can anyone recommend an app that denies (per app) access to various Android facilities (contacts, dialer, etc) that works w/Android 4.1+?
I can recommend a few: Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, and F-Droid. A growing number of applications have descriptions that explain what they use the permissions for. If you don't buy the rationale, you can always cancel installation.
You clearly misunderstood the question. On iOS, you can buy, install, and run any app that wants permissions that you might not like, and deny those permissions at run time (or even afterwards in iOS's Settings app). On Android, you can only just do as you suggest, which is not install the app at all, unless you root your phone and rely on a set of hacks which require significantly more effort to keep up with than on iOS.
Though now that I think about it, I might be wrong. I don't think you misunderstood the question at all. You're just fanboying, as usual.
Thanks for the link, and no, that's not Apple keeping a cleartext copy of your device encryption key. Could you clarify which sentence or paragraph has phrasing which makes you say otherwise?
And back to your original post, device restores wouldn't require the encryption key anyway. iCloud backups don't simply copy the encrypted filesystem (which would need the key, however even then, the key would itself by encrypted with the user password or some other token, same as on the device). Additionally, this would be entirely optional, which while you never said it wasn't, would significantly weaken any purported issue such a policy would cause.
In short: Apple doesn't hold a direct copy of your device encryption key.
Can you absolutely confirm that you must enter a short passcode, rather than an arbitrary length password? Android allows the latter. If iOS only allows short numerical codes then... well, it's shit.
As usual, jumping to the most anti-Apple conclusion. Since we are comparing iOS to Android, Android doesn't even encrypt your OS by default, iOS does. Were I a fanboy like yourself, I'd claim that makes Android shit. I'd never do that, though. Android supports encryption, which is good, and I personally believe it should be enabled by default, but what the hell, right, not everything has to operate exactly the way I determine.
And the article even points out that Google goes much further than Apple in helping law enforcement. They simply reset the password and give the government the new password!
The sad thing here is that every single conclusion you've jumped to without sufficient evidence has been both the least favorable towards Apple, and wrong. Well, "here", that's probably not sad, in fact it'll gain you plenty of mod points. Though *that's* sad, so it all works out in the end.
It isn't a question of if Apple can unlock the phone due to the user choosing a poor password.
No, it's a question of people such as yourself jumping to unsupported conclusions, merely because they hate Apple.
They can always unlock it.
Citation needed.
Someone else can confirm if they were just stupid and only allowed you to enter a PIN number instead of a real password, or if they have a copy of the key.
Earlier you claimed this was "absolute proof", and that's the problem. There are far too many simpler explanations than that Apple has put in a back door.
If it is a back door, this needs to be proclaimed broadly and loudly. But before that happens, you need to quite being so credulous, simply for it supporting your lame fanboy bullshit.
"Because the waiting list had grown so long, there would be at least a 7-week delay, Maynard says he was told by Joann Chang, a legal specialist in Apple's litigation group. It's unclear how long the process took, but it appears to have been at least four months."
The backlog is 7 weeks, the process takes at least four months. The article is poorly worded.
This is absolute proof that they have your encryption key on file somewhere. Others have already verified that they do indeed use AES 128.
Absolutely not. Although I'lll grant that even a whisper of a hint is "absolute proof" of bad things around here, so long as it involves Apple.
This sounds to me more like they are hacking the encrypted key, not merely bypassing the encryption with a back door.
Actually, even in the summary, the relevant part is here:
"Because the waiting list had grown so long, there would be at least a 7-week delay, Maynard says he was told by Joann Chang, a legal specialist in Apple's litigation group. It's unclear how long the process took, but it appears to have been at least four months."
It says that the waiting list is 7 weeks, and the process takes four months. However, even so, the entire article is quite vague. The only thing that's not is that there's no way there's as back door in Apple's encryption. At the very least, you'll need more than vague claims to support such a case.
Are you sure the keys are burned in during manufacturing? When you remote wipe an iPhone, it wipes the key and the contents become inaccessible. If the key itself is hard coded in hardware, that's not exactly possible to do directly.
You're kidding, right? The real issue is that Apple has a backdoor to decrypt its customers' private information. That is outrageous.
It would be, were that the case. But it's all but certainly not. There's no way Apple would put an actual back door into their products.
If you had read the article, you'd notice that the process takes four months. If they had a back door, it would take a few minutes. Also, had you read the article, you'd notice that Google will reset the password and send that to law enforcement.
But I'm sure that's not outrageous. Lol!
It is irrelevant how much Apple spends to operate that backdoor.
That's true, but only if there was an actual back door.
However, in all fairness, if you have proper evidence that Apple has a back door, I'll be right there with you. That would be wholly unacceptable.
In most distros it's "open GUI package manager, type password, search for 'java', pick the one that says 'java plug-in', hit 'apply.'
Again, information most people don't have. On Windows, it's "click here to download Java" and on the Mac, it's a dialog box that pops up asking if you want to install it, and OS X takes care of the rest.
using the commandline hasn't been required in at least a few years...
Broadly speaking, that is quite simply not true. But in terms of installing software from apt repositories, that's true. But not all distros have GUI repository software installed by default, and not all distros even use binary repositories. But more to the point, I was responding to the claim that a command line option was so much easier than doing it on Windows.
That GUI method is no more difficult to learn than the method for installing it on Windows or OS X
Absolutely false, sorry.
and for some users like my mother, it's a lot easier as it means they don't need to know where to download the item from, which file to get, where it should be saved on the computer, remember where they did save it, or what the filename is.
Fortunately, on Windows and the Mac, no one deals directly with the file anymore, it's all handled by the OS (on the Mac), and reasonably automated on Windows.
This is the same, lame, argument Linux proponents have been making for over a decade now, and it's no more true today than it was back then. Linux is not easier to use than Windows or OS X. The fact that Linux has such a paltry market share should clue you in to that.
And I like Linux. A lot. I can run it far better than I can run a Windows box (and I'm good with Windows as well). There are only a handful of things it does more easily for me than OS X does.
In a discussion about operating systems, and Linux in particular, if someone brings up "Chrome" and Android in a similar way, it's pretty damned obvious to all but the most aloof pedant what the writer is referring to.
I like how you seem to think that supports the notion that installing Java on Linux is easy.
To be fair installing the the whole of Ubuntu is now a few basic dialog boxes and leave for 20 minutes
Same as above, except s/Java on//.
I know your trolling but Linux Desktop market share has been steadily rising for sometime, and that is without the onslaught of Chrome (and soon Android Boxies).
Meaningless. On PCs, Linux is a distant (and I mean distant) third. It's all but entirely irrelevant.
I also find it amusing that you think Chrome and Android are "Linux". They run a modified Linux kernel, and beyond that the similarities increasingly fall apart.
And FYI, I like Linux. A lot. I run it from time to time, and if it weren't for OS X, it would be my primary OS.
I know you were kidding but installing java plugin under ubuntu is just a matter of apt-get install icedtea-7-plugin;-)
Actually it's not. It's also all the knowledge that must be gained to get to that point as well.
On Windows, it's as simple as, "This program/website requires Java, click here.". On the Mac, it's even simpler.
This is both the main strength and main weakness of Linux, and why it will never be the Year of Linux on the Desktop until something like Ubuntu succeeds in hiding the complexity of Linux from the user.
I've been looking for a place to say this. I disagree with the assertion that Bluetooth is too dorky to wear.
I never said they were. I just said they are dorky. That doesn't preclude non-dorky ones either. But, regardless of how dweebish they look, they provide enough utility that people wear them in spite of how they look. This also doesn't preclude people finding "dorky" to be appealing, or even the right combo of personal style and industrial design where the headset could look cool (as lame as this is, I imagine the Beats by Dre bluetooth headphones would be fairly low on the dork scale).
Glass is even worse than that, quite possibly without a concomitant increase in utility.
Maybe that's how Glass will overcome its dorkiness barrier... By making everyone else look even dorkier. Then wearing Glass will actually look cool by comparison.
Tablets solve three gigantic problems (well, tablets solve two, the iPad solves three).
1. Provides 75-90% of the capabilities of a laptop with far less than 1/3 the bulk.
2. Far more convenient for most tasks. Call them the belittling 'lite' or 'consumption' tasks if you must, but they are things everyone does and quite enjoyable on a tablet.
3. (Primarily iPad at present, looking forward to improvements on Android at I/O) Provides a level of ease of use, security and privacy far beyond anything offered by notebooks.
I know the Slashdot retcon of technological history says that people only buy iPads because they are stupid or want to impress their friends, and not because they actually like them and find them useful. I wonder how that is supposed to explain over 19 million iPads sold last quarter. Must be a lot of dumb people with money, or something...
You'd think people here would be more likely to be familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor.
It's not that products need to solve a tangible problem, it's that solving a tangible problem is helpful. Glass starts off being extremely dorky. Were it to solve a problem (like bluetooth earpieces do), it would help it. The same way solving a very tangible problem helped cell phones even when they were klunky and unreliable.
And even with that benefit, bluetooth headsets, while common, are not universal. Most people never buy one, and they still look dorky. But dorky + useful enough to more or less balance out.
Glass looks horribly dorky. Every time I see a press photo with some famous person wearing them, I don't like "wow, that's so freaking cool!" like is intended, I think, "my god, even a fairly normal person looks like a total dork in glass".
I do like the overall idea, and think glass would be, if nothing else, fun. I don't think it's useful enough to overcome the dorkiness in the general population, but I do think it will catch on some. Most people will be fine with a smartphone, and perhaps a smartwatch for the instant data access Glass provides. However it turns out, I'm glad it is being tried.
I only wish it didn't cross the privacy line as blatantly as it does, though that's Google's thing, so if anyone is going to do it with the least amount of tiptoeing, it'll be them.
First off, that premise is absolutely flawed. Not all nerds need to tinker in all things at all times
I explicitly said things to the effect that this is not my premise at all. The example of car nerds not tinkering with their computers,
You're right, you were completely inconsistent. But your premise is that nerds can't abide iOS. So maybe it's not "all things at all times", but "only the things that you hate"?
Please, provide a consistent theory that doesn't involve simply "I don't like it, therefore I'll make up some bullshit that is not consistent with itself, only consistent with I don't like it".
and unable to do so could have been used by your second neuron if you had it. Ditto with the mention of trillion other outlets for nerdness. But alas.
Your repeated appeal to insults betrays your lack of confidence in your argument. It's the nerd equivalent of a puffed up chest.
And none of that even matters. It doesn't explain angry nerds such as yourself going around insulting anyone who likes something you don't like. All you've done is demonstrate the problem.
Mentioning for the fourth time - it is well documented that many nerds are argumentative and not-so-socially inclined.
That's the only thing you've written, after removing the insults, and the both intrinsically and extrinsically contradictory assertion that geeks hate things that are "not open", that makes any sense.
It might explain this behavior, but it doesn't justify it. It also, one wonders, may explain your excessive rudeness.
But don't let facts come into your way while expressing shock on an easily explained phenomenon.
Facts. Funny to hear you use that, when your claims that nerds either don't like iOS, or must find other outlets for their nerdiness, are thoroughly contradicted by reality. The only "fact" here is that iOS isn't as open as you like, and you're extrapolating that onto the broader population of nerds, and to humanity more broadly still.
By your theory, nerds hate iOS. But those that do like iOS either aren't nerds, or can't possibly use iOS in a nerdly way, and for those that like iOS but aren't nerds, they're just stupid.
This is the exact thing I find so god damned repulsive about Slashdot. Nerds should be excited about things, not spend all their time hating on things, and worse, people, simply because it's not the thing they like. It's pathetic.
But no, just quip about neurons. It'll make you feel like less of an asshole, and abrogate you from the responsibility of actually understanding the milieu in which you find yourself.
They do. It's related to the distance between seats and the angle of seats.
11" MacBook Air fits just fine. Unless you're, um... excessively rotund. Have you seen the 11" Air? It's not all that much taller than the iPad is wide (on its narrow dimension). 192mm vs 186mm.
You're the only person on the planet who makes 6mm out to be the end of the world... on a frickin' bus!
But please, try again to explain how it's impossible to create on a bus except on a netbook. I can't wait to hear your next whiny excuse!
There's no filesystem on iOS. Until Apple implemented uploading for photos, there's no way to use it in any consistent way. WebGL isn't even enabled by default in Safari on Mac OS X yet, so clearly it's still experimental. They can vet iAds to make sure they will work fine on iOS. They can't do that with any arbitrary WebGL site.
You are so insanely biased that every little thing Apple does is encumbered with ulterior, vile motives. Although there are exceptions, almost every single limitation placed on iOS is there for security, consistency, or ease-of-use. And on top of that, Apple has been primarily broadening their openness. This is really simple: it's easier to open things that are too closed than to close things that are too open.
This has been highly effective and successful. People like you will now tend to go on about "one size fits all" and "Apple thinks their way is the only way", etc., blah, blah.
No one is saying that at all. Android is still there, and while not as open as many seem to think, definitely more open than iOS. Hooray! And Apple never says their way is the only way, only that it's their chosen way, and they think it's the best they can do with what they have at hand. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's something, and half a billion people seem to like it, so that ain't half bad.
You don't have to like it, all I ask is for you to not be such an ass about it. I do realize I need to readjust my expectations a bit lower, but I'm ever the optimist.
Slashdot Mirror
can anyone recommend an app that denies (per app) access to various Android facilities (contacts, dialer, etc) that works w/Android 4.1+?
I can recommend a few: Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, and F-Droid. A growing number of applications have descriptions that explain what they use the permissions for. If you don't buy the rationale, you can always cancel installation.
You clearly misunderstood the question. On iOS, you can buy, install, and run any app that wants permissions that you might not like, and deny those permissions at run time (or even afterwards in iOS's Settings app). On Android, you can only just do as you suggest, which is not install the app at all, unless you root your phone and rely on a set of hacks which require significantly more effort to keep up with than on iOS.
Though now that I think about it, I might be wrong. I don't think you misunderstood the question at all. You're just fanboying, as usual.
Thanks for the link, and no, that's not Apple keeping a cleartext copy of your device encryption key. Could you clarify which sentence or paragraph has phrasing which makes you say otherwise?
And back to your original post, device restores wouldn't require the encryption key anyway. iCloud backups don't simply copy the encrypted filesystem (which would need the key, however even then, the key would itself by encrypted with the user password or some other token, same as on the device). Additionally, this would be entirely optional, which while you never said it wasn't, would significantly weaken any purported issue such a policy would cause.
In short: Apple doesn't hold a direct copy of your device encryption key.
The user only enters a short passcode
Can you absolutely confirm that you must enter a short passcode, rather than an arbitrary length password? Android allows the latter. If iOS only allows short numerical codes then... well, it's shit.
As usual, jumping to the most anti-Apple conclusion. Since we are comparing iOS to Android, Android doesn't even encrypt your OS by default, iOS does. Were I a fanboy like yourself, I'd claim that makes Android shit. I'd never do that, though. Android supports encryption, which is good, and I personally believe it should be enabled by default, but what the hell, right, not everything has to operate exactly the way I determine.
And the article even points out that Google goes much further than Apple in helping law enforcement. They simply reset the password and give the government the new password!
The sad thing here is that every single conclusion you've jumped to without sufficient evidence has been both the least favorable towards Apple, and wrong. Well, "here", that's probably not sad, in fact it'll gain you plenty of mod points. Though *that's* sad, so it all works out in the end.
It isn't a question of if Apple can unlock the phone due to the user choosing a poor password.
No, it's a question of people such as yourself jumping to unsupported conclusions, merely because they hate Apple.
They can always unlock it.
Citation needed.
Someone else can confirm if they were just stupid and only allowed you to enter a PIN number instead of a real password, or if they have a copy of the key.
Earlier you claimed this was "absolute proof", and that's the problem. There are far too many simpler explanations than that Apple has put in a back door.
If it is a back door, this needs to be proclaimed broadly and loudly. But before that happens, you need to quite being so credulous, simply for it supporting your lame fanboy bullshit.
Dudes, Apple holds your encryption key in escrow to allow device restores. That's even disclosed in their freaking policy.
Doubtful, but if you'd be so kind as to link to that portion of their freaking policy? Surely if you know it's there, it can't be that difficult.
Otherwise, this is simply yet another baseless claim, like all the rest.
No, the backlog is 4 months.
"Because the waiting list had grown so long, there would be at least a 7-week delay, Maynard says he was told by Joann Chang, a legal specialist in Apple's litigation group. It's unclear how long the process took, but it appears to have been at least four months."
The backlog is 7 weeks, the process takes at least four months. The article is poorly worded.
This is absolute proof that they have your encryption key on file somewhere. Others have already verified that they do indeed use AES 128.
Absolutely not. Although I'lll grant that even a whisper of a hint is "absolute proof" of bad things around here, so long as it involves Apple.
This sounds to me more like they are hacking the encrypted key, not merely bypassing the encryption with a back door.
Actually, even in the summary, the relevant part is here:
"Because the waiting list had grown so long, there would be at least a 7-week delay, Maynard says he was told by Joann Chang, a legal specialist in Apple's litigation group. It's unclear how long the process took, but it appears to have been at least four months."
It says that the waiting list is 7 weeks, and the process takes four months. However, even so, the entire article is quite vague. The only thing that's not is that there's no way there's as back door in Apple's encryption. At the very least, you'll need more than vague claims to support such a case.
You mean to say you were able to run through the ten thousand numbers between 0000 and 9999? You must be a super-hacker!
Don't worry, this is not what is happening.
Are you sure the keys are burned in during manufacturing? When you remote wipe an iPhone, it wipes the key and the contents become inaccessible. If the key itself is hard coded in hardware, that's not exactly possible to do directly.
You're kidding, right? The real issue is that Apple has a backdoor to decrypt its customers' private information. That is outrageous.
It would be, were that the case. But it's all but certainly not. There's no way Apple would put an actual back door into their products.
If you had read the article, you'd notice that the process takes four months. If they had a back door, it would take a few minutes. Also, had you read the article, you'd notice that Google will reset the password and send that to law enforcement.
But I'm sure that's not outrageous. Lol!
It is irrelevant how much Apple spends to operate that backdoor.
That's true, but only if there was an actual back door.
However, in all fairness, if you have proper evidence that Apple has a back door, I'll be right there with you. That would be wholly unacceptable.
In most distros it's "open GUI package manager, type password, search for 'java', pick the one that says 'java plug-in', hit 'apply.'
Again, information most people don't have. On Windows, it's "click here to download Java" and on the Mac, it's a dialog box that pops up asking if you want to install it, and OS X takes care of the rest.
using the commandline hasn't been required in at least a few years...
Broadly speaking, that is quite simply not true. But in terms of installing software from apt repositories, that's true. But not all distros have GUI repository software installed by default, and not all distros even use binary repositories. But more to the point, I was responding to the claim that a command line option was so much easier than doing it on Windows.
That GUI method is no more difficult to learn than the method for installing it on Windows or OS X
Absolutely false, sorry.
and for some users like my mother, it's a lot easier as it means they don't need to know where to download the item from, which file to get, where it should be saved on the computer, remember where they did save it, or what the filename is.
Fortunately, on Windows and the Mac, no one deals directly with the file anymore, it's all handled by the OS (on the Mac), and reasonably automated on Windows.
This is the same, lame, argument Linux proponents have been making for over a decade now, and it's no more true today than it was back then. Linux is not easier to use than Windows or OS X. The fact that Linux has such a paltry market share should clue you in to that.
And I like Linux. A lot. I can run it far better than I can run a Windows box (and I'm good with Windows as well). There are only a handful of things it does more easily for me than OS X does.
In a discussion about operating systems, and Linux in particular, if someone brings up "Chrome" and Android in a similar way, it's pretty damned obvious to all but the most aloof pedant what the writer is referring to.
Install the icedtea-7-plugin package using any installation method. more detailed instructions here https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Java.
I like how you seem to think that supports the notion that installing Java on Linux is easy.
To be fair installing the the whole of Ubuntu is now a few basic dialog boxes and leave for 20 minutes
Same as above, except s/Java on//.
I know your trolling but Linux Desktop market share has been steadily rising for sometime, and that is without the onslaught of Chrome (and soon Android Boxies).
Meaningless. On PCs, Linux is a distant (and I mean distant) third. It's all but entirely irrelevant.
I also find it amusing that you think Chrome and Android are "Linux". They run a modified Linux kernel, and beyond that the similarities increasingly fall apart.
And FYI, I like Linux. A lot. I run it from time to time, and if it weren't for OS X, it would be my primary OS.
I know you were kidding but installing java plugin under ubuntu is just a matter of apt-get install icedtea-7-plugin ;-)
Actually it's not. It's also all the knowledge that must be gained to get to that point as well.
On Windows, it's as simple as, "This program/website requires Java, click here.". On the Mac, it's even simpler.
This is both the main strength and main weakness of Linux, and why it will never be the Year of Linux on the Desktop until something like Ubuntu succeeds in hiding the complexity of Linux from the user.
I've been looking for a place to say this. I disagree with the assertion that Bluetooth is too dorky to wear.
I never said they were. I just said they are dorky. That doesn't preclude non-dorky ones either. But, regardless of how dweebish they look, they provide enough utility that people wear them in spite of how they look. This also doesn't preclude people finding "dorky" to be appealing, or even the right combo of personal style and industrial design where the headset could look cool (as lame as this is, I imagine the Beats by Dre bluetooth headphones would be fairly low on the dork scale).
Glass is even worse than that, quite possibly without a concomitant increase in utility.
Maybe that's how Glass will overcome its dorkiness barrier... By making everyone else look even dorkier. Then wearing Glass will actually look cool by comparison.
Genius!
> Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.
You have complete control over the visual privacy of your face in the presence of any CCD camera: IR emitting glasses
Whereas before you didn't have to do anything.
Somehow, though, there are people here who will claim absolutely nothing has changed.
No, it's because it's a fucking stupid observation with no relevancy whatsoever.
Oh, I missed this part:
the tablet market.
Tablets solve three gigantic problems (well, tablets solve two, the iPad solves three).
I know the Slashdot retcon of technological history says that people only buy iPads because they are stupid or want to impress their friends, and not because they actually like them and find them useful. I wonder how that is supposed to explain over 19 million iPads sold last quarter. Must be a lot of dumb people with money, or something...
You'd think people here would be more likely to be familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor.
No, you have deliberately reversed his argument.
It's not that products need to solve a tangible problem, it's that solving a tangible problem is helpful. Glass starts off being extremely dorky. Were it to solve a problem (like bluetooth earpieces do), it would help it. The same way solving a very tangible problem helped cell phones even when they were klunky and unreliable.
And even with that benefit, bluetooth headsets, while common, are not universal. Most people never buy one, and they still look dorky. But dorky + useful enough to more or less balance out.
Glass looks horribly dorky. Every time I see a press photo with some famous person wearing them, I don't like "wow, that's so freaking cool!" like is intended, I think, "my god, even a fairly normal person looks like a total dork in glass".
I do like the overall idea, and think glass would be, if nothing else, fun. I don't think it's useful enough to overcome the dorkiness in the general population, but I do think it will catch on some. Most people will be fine with a smartphone, and perhaps a smartwatch for the instant data access Glass provides. However it turns out, I'm glad it is being tried.
I only wish it didn't cross the privacy line as blatantly as it does, though that's Google's thing, so if anyone is going to do it with the least amount of tiptoeing, it'll be them.
First off, that premise is absolutely flawed. Not all nerds need to tinker in all things at all times
I explicitly said things to the effect that this is not my premise at all. The example of car nerds not tinkering with their computers,
You're right, you were completely inconsistent. But your premise is that nerds can't abide iOS. So maybe it's not "all things at all times", but "only the things that you hate"?
Please, provide a consistent theory that doesn't involve simply "I don't like it, therefore I'll make up some bullshit that is not consistent with itself, only consistent with I don't like it".
and unable to do so could have been used by your second neuron if you had it. Ditto with the mention of trillion other outlets for nerdness. But alas.
Your repeated appeal to insults betrays your lack of confidence in your argument. It's the nerd equivalent of a puffed up chest.
And none of that even matters. It doesn't explain angry nerds such as yourself going around insulting anyone who likes something you don't like. All you've done is demonstrate the problem.
Mentioning for the fourth time - it is well documented that many nerds are argumentative and not-so-socially inclined.
That's the only thing you've written, after removing the insults, and the both intrinsically and extrinsically contradictory assertion that geeks hate things that are "not open", that makes any sense.
It might explain this behavior, but it doesn't justify it. It also, one wonders, may explain your excessive rudeness.
But don't let facts come into your way while expressing shock on an easily explained phenomenon.
Facts. Funny to hear you use that, when your claims that nerds either don't like iOS, or must find other outlets for their nerdiness, are thoroughly contradicted by reality. The only "fact" here is that iOS isn't as open as you like, and you're extrapolating that onto the broader population of nerds, and to humanity more broadly still.
By your theory, nerds hate iOS. But those that do like iOS either aren't nerds, or can't possibly use iOS in a nerdly way, and for those that like iOS but aren't nerds, they're just stupid.
This is the exact thing I find so god damned repulsive about Slashdot. Nerds should be excited about things, not spend all their time hating on things, and worse, people, simply because it's not the thing they like. It's pathetic.
But no, just quip about neurons. It'll make you feel like less of an asshole, and abrogate you from the responsibility of actually understanding the milieu in which you find yourself.
I didn't know buses had screen size limits.
They do. It's related to the distance between seats and the angle of seats.
11" MacBook Air fits just fine. Unless you're, um... excessively rotund. Have you seen the 11" Air? It's not all that much taller than the iPad is wide (on its narrow dimension). 192mm vs 186mm.
You're the only person on the planet who makes 6mm out to be the end of the world... on a frickin' bus!
But please, try again to explain how it's impossible to create on a bus except on a netbook. I can't wait to hear your next whiny excuse!
There's no filesystem on iOS. Until Apple implemented uploading for photos, there's no way to use it in any consistent way. WebGL isn't even enabled by default in Safari on Mac OS X yet, so clearly it's still experimental. They can vet iAds to make sure they will work fine on iOS. They can't do that with any arbitrary WebGL site.
You are so insanely biased that every little thing Apple does is encumbered with ulterior, vile motives. Although there are exceptions, almost every single limitation placed on iOS is there for security, consistency, or ease-of-use. And on top of that, Apple has been primarily broadening their openness. This is really simple: it's easier to open things that are too closed than to close things that are too open.
This has been highly effective and successful. People like you will now tend to go on about "one size fits all" and "Apple thinks their way is the only way", etc., blah, blah.
No one is saying that at all. Android is still there, and while not as open as many seem to think, definitely more open than iOS. Hooray! And Apple never says their way is the only way, only that it's their chosen way, and they think it's the best they can do with what they have at hand. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's something, and half a billion people seem to like it, so that ain't half bad.
You don't have to like it, all I ask is for you to not be such an ass about it. I do realize I need to readjust my expectations a bit lower, but I'm ever the optimist.
Well, 9 times out of 10, if that made up argument goes against the grain here on Slashdot, it's probably correct!