs are recommended for areas with way-above-grade railroad crossings, since lowering the crash zone inevitably lowers the ride height, raising the chance of a hump taking the trailer off its wheels.

Re: Waste of time

Or, in more practical terms, over 108 feet per second (> 60mph = more than a mile a minute). Meaning, in the time it would take an 18-wheeler to turn left across the intersection, a car going 74 mph would've covered 3/5 of a mile by that point (more precisely, 3256 ft in 30 seconds).

Re: Dangerous attempts to fix stupid?

"As I stated before, an active driver would have spotted something amiss because cars ahead would have started evading it, even if the truck itself was practically invisible against the background."

Unless, of course, he was the FIRST car there, meaning there were no other warning signs other than the truck itself. As for the truck yielding right of way, he may well have not seen the car prior to the actual turn. Remember, the car was speeding at near 75 mph. A car can close distance rapidly at that speed.

Re: Not an AI

"Who is going to pay?"

The drivers, that's who, likely by way of a mandate to do it within, say, ten years. They pay one time for the device or their car isn't declared roadworthy (this would also fix the import issue). The driver either pays up or gives up driving. Either way, you likely end up with safer roads.

Re: Clinton got caught rigging the primary...

"Dude, the charge is election rigging, with plenty to back it up, and you think those three words is enough to refute it?"

YES, unless you actually CAN back it up with evidence that would be admissible before a court.

Re: Fingerprint me ars...

YES! I've got ten of them to work with off the tips, then I can get more creative and use other parts of my fingers. And unlike a password, I don't have to remember them (which is an issue for people with poor recall or simply too many things to remember) or keep a second factor handy (which lots of people end up LOSING).

PS. And even IF they lift my print, it probably wouldn't even work for them given my genuine finger only works about 3 times out of 10.

Re: Why?

But many people can't work like that. They have such bad memories that "correcthorsebatterystaple" is a stretch ("Or was it 'donkeyenginepaperclipwrong'?").

Re: It's Risk Management

"I tend to use Lastpass for random passwords for junk websites and use complex passwords and my memory for critical ones..."

And for people with BAD memories?

Re: What goes around...

The thing with eggs, though, is that they MUST be in one place (right next to you) if you intend to actually USE them. So at some point, they MUST be in the same basket.

Plus some of us have bad memories, meaning out of sight really means out of mind (and thus gets lost).