ajays

Here's a tin-foil-hat needing random theory of the day: Apple gave keys (and protocol) to decode iMessages to PRC Government, in return for being allowed to sell iPhones in China. Somehow they leaked, and now someone in China is offering this service.

(adjusts tin-foil lined colander on head)

I apologize for sounding outraged; I wasn't outraged at the actual events, but the story telling. It's as if someone leaves out critical parts of a story, and you're so engrossed in it that you think: wait a minute, how did that happen? I want to know more, dammit! :-)

I understand that it's a fun little story. But, for god's sake, at least make it somewhat believable!

This story is woefully incomplete. Where is the kid flying to? Boston, I imagine. Who takes him through Customs and Immigration there?

Since he flies out of LHR 4 times a year, one can only presume that he flies back also. What happens in the return flight? Who helps him at the departure airpost (BOS?)? Who helps him in Immigration at LHR, which is a nightmare even for non-autistic travelers?

No, Weev did not "exploit" anything. He _requested_ information from a server. If the server owner had so desired, they could have made the data private by adding a password. They chose not to. In the end, the decision to offer Weev the data was made _by the server_ .

And if you're going to bring up the UserAgent spoofing, let me remind you that most browsers have done something like that for > 15 years.

It is the server's problem. A misconfigured server is not a client's problem.

Set aside the SQL injection. Suppose there's a bug in Apache's path parsing such that using "\" instead of "/" causes it to interpret it as an escaped string, which somehow (bear with me) causes it to run exec("/bin/rm -r /"). Now some n00b comes along and uses "\" in the path, because he's used to paths on MSDOS; crashing the server. Whose problem is it? The client's, for sending a malformed request? How do you expect the client to know that the "\" will trigger a catastrophe? Or what if the client made a mistake, and while he thought it was "some query string" in his cut buffer, it turned out to be "; drop table *" (or something like that). Now whose problem is it?

If the server willy-nilly takes any input and doesn't check it, it is the server's fault.

/u/biot's analogy is apt. But I don't understand why it isn't a defence that the HTTP protocol starts with a REQUEST . The server is the one who actually serves up the information.

If I _request_ something from you ("hey, can I borrow your car?"), and you give it to me, then what's the problem here?

"Because the housing bubble was not driven by supply and demand." .... except in San Francisco. Everyone wants to live here, and Facebook, Twitter, etc. are turning out paper millionaires by the bushel. Expect the house prices to tick up again once Twitter IPOs. There is some construction now[1] (just walk down Market street from the Castro), but I think the number of techie millionaires being minted seems to exceed the number of dwellings under construction.

Plus: there is the externality of outside money. I've heard of buyers from PRC paying cash down, sight unseen, for properties in desirable neighborhoods [2] [3]. A lot of the analysis such as the one in this article assumes a somewhat closed market; but outside money flowing in can change the dynamics significantly.

[1] http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/07/25/the_40_most_notable... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/07/10/chinese-to-... [3] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/chinese-real-estate-b...

Don't let the sugar-coating fool you: the Google guys got a sweet deal from NASA, all in the guise of "research". The stats from the article prove it: of their massive fleet of aircraft, only 1 was used for any 'research', and that too sparingly. No other private individual is allowed to use Moffett Field, regardless of how much they're willing to pay.

It's a shame, really, that the Google founders feel the need to misuse the system like this. "Don't be evil", my ass.

Every photo on Flickr has a copyright tag attached to it. At least on Flickr it's not challenging at all.

> Plus it's a prize Microsoft probably feels it can't afford to lose.

Just like their search engine? They have been flushing cash down the "online services" drain for years, with nary a profit to show, nor any progress in market share. Why should the phone market be any different? They'll keep subsidizing the "WinPhone by Nokia", and flushing cash down this new drain too.

I'm seeing parallels between their attempt to break into the search engine market, and the smartphone market.

I feel that often such discussions tend to the extremes: either do nothing, or replace everyone with robots. The happy middle ground, for example, is left out because it's the least controversial.

There are some jobs that are best automated. The BART "train operator", for instance; it is _already_ automated! People don't realize that the BART train runs by itself; the "operator" just hits the "close door" button when needed.

Or, for example, the cleaner who is (purportedly) supposed to clean the cars. A Scooba-like robot would do just fine.

On the other hand: a customer-service job is best done by humans (for now), because when we need help, it is reassuring to speak to a person instead of Siri.

So casting this debate as one between "replace all humans" and "keep the current inefficient system" is wrong.

> By programmers, I mean real programmers. You can hire decent programmers for $150-$200 a month.

This shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A decent programmer will cost you close to $1000/month; a good one with experience will cost you upwards of $2000 per month.

As always, you get what you pay for.

I am sorry, but even if you absolutely ignore everything else, Clapper's lying to Congress was illegal. He has also exposed the fact that NSA has violated the constitution many times.

What is "classified" anyways? Some guy sitting somewhere decides that it is "classified". So why can't some other guy decide that it is in the public interest to not classify it?

I know the stock price isn't everything, but this is quite telling about Ballmer's reign: http://tinyurl.com/ballmerballmer

I didn't include AAPL, because that would have destroyed the others. And GOOG wasn't around in 2000.

It's a shame that the EFF had to fight so hard to get the opinions. What is really telling is that the Obama Administration delayed the release till after the FAA was passed and signed.... and then released a completely redacted version. So much for "most transparent administration in history", eh? Just read this and laugh: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOp...

"Dear Google, please save us!"

You might as well have said, "Dear God, please save us!"

Sorry, but you won't be saved by any corporate entity; they're in bed with the surveillance state anyways. It is people like us, yes, you included, who have to take up the baton and run with it.

Here are things you can do:

- Talk to your non-techie friends, and bring them up to speed

- Explain to them why "giving up rights for temporary safety" doesn't work

- Tell them why this sort of surveillance is against the core democratic principles this country was founded on

- Suggest to them that they should vote out any politician who supports such policies. In the end, it is the Congress' job to keep checks and balances; and they've failed miserably. Time for all of them to go.

(I voted against it) In the ballot, they claimed a cost of $45B. But after the measure passed, the cost ballooned to $98B (yes, you read that correctly). Then, after howls of protest, the cost now is $68B.

I'm sure they would _absolutely_ love to. But the Constitution came with conditions to prevent this very thing.

But don't worry: sooner or later they'll figure out a "threat" big enough to get rid of it, while people are busy worrying about who'll be the next American Idol and whether to join Team Jacob or Team Edward.

They won't let you in. They'll just put you on a flight back.

Sometimes, they won't even let you board. See this latest example: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0629-no...

Because the US knows what's possible? They know how much they can tap the cable, and if the cable had Chines equipment, they'd be tapping it similarly too?

The reason Obama Administration is pissed at Snowden is not because he leaked so-called "secrets", but because he exposed the "man behind the curtain". That is to say: Obama is no different than any mainstream Republican would have been.

I voted for Obama twice; and in 2008, when the race against McCain was tight, I spent many weekends in Reno and Northern NV, campaigning, pounding the pavement, going door-to-door in the heat.

And I will be cancelling my Democratic membership. I urge all of you to do so too (Democrat or Republican). It is clear that neither of the two parties are interested in our rights. Democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi are war mongers; and Republicans are merely a shadow of their so-called ideals. Republicans are also to blame, because they go out of their way to push for such things. Look at the Republican braying after Benghazi; they will take even the slightest setback to go after Democrats as weak on terror. And the Democrats are more than happy to oblige by bringing in a police state.

Please: the only way to bring about change is to stop voting for either party, and to actively campaign against them. We are lucky: we have 15 months to go before the next election. Let's get some third-party candidates in the House!

Is it GB/s or Gb/s ? Even SATA3 maxes out at 6Gb/s

> And, errr, here you posit "total - non-trivial number < most"

I would posit that you have a significantly higher percentage of pro-legalization Democrats than Republicans. Most opposition to legalization comes from Republicans.

Consider H.R. 499, the bill to legalize marijuana. It had 16 co-sponsors; 15 of them Democrats and only 1 Republican. http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/499/cosponsor...

You may not like the reference, but: Nixon (a Republican) started the "drug war". Nancy Reagan with her "just say no" campaign was totally anti-drug. But in general: most of the Republicans are opposed to MJ legalization; but you will find a non-trivial number of Democrats who support it. So the sentiment is correct, to a certain degree.

The reason the "DAC" is being built in Oakland is because Diane Feinstein is the biggest war monger out there. How can she even run on a Democrat ticket surprises me.

Notice that the bogeyman of "terrorism" is coming up just as the drug war is winding down (Cali legalized medical MJ in 1996, and this year Colo & Wash legalized it completely for recreational use).

The powers-that-be need an everpresent bogeyman to keep us in control.

The biggest problem with GIFs would be the colorspace: GIFs are usually limited to 256 colors. Color quantization from a JPEG to GIF would kill the photo.

The whole "living image" sounds nice. If it was possible to create a format, say "AJPEG", out of it, it would be awesome.

I read the TC article, bought the app, and came here in the hope that the developer would be here. I was not disappointed!

That's a good idea: crowdfunded elections for the underdogs.