Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Still have to install (Score 1) 113

by dasacc22 (#48197303) Attached to: Delivering Malicious Android Apps Hidden In Image Files
that reads more like a statement rather than a question. Regardless of location source, whether google sanctioned or not, and if one has decided to install things from places other than google (arguably the 3rd party check box is the type of thing that makes android a google project versus pure OSS, or in the same respects is what differentiates chrome from chromium), etc, etc, when you install an application, you will be prompted. This prompt shares similarity with, for example, running a downloaded executable on windows and being prompted before actually running.

Having 3rd party sources disabled is not a safety net for avoiding issues, that's simply what makes android a google product.

Comment: Re:Cute but useless (Score 3, Interesting) 113

by dasacc22 (#48195393) Attached to: Delivering Malicious Android Apps Hidden In Image Files
You don't have to give it permission, that's just part of what they made available. to quote TFA

In their testing, Android did show a permission request when the legitimate wrapper file tried to install the malicious APK, but the researchers say that this can be prevented by using DexClassLoader.

Doing that isn't much of a stretch. Many popular apps already use DexClassLoader just to get around limits during packaging.

Comment: Re:Still have to install (Score 5, Informative) 113

by dasacc22 (#48195343) Attached to: Delivering Malicious Android Apps Hidden In Image Files
I stand corrected after RTFA

In their testing, Android did show a permission request when the legitimate wrapper file tried to install the malicious APK, but the researchers say that this can be prevented by using DexClassLoader.

Now that sounds plausible and like a real concern (that is being addressed).

Comment: Still have to install (Score 4, Insightful) 113

by dasacc22 (#48195203) Attached to: Delivering Malicious Android Apps Hidden In Image Files
This is just a really fancy way of clicking on an apk. So you install Foosball 2020 and click the app launcher icon and then your phone says "sorry, you need to enable installing 3rd party apps, bye!" and you say "damn you android! I want to play foosball with robots!" so you go through system settings and enable 3rd party installations and get a big warning. Then you open the app launcher icon again and instead of a game, you see a whole new installation screen for another app and the permissions it requires ...

I think from a technical standpoint, this is really neat research, but there are much simpler ways to lead the cattle to the salt lick.

Comment: Re:I am not alone when I say.... (Score 2) 139

by dasacc22 (#48155123) Attached to: HBO To Offer Online Streaming Without TV Subscription
> 2) Of quality at least as good as cable feeds

I do not subscribe to cable, but wouldn't that be based on where you subscribe and your provider? Going with cable provider terms, one might offer the show in high-def while another may not.

> 3) In a usable non-DRM container which doesn't require a web browser

At this point, who gives a shit if it's DRM if it's easily playable via whatever mechanism you use. Currently, I use LocalCast app on android to play content via DLNA to my TV, or I use the built in chrome-cast functionality of apps (such as netflix) to play to my tv, but I honestly don't give a shit about content as long as it can get to my tv without too much fuss. If I can launch an HBO Go app on a device and have it play on my device, I'm fucking happy. End-of-story. If I can login to a website and play an episode, even if I'm in linux, I'm fucking happy, End-of-story. Ideological shit aside, I want to see the content however I'm wanting to see it, and if it's possible, I'm fucking happy.

DRM has in the past been an issue, but it doesn't have to be.

> 4) Charge no more than $5 per episode (even that is steep).

who the fuck would pay that much per episode? If the audience were 5000 people, then ok, but looking at the most pirated show ever (game of thrones), that's not the case.

Comment: finally (Score 5, Insightful) 139

by dasacc22 (#48155031) Attached to: HBO To Offer Online Streaming Without TV Subscription
obligatory theoatmeal, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/g...

A large portion of what I watch actually happens to come from HBO, but regardless I end up downloading the content like anything else. Classic example, I purchase a season of the Vikings from google play store in advance b/c I do not own cable but would like to watch the show legally (even a day late from when it aired). I get a notification that a new episode is available. I click play "Last week on Vik...." stream breaks. Hit replay, "Last wee...." stream breaks. Hit replay, "Last week on ..."stream breaks. Download episode via bittorrent in 3 1/2 minutes and enjoy.

I'm happy to pay for content, but make that shit work.

Comment: Re:special software client (Score 1) 131

by dasacc22 (#47979227) Attached to: The Site That Teaches You To Code Well Enough To Get a Job
look fucktard, I said you could download the source and compile the source. I said nothing more. Just because you caught on to the context of the OP I replied to doesn't mean I did as well. Jump out of your imagination and actually read what was written. I have, and have corrected myself.

You want to rail me for something, it'd be missing the context switch as I was considering the OP that started this thread causing a misreading of the OP in question. You'd actually have a valid point.

Unlike you I'm sure, I was actually looking at the source at the time and noted there were a number of extra testing dependencies that required a bit more leg work to install for development purposes and brashly thought the OP in question mistook this as necessary to produce a binary.

Instead of seeing what I wrote and how I've clarified what I meant and intended, you continue propping me up as some evangelist that's proclaiming something I never said, but you only inferred due to a context I responded to incorrectly. Take your inferences and fuck off.

The OP of the OP in question said you could download the source, who da thunk it? I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would infer that means you can verify the binary. It means you can download the source, review it, compile it, run it, and not a damn thing more.

And a project that provides prebuilt binaries? who do thunk it?

But please, do cherry pick my words and continue your bullshit and sick fantasy so you can declare yourself a winner today of the internetz of things.

Comment: Re:special software client (Score 1) 131

by dasacc22 (#47978753) Attached to: The Site That Teaches You To Code Well Enough To Get a Job
I hadn't noticed you weren't the OP I responded to. Nothing I said suggested downloading and compiling source would produce truly identical binaries. At best, what I wrote could be interpreted as a big *whoosh* at not realizing the OP I responded to devolved the conversation to such a generic issue in computing that it felt out-of-context to the OP that started this entire thread.

There's nothing "insightful" about raising this issue anymore than if I pointed out the fallacy in trusting verified sources.

A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.

Working...