Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Well, bye (Score 1) 100

I'm sure the devs had precisely dick to do with it.

Money, people. Follow the money.

Prior CEO was ejected for failing to monetize the platform.

New CEO brought on board with explicit directions to monetize the platform, or else.

Free data tap turned off. Only watering holes left are poorer quality, with promises of premium watering holes for premium prices later.

Mission Accomplished. Cash cow now being fully milked. And the millions of cows will go for it.

It was never about the geeks, and if geeks could do cool things with it before, that's just too bad unless there's some fat simoleons in it for Twitter. "Money or GTFO."

Comment Re:Still too much uncertainty of the size of expos (Score 1) 161

Ah, "dedicated accounts." That's just exactly like physical isolated network and storage architectures, right? So that if a cracker has, let's pretend*, a whole two years to poke around, they can't get through the impenetrable internal partitions between accounts.


Air gap or GTFO.

*And by "pretend", I mean "since they actually had two years undetected"...

Comment Still too much uncertainty of the size of exposure (Score 4, Insightful) 161

"15 million". Huge number. It usually takes the power of the US Federal Government to screw up this big.

But one thing is not clear from TFA, let alone from the slightly misleading TFS.

This is an Experian hack, not a T-Mobile hack. What makes any "expert" think the exposure is limited to someone who interacted with T-Mobile? Experian is one of the awful ubiquitous unavoidable facts of life, much like the Government (see above). If you have participated in any non-cash financial transaction, they probably have a file on you.

What are the particulars of this breach that make it strictly an "Experian interacting with T-Mobile" risk? Experian is huge, and if you're counting on some kind of strict internal data partitioning within the company to restrict the attack area to "T-Mobile applicants" you're too naive to sit with the grown-ups.

Seriously. Why the fuck isn't this a maximal-sized no-holds-barred every-file-Experian-holds breach?

Comment Wait, Ifixit has an app? (Score 1) 366

I'm a frequent and very happy iFixit user and customer. But really, an app?

See, I've got this other app on my phone. It's called "Browser". It's the creaky old pre-Chrome Android browser, dog-standard and unchanged since my first HTC Desire running Gingerbread. And this app loads up the contents of the iFixit website just freaking fine.

"App"? Do people really install apps that deliver nothing besides repackaged web content? Have we, as a civilization, really sunk this far?

I weep for the future.

I would be inclined to tage the article "andnothingofvaluewaslost", but that would only speak of this pointless app, and not iFixit's actual content and value in the community.

Comment Re:Call for mass-forking of Android (Score 1) 123

Because if not, and they REALLY have to get out the JTAG programmer and open up each and every phone, then those OEMs should be taken out back, stripped, and introduced to goatse...

Tell you what.

You do whatever you can to fulfill this entertaining bit of justice. And the wireless companies will spend a small portion of their significant wealth to buy whatever it takes to prevent the occurrence of this. Which one wins?

Yeah, in a just world, Android users wouldn't be held captive by wireless providers that won't let you on their network with closed-ROM phones, and take no responsibility for the closed-ROM phones they sell you beyond selling you the next one, "THIS ONE NOT VULNERABLE TO THOSE EXPLOITS."

This isn't a just world. Money walks, good intentions (and Internet poseurs spouting noise about vigilantism) just talks.

The reality on the ground is this: a large subset of the > 1 billion current Android devices will never be free of this vulnerability. And that's ok by the manufacturers and network providers, because it's a market opportunity.

Comment Re:TFA, TFS (Score 1) 323

I dunno.

It got umpity-ump MPG, right?

It had such-and-such 0-60 times, right?

It emitted some spectacularly low amount of NOx every time it was put on the dynamometer, right?

It just never did all three of those things at the same time.

Unless the advertisement made that claim, the advertising is technically right. Which is the best kind of right.

Comment Re:Fraud Opposed to the Ideals of Nerddom (Score 1) 317

Um, the "shill for money" program got busted, so don't wait by your mailbox for your $2500.

Yes. The American Egg Board is an FDA-established entity specifically to market an agricultural commodity to consumers. It's intentionally a joint effort between the industry and the agency, so bias is inevitable. It's advertising.

A lot of the sturm und drang on this page, and in the media, is the unfairness of it, but honestly, "unfair" is to be expected from advertising.

Real opprobrium is called for, though, because this attack marketing campaign appears to violate the actual regulations with respect AEB advertising:

(e) No advertising or promotion programs shall use false or unwarranted claims or make any reference to private brand names of eggs, egg products, spent fowl, and products of spent fowl or use unfair or deceptive acts or practices with respect to quality, value, or use of any competing product.

(2015 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XI, Part 1250, Section 1250.341(e); emphasis added)

Now, lawyers could make shedloads of money arguing about the legal boundaries of "unfair or deceptive acts", but I suspect that if you take the AEB's acts to a judge (assuming you find one who hadn't already been bought out by the industry), he would assess that the attack marketing and astroturfing would qualify. Certainly, with all the publicity, the bureaucrats responsible for administering the government part of the program (and enforcing the rules) would be encouraged to see it that way. (Although bureaucrats are also known for occasionally doubling down on stupid and digging in. At least, until the lawsuit, after which the "no fault admitted" settlement puts the entire issue to bed.)

"tl;dr:" The point that the AEB attack campaign violates the intent of the controlling regulation is supportable, and is the legal sticking point in play. The AEB attack campaign is also unethical, but then again ethics is what makes loser business lose. Winner businesses don't let themselves be burdened by anything that doesn't have an explicit and costly punishment for violating.

Comment I see this article as validation of Slashdot (Score 1) 132

Particularly Slashdot's continuing effort to rebrand itself as something (anything) different from "News for nerds, stuff that matters."

Because really. Google redid their marketing? GASP.

I'm facepalming and eyerolling here, Slashdot. Well done.

I wonder what Reddit says about all of this.

"You show me an American who can keep his mouth shut and I'll eat him." -- Newspaperman from Frank Capra's _Meet_John_Doe_