You didn't pay MS anything, HTC did. And HTC paid Nokia, the US government (depending on the quality of their accountants), Chinese manufacturers, chip suppliers, Google (huh, I suppose it's ok to pay Google for the rights to use their properties, but not MS?), their employees, etc.
Maybe you would prefer it if MSFT took the "sue your ass off" route that Apple currently uses?
And what "sue your ass off" route would that be, exactly? The only major lawsuit that come to mind that aren't countersuits are the one against Samsung for copying Apple's designs. It's quite possible there are more, but it's definitely not some sort of "route that Apple currently uses".
It is kind of funny though, you mention lawsuits that MS has undertaken, and are currently undertaking, but somehow they *aren't* taking a '"sue your ass off" route', whereas Apple, who isn't engaged in such suits, is?
I honestly thought you were being ironic until I got to the end of your post.
That's an awful lot of effort to go through. When you say, "hasn't failed me yet", has it actually worked yet? And by that, I mean, has it found and removed an infection that otherwise wouldn't have been stopped initially, or been removed after the fact, by a regular antivirus procedure such that it was actually worth the almost absurd amount of effort?
I'm really quite curious about this, because although it's possible to be infected in such a way that normal procedures aren't able to detect, the probability of occurrence should be low enough to not generally be worth the effort. If it's not that low, then it's quite interesting indeed. Otherwise, it seems like a lot of effort for very little extra protection.
And that's all before even getting to the issue of whether removing the drive and scanning from another computer (that is detached from the network, no less) provides any reasonable amount of extra protection beyond simply scanning with a boot disc.
This is hardly the first or the last to use such tricks. This is why I cannot place any faith in any antivirus being used in the typical configuration - as part of a running Windows system. That just doesnt work.
But is this sort of infection common enough to support your conclusion about antivirus software not being trustworthy? Antivirus software is quite useful for preventing infections and removing infections after the fact. It's not 100%, but it is significantly better than you are making it out to be.
Yep...once the virus is in the antivirus is useless. The virus will have no problem setting permissions, etc. so your antivirus can't touch it. And...given that most antivirus programs take a week or so to respond to new viruses, it makes them mostly useless.
If somebody's the sort of person who gets viruses an antivirus won't save them.
This is so untrue, I have to believe I'm missing something here. Antivirus software can often remove infections after the fact, and is also very useful in stopping infections from occurring in the first place. Sure, it's not 100% foolproof, but calling it "mostly useless" and saying it "won't save them" is completely untrue.
Yeah, it's a wall you understood when you bought it. Nobody cares. Just a bunch of inconsequential nerds who think they deserve the fucking world on a platter.
If you don't like it, don't buy into it. But millions of people have. Don't act like they are unwitting victims. They are perfectly fine with how it's going to work out.
And Microsoft is your counter example? My god man, you've lost your marbles.
I copy a digital file copy of a song, movie, etc. It costs me nothing, It in fact, costs nothing other than the electricity to run the computer.
Exactly. It costs you electricity, plus the fact that you have a computer. Are you *REALLY* trying to say this costs you nothing? You are a fucking liar. Shame on you.
But unless you have physical control over something, any "exclusive control" you may have (for example, a car you have parked in the street, but left unlocked with the keys in the ignition) is also "imaginary".
Perhaps, however someone else taking use of that car deprives you of having use of it. Someone else having use of a song, movie, etc. does not deprive you of having use of the same thing. That is the difference.
So, if someone steals your car, but returns it before you need it, no big deal?
No, that's *NOT* the difference. That's just a rationalization on your part for benefitting off of the works of others. You're a parasite.
The only reason you keep possession of your car, when it's in the street completely out of your physical control, is because an artificial law says it belongs to you. That's completely imaginary. It's not real. You *DON'T* really maintain possession of the car, but a bunch of men with guns will pretend like you do if someone decides to drive it away without your permission.
This is exactly the same as copyright. It's not real. It's not inherent to reality. But enough people have decided it makes sense that men with guns will make this imaginary thing real.
You are swine. You are a parasite. You believe you have the inherent right to live off of the work of others. It's pathetic.
No one is demanding perfection (except you, it seems). This jackass makes these types of comments all the time. If it was a one-off, I wouldn't have been motivated to make my original post.
But please, feel free to point out any minor hypocrisy, that's always so productive!
If you think that's proper response, then reply with that. I don't use Android either and I don't give a fuck about it. (And you see, you automatically assumed I would be offended with your Rubin remarks, which just proves how you view the whole thing - Apple v/s Google - while my point of view always is me against the walled gardens)
The whole point is I *don't* think it's a proper response. I thought I made that clear in the outset. As for whether you're offended, it was never my intention to offend you, just point out how stupid and childish those sorts of remarks are.
On the other hand, that you think I meant to offend you clearly indicates you intended to offend others by your remarks. How is that any better than a troll?
For me, the only way to point out flaming fanboism when fanbois go to any length to protect their gods while he is stealing somebody's liver is to say it so. I know, facts can be too much for you, but only way to deal with them is to accept them.
What the fuck? "Flaming fanboyism"? The guy was asked about a difference in UI between Android and iOS that is better on iOS, and he gave his honest opinion! He didn't call anybody names or make childish sexual remarks. How is that "flaming fanboyism"? Other than, clearly, he said something nice about some Apple product! OMG!
As for Jobs' liver, that's even more what the fuck then the first part. Nobody treats Jobs like a "god" or brought up the liver (except for you) or anything else remotely extreme as you seem to be interpreting the whole thing.
So, again, I ask, do you *REALLY* think your response adds any value to the discussion?
"Far more open"? Hardly. "More open"? Sure. No one denies this.
And, it's fairly apparent that not many people actually care about this. Mainly just nerds, and not even all that many of them actually care as much as posts here might lead one to believe.
Plus of course if they block downgrading you can't downgrade to a jailbreakable version.
Funny how Apple fans brag that Apple stuff is more secure but then say they can jailbreak it by visiting a website.
Who says that? Basically, Android fans. And for the very reason you outline: it's a security flaw, and it's outdated information.
And when Apple decide to fix the exploit they downgrade to be able to keep jailbreaking. And then when Apple stop that they explain it's all for their own good.
"For their own good" is silly. It's done to make the product better. "For their own good" is something you force upon people, like, "we had to subdue him, for his own good". All Apple products are purchased on strictly voluntary terms. If you voluntarily buy something with limits, it's not generally "for your own good" (although it can be, but this isn't such a case).
Seriously believing all those mutually contradictory things simultaneously is actually quite impressive.
I've seen few people hold the two views you espoused. And if you don't think Android fans do the same thing, you're quite mistaken.
Remote jailbreaking is a severe security threat. Local jailbreaking is a minor security threat. No one claims that blocking local jailbreaking is "for their own good".
The difference is that imaginary property costs nothing to reproduce (copy a CD, movie, etc.)
That's absolutely incorrect.
whereas physical property costs raw materials to create.
And songs (for example) cost real money to create as well.
Acquiring imaginary property does not deprive someone else of it's use, acquiring physical property by definition means you have exclusive control over it.
But unless you have physical control over something, any "exclusive control" you may have (for example, a car you have parked in the street, but left unlocked with the keys in the ignition) is also "imaginary". The title you have locked away somewhere is just as imaginary in terms of ownership as holding a copyright for a song.
Your sig alone tells me you're a fanboy of Apple. What's the point in defending them?
Your response alone tells me you're the standard slashdot nerd who can't see his point of view is not the apex of the humanity. My sig points out that the "iPad is a toy" is as silly as CmdrTaco's initial admonition against the iPod. How is that "fanboy" material? The iPad's phenomenal success bears evidence to my sig. How is being able to grasp reality evidence of being a "fanboy"?
Nerds tend to view everyone as either right (i.e., agrees with them) or stupid (has a different opinion). I don't begrudge anyone not liking Apple, their products, or their practices. But I do find it absurd to act like things are so polar. "What, you said something nice about Apple? You're a fanboy!"
Or asking, "what's the point in defending them?" Then going on later to defend Google or Linux or whatever *you* happen to prefer. I don't go around telling people not to like things I don't like.
I'm genuinely curious: do you not realize how unproductive such nonsense is? I realize sometimes people don't word things well, or have hard time translating ideas to words, but "sucking Steve Jobs' dick"? Really? *THAT'S* something you think is part of a productive post? Don't you ever think, "hmm... that was probably a bit much"?
I mean, really, what's the proper response to something like that? "Ooh, at least I don't scream 'open me up baby' as Andy Rubin fucks me in the ass!" Did I miss something where that makes for a good discussion?
I actually managed to switch from iOS4 to iOS3 on my 3g iPhone. It took about 4 hours. All part of Apple's nickle and dime scheme. 1) Release update that ruins phone by slowing it down considerably 2) Make it impossible to downgrade (by any official means) 3) Watch the sheep all buy the new iPhone 4.
Needless to say, my next phone will be an android. The samsung infuse looks nice (I have to stay with ATT)
Apple didn't purposely slow down your iPhone 3G to get you to upgrade.
It's absurd. Apple blocks some features (like background wallpapers), because they will slow down the phone, and get yelled at for "artificially" keeping features off of older phones, but the features they *do* bring to older hardware slows things down a little, and it's a conspiracy!
They don't block downgrading as some sort of "trap". It's to limit the number of potential issues people can have. It's part of what makes Apple products "just work", and is done with the intention of making compelling hardware on those grounds.
After all, what is the point of them degrading your old phone if it's going to piss you off so much you'll switch to an Android phone? They are walking a line, and you are on the wrong side of it. There's nothing wrong with where you are, but that doesn't mean it's a deliberate attempt to get you to upgrade on Apple's part either.
It's disingenuous to point out a completely locked down phone and say, "see? Android isn't open!"
Android *isn't* open. That's just an example of that. But also, it's a side issue. What's disingenuous here is to go around saying "Android is open!", then scoffing at people who believed you then got stuck with a non-open Android phone.
I mean, really, are you really surprised that someone would get the idea that any Android phone they buy would be open?
But, like I said at the beginning, Android isn't "open". It's just "more open" than most other systems. Google still controls (and allows carriers and handset makers to control) too much, including not even allowing source code access to the most current version (what was Andy Rubin's definition of open again?).
What you really mean is that Android is open, except when it's not.
And the classic nerd mistake is to think that most people give half a shit about any of that, except for carrier unlocking which is orthogonal to the rest of the list.
What exactly is this supposed to mean? This really isn't that big of a deal to the overwhelming majority of people. It's not as polar as you are making it out to be.
It's more like, "you live by a wall, you can't walk through it except where the door is". I mean, sure, that's *kind of* a bad thing, barely. But not a big deal. If you want on the other side of a wall, you walk through it where the doorway is.
Or, to look at it in a different way, more people value the so-called "walled garden" than care about silly trivialities like this.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I really am not exagerrating. We were using these techniques in the freaking '80s.
Technology has moved on. There's a lot of pointless shit we did in the '80s that we don't do now.
You *ARE* exaggerating when you claim that antivirus software running within the system being tested is something that "just doesn't work".
An antivirus running on an infected system is only going to be able to remove malware written by total idiots.
Which is wholly untrue, but irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it works, which:
Which is most of it, but definitely not all.
Which you clearly seem to think it does.
You should never trust a box that has been compromised.
That's untrue, and besides the point.
However, in the real world sometimes you have to clean as much as you can and move on.
Wait, you just said you should never do that...
But, like I said, it's besides the point. How is antivirus software "almost useless" and "won't save" people from viruses?
You didn't pay MS anything, HTC did. And HTC paid Nokia, the US government (depending on the quality of their accountants), Chinese manufacturers, chip suppliers, Google (huh, I suppose it's ok to pay Google for the rights to use their properties, but not MS?), their employees, etc.
Still misunderstanding the world I see...
Maybe you would prefer it if MSFT took the "sue your ass off" route that Apple currently uses?
And what "sue your ass off" route would that be, exactly? The only major lawsuit that come to mind that aren't countersuits are the one against Samsung for copying Apple's designs. It's quite possible there are more, but it's definitely not some sort of "route that Apple currently uses".
It is kind of funny though, you mention lawsuits that MS has undertaken, and are currently undertaking, but somehow they *aren't* taking a '"sue your ass off" route', whereas Apple, who isn't engaged in such suits, is?
I honestly thought you were being ironic until I got to the end of your post.
That's an awful lot of effort to go through. When you say, "hasn't failed me yet", has it actually worked yet? And by that, I mean, has it found and removed an infection that otherwise wouldn't have been stopped initially, or been removed after the fact, by a regular antivirus procedure such that it was actually worth the almost absurd amount of effort?
I'm really quite curious about this, because although it's possible to be infected in such a way that normal procedures aren't able to detect, the probability of occurrence should be low enough to not generally be worth the effort. If it's not that low, then it's quite interesting indeed. Otherwise, it seems like a lot of effort for very little extra protection.
And that's all before even getting to the issue of whether removing the drive and scanning from another computer (that is detached from the network, no less) provides any reasonable amount of extra protection beyond simply scanning with a boot disc.
This is hardly the first or the last to use such tricks. This is why I cannot place any faith in any antivirus being used in the typical configuration - as part of a running Windows system. That just doesnt work.
But is this sort of infection common enough to support your conclusion about antivirus software not being trustworthy? Antivirus software is quite useful for preventing infections and removing infections after the fact. It's not 100%, but it is significantly better than you are making it out to be.
Yep...once the virus is in the antivirus is useless. The virus will have no problem setting permissions, etc. so your antivirus can't touch it. And...given that most antivirus programs take a week or so to respond to new viruses, it makes them mostly useless.
If somebody's the sort of person who gets viruses an antivirus won't save them.
This is so untrue, I have to believe I'm missing something here. Antivirus software can often remove infections after the fact, and is also very useful in stopping infections from occurring in the first place. Sure, it's not 100% foolproof, but calling it "mostly useless" and saying it "won't save them" is completely untrue.
Uh, yeah. That's my point, jackass. He's a troll. Just calling him out on it.
But congrats on joining him as a troll. Hope that makes you feel better somehow.
Um, what? A locked down Android phone isn't an example of Android being non-open?
Yeah, it's a wall you understood when you bought it. Nobody cares. Just a bunch of inconsequential nerds who think they deserve the fucking world on a platter.
If you don't like it, don't buy into it. But millions of people have. Don't act like they are unwitting victims. They are perfectly fine with how it's going to work out.
And Microsoft is your counter example? My god man, you've lost your marbles.
That's absolutely incorrect
I copy a digital file copy of a song, movie, etc. It costs me nothing, It in fact, costs nothing other than the electricity to run the computer.
Exactly. It costs you electricity, plus the fact that you have a computer. Are you *REALLY* trying to say this costs you nothing? You are a fucking liar. Shame on you.
But unless you have physical control over something, any "exclusive control" you may have (for example, a car you have parked in the street, but left unlocked with the keys in the ignition) is also "imaginary".
Perhaps, however someone else taking use of that car deprives you of having use of it. Someone else having use of a song, movie, etc. does not deprive you of having use of the same thing. That is the difference.
So, if someone steals your car, but returns it before you need it, no big deal?
No, that's *NOT* the difference. That's just a rationalization on your part for benefitting off of the works of others. You're a parasite.
The only reason you keep possession of your car, when it's in the street completely out of your physical control, is because an artificial law says it belongs to you. That's completely imaginary. It's not real. You *DON'T* really maintain possession of the car, but a bunch of men with guns will pretend like you do if someone decides to drive it away without your permission.
This is exactly the same as copyright. It's not real. It's not inherent to reality. But enough people have decided it makes sense that men with guns will make this imaginary thing real.
You are swine. You are a parasite. You believe you have the inherent right to live off of the work of others. It's pathetic.
No one is demanding perfection (except you, it seems). This jackass makes these types of comments all the time. If it was a one-off, I wouldn't have been motivated to make my original post.
But please, feel free to point out any minor hypocrisy, that's always so productive!
If you think that's proper response, then reply with that. I don't use Android either and I don't give a fuck about it. (And you see, you automatically assumed I would be offended with your Rubin remarks, which just proves how you view the whole thing - Apple v/s Google - while my point of view always is me against the walled gardens)
The whole point is I *don't* think it's a proper response. I thought I made that clear in the outset. As for whether you're offended, it was never my intention to offend you, just point out how stupid and childish those sorts of remarks are.
On the other hand, that you think I meant to offend you clearly indicates you intended to offend others by your remarks. How is that any better than a troll?
For me, the only way to point out flaming fanboism when fanbois go to any length to protect their gods while he is stealing somebody's liver is to say it so. I know, facts can be too much for you, but only way to deal with them is to accept them.
What the fuck? "Flaming fanboyism"? The guy was asked about a difference in UI between Android and iOS that is better on iOS, and he gave his honest opinion! He didn't call anybody names or make childish sexual remarks. How is that "flaming fanboyism"? Other than, clearly, he said something nice about some Apple product! OMG!
As for Jobs' liver, that's even more what the fuck then the first part. Nobody treats Jobs like a "god" or brought up the liver (except for you) or anything else remotely extreme as you seem to be interpreting the whole thing.
So, again, I ask, do you *REALLY* think your response adds any value to the discussion?
"Far more open"? Hardly. "More open"? Sure. No one denies this.
And, it's fairly apparent that not many people actually care about this. Mainly just nerds, and not even all that many of them actually care as much as posts here might lead one to believe.
Plus of course if they block downgrading you can't downgrade to a jailbreakable version.
Funny how Apple fans brag that Apple stuff is more secure but then say they can jailbreak it by visiting a website.
Who says that? Basically, Android fans. And for the very reason you outline: it's a security flaw, and it's outdated information.
And when Apple decide to fix the exploit they downgrade to be able to keep jailbreaking. And then when Apple stop that they explain it's all for their own good.
"For their own good" is silly. It's done to make the product better. "For their own good" is something you force upon people, like, "we had to subdue him, for his own good". All Apple products are purchased on strictly voluntary terms. If you voluntarily buy something with limits, it's not generally "for your own good" (although it can be, but this isn't such a case).
Seriously believing all those mutually contradictory things simultaneously is actually quite impressive.
I've seen few people hold the two views you espoused. And if you don't think Android fans do the same thing, you're quite mistaken.
Remote jailbreaking is a severe security threat. Local jailbreaking is a minor security threat. No one claims that blocking local jailbreaking is "for their own good".
The difference is that imaginary property costs nothing to reproduce (copy a CD, movie, etc.)
That's absolutely incorrect.
whereas physical property costs raw materials to create.
And songs (for example) cost real money to create as well.
Acquiring imaginary property does not deprive someone else of it's use, acquiring physical property by definition means you have exclusive control over it.
But unless you have physical control over something, any "exclusive control" you may have (for example, a car you have parked in the street, but left unlocked with the keys in the ignition) is also "imaginary". The title you have locked away somewhere is just as imaginary in terms of ownership as holding a copyright for a song.
I think you interpreted my post in the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Your sig alone tells me you're a fanboy of Apple. What's the point in defending them?
Your response alone tells me you're the standard slashdot nerd who can't see his point of view is not the apex of the humanity. My sig points out that the "iPad is a toy" is as silly as CmdrTaco's initial admonition against the iPod. How is that "fanboy" material? The iPad's phenomenal success bears evidence to my sig. How is being able to grasp reality evidence of being a "fanboy"?
Nerds tend to view everyone as either right (i.e., agrees with them) or stupid (has a different opinion). I don't begrudge anyone not liking Apple, their products, or their practices. But I do find it absurd to act like things are so polar. "What, you said something nice about Apple? You're a fanboy!"
Or asking, "what's the point in defending them?" Then going on later to defend Google or Linux or whatever *you* happen to prefer. I don't go around telling people not to like things I don't like.
So now, who's supposed to be the fanboy again?
What? You mean it costs *money* to buy hardware to develop on? What the hell?!
Or, you could just use the emulator if you can't afford an iPod touch to test on and don't want to run beta software on your one and only iPhone.
I'm genuinely curious: do you not realize how unproductive such nonsense is? I realize sometimes people don't word things well, or have hard time translating ideas to words, but "sucking Steve Jobs' dick"? Really? *THAT'S* something you think is part of a productive post? Don't you ever think, "hmm... that was probably a bit much"?
I mean, really, what's the proper response to something like that? "Ooh, at least I don't scream 'open me up baby' as Andy Rubin fucks me in the ass!" Did I miss something where that makes for a good discussion?
I actually managed to switch from iOS4 to iOS3 on my 3g iPhone. It took about 4 hours. All part of Apple's nickle and dime scheme. 1) Release update that ruins phone by slowing it down considerably 2) Make it impossible to downgrade (by any official means) 3) Watch the sheep all buy the new iPhone 4.
Needless to say, my next phone will be an android. The samsung infuse looks nice (I have to stay with ATT)
Apple didn't purposely slow down your iPhone 3G to get you to upgrade.
It's absurd. Apple blocks some features (like background wallpapers), because they will slow down the phone, and get yelled at for "artificially" keeping features off of older phones, but the features they *do* bring to older hardware slows things down a little, and it's a conspiracy!
They don't block downgrading as some sort of "trap". It's to limit the number of potential issues people can have. It's part of what makes Apple products "just work", and is done with the intention of making compelling hardware on those grounds.
After all, what is the point of them degrading your old phone if it's going to piss you off so much you'll switch to an Android phone? They are walking a line, and you are on the wrong side of it. There's nothing wrong with where you are, but that doesn't mean it's a deliberate attempt to get you to upgrade on Apple's part either.
Wow. I don't get mistaken for a mac enthusiast often.
Pay him no mind. The man has issues that go far deeper than simple misunderstandings or differences of opinion.
It's disingenuous to point out a completely locked down phone and say, "see? Android isn't open!"
Android *isn't* open. That's just an example of that. But also, it's a side issue. What's disingenuous here is to go around saying "Android is open!", then scoffing at people who believed you then got stuck with a non-open Android phone.
I mean, really, are you really surprised that someone would get the idea that any Android phone they buy would be open?
But, like I said at the beginning, Android isn't "open". It's just "more open" than most other systems. Google still controls (and allows carriers and handset makers to control) too much, including not even allowing source code access to the most current version (what was Andy Rubin's definition of open again?).
What you really mean is that Android is open, except when it's not.
There are levels of "pwning" a phone.
And the classic nerd mistake is to think that most people give half a shit about any of that, except for carrier unlocking which is orthogonal to the rest of the list.
You live by the wall, you die by the wall.
What exactly is this supposed to mean? This really isn't that big of a deal to the overwhelming majority of people. It's not as polar as you are making it out to be.
It's more like, "you live by a wall, you can't walk through it except where the door is". I mean, sure, that's *kind of* a bad thing, barely. But not a big deal. If you want on the other side of a wall, you walk through it where the doorway is.
Or, to look at it in a different way, more people value the so-called "walled garden" than care about silly trivialities like this.