OK, last I saw, since MS didn't have their API available on the phone, you couldn't use it, even if you wrote your own code to handle it. Guess I'm outdated on that.
I don't think the app count is the issue, there are a lot of apps.
The app usefulness is the issue - the API, is at bast, extremely lacking in a lot of areas. There are some modern things that are very useful for apps, that just can't be done effectively with it. Outside of single player games, and some trivial stuff, there's not much interesting, in a modern sense, that you can do effectively with it.
I have a WP7 phone (HTC). I've never seen those issues. I'm guessing they are hardware/driver issues. I'm guessing the UI toggle is tied to the processing state of the action - it stalled in the middle, so it died.
And you can't blame the phone OS if the store can't make their WiFi and phones work together. I've used my phone on my WiFi at work and the Sprint store, and had no issues whatsoever.
WP7 has it's flaws, particularly with the 3rd party dev API, but the issues you mentioned seem more likely to be AT&T or the hardware manufacturer.
I think your post misses one huge flaw with WP7 The developer API, it's too restrictive. No good way to get your apps to share data between each other. Only network connection allowed is HTTP. No single source of online storage (last I checked the SkyDrive API wasn't opened, so you can't use it, by the developer contract).
Yes, it has a clean and effective API, but in terms of functionality from 3rd party apps, it lacks, and would still lack, even if it had all the developers of iOS and Android combined.
I use wifi away from home only when it is a necessity. And only at when times I don't have an option. End even when I do use it, I restrict what I do (as stated previously, sorry if this mildly complex set of use-cases confused you). Also, it keeps anyone from accessing my home network via WiFI, should they manage a successful breakin. Using wifi elsewhere won't allow them to break in to my home network via wifi. If you need an explanation why, please go back to eating your crayons and glue.
If what I do is too complex for you, that's your problem, not mine. But I don't feel like wasting 10-15 mins on the phone to cancel a credit card, dealing with issues of someone having gotten into my filesystems because they've run rampant on my network, or having the cops come after me because someone hacked my network and started using my internet for illegal purposes.
If the system is open, an easily sniffable, you're an idiot for using it with stuff you don't want publically accessible.
* I don't use WiFi at home (easy enough to wire a place up, a simple weekend project). * When I do use WiFi... ** If it is encrypted, then I will use things like email, etc. But only if they are on a secure pipe (such as https / pops / etc.). I still won't use it for anything financial. ** If it is unecrypted, then I will only do casual browsing - no stuff with user names or passwords. * Wired is treated like secure/encrypted WiFi, except I will do financial things (if it is a network I trust)...
Remember, on the internet, paranoia is your friend because everyone IS out to get you.
The only thing I'd want to add - while TFS/TFT said origin of the "tree of life" - I believe it would be closest to the eukaryotic branch of the tree. That lines up pretty well with the 1 billion years estimate as well.
If the bank tracks the money down and can retrieve it, it should definitely go back to the person it was defrauded from - however these institutions are not perfect or omniscient - they can't always track it down.
>Does that apply if you are unaware of the fraud? For instance DNS hijack, MITM attack, both of which ensuring the first instance of you knowing of > compromise is when you check your statement or the bank freezes your account? What about if your card is skimmed? [geek.com] It's happened to me, > and I only ever use ATMs on bank buildings and am meticulous about shielding my PIN.
The only case that I really think could be the bank's fault, is the first two, and then only if the hacker got the bank's cert, and were using it. Otherwise, it is just as much my fault for using my particular DNS/ISP/etc. It certianly isn't the bank's fault. All of these cases, it's good business practice for the bank to help out - "protecting customer money" and giving them a sense of security using that bank - however it is not the bank's responsibility unless they screw up. I would have more choices in what happened, than they do.
Not necessarily - You can take responsibility for your actions and still believe that bankers (more precisely, many investors) are not held accountable for their losses.
That "1%" has the ability to screw things up and still get huge bonuses/payments equal to what would take someone with an average salary 50-100 years to make. Not is not being held responsible. Even someone who is responsible for their actions, ESPECIALLY someone who is responsible for their actions, can see that.
* note - I had not money lost in the meltdown, but at the same time, if I screw up like some of those people did, in my job, then I'd be fired on the spot, and rightfully so. Likewise, if I were dumb enough to enter my data to fraudulent site, then it would be my responsibility to fix the issue, and rightfully so.
User or computers? Several dozen. A few years ago (2006? 2007?) a there was a virus (never got the name) that went around a department in the unviersity that has a lot of Mac users.
It's not that there was no malware, just that it was rare, back then.
Prior to that, I worked in a different department, and every year or two we had to clear out some new virus that got half the Windows machines. So, yeah, Windows is worse, I just got sick of the blanket statements of technical ignorance from some of the Mac users.
In other words, the real reason they oppose this bill, is interferes with a revenue stream of American tax dollars from the 'unlimited cash cow' of the government.
Yes, but the post of mine he was replying to, I never said "always" or even "more often than not". None the less, there are plenty of us who are tired of that particular irrational vocal minority.
Limiting it to just people who have IT experience that I know: (1) One person literally told me that it is impossible for a mac to get a virus. (2) One has said that, since he uses Chrome and MacOS, he can't get malware, period.
That's maybe 10% of the MacIT people I've dealt with, the rest have been in the 'it is less likely' camp. From the non-IT Mac users, it's closer to closer to half, that fall into one of those (or similar, change the web browser), categories.
Yes, however, I think the GP just venting due to all of the "I have a Mac, so I'm immune to malware" and "Oh, they had problems because they used a PC, they should have gotten a Mac!" that has being going on for so long, even by some here on slashdot.
But, of course, you are correct, it is the user that is the biggest security vulnerability of a computer, in most cases.
Although not numbered, I'm going to label them 1 to 4 in the order they are shown:
#1 and #4 are simply economics - if they can't do that, then they won't come out.
#2 I believe I remember reading something like that before (80% at 30 minutes). I don't like that too much, can you imagine the lines at the fueling plugs? Do you really want to refuel for 30 minutes? Then again, I could see restaurants adding fueling stations. Fuel your car an you at the same time. It could be an interesting market. And when you don't have a long trip, then you'll probably fuel at home anyway.
#3 Given that they react with air, I think it would vary by the seal that 'shuts off' the battery. Trickle discharge could take from weeks to years, depending on the seal quality (an initial little bit of 'fast' discharge from air in the battery system, and then after that, rather slow).
No, the argument is actually against small species, because that's where all the competition was. Butt hey had to start small - so they tried to jump through that phase quickly. Once you are larger, the competition with the smaller species is reduced. It's only once being larger became unfavorable, that they had issues.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, last I saw, since MS didn't have their API available on the phone, you couldn't use it, even if you wrote your own code to handle it. Guess I'm outdated on that.
HTTPS tends to be available in APIs that supply HTTP...
Cross talk between applications. Talking with servers that would be better suited with a persistent connection?
You are assuming it is working with all of the others.
Also, you are assuming the issue isn't with the driver or hardware (which would be the manufacturer of the phone, and not the OS).
I had the same with a Samsung Android on Sprint - having toyed with and heard of a few others, I'm inclined to blame Samsung.
This is an HTC, and it has crashed once in the year that I've had it. Which is more than I'd like, but tolerable.
I don't think the app count is the issue, there are a lot of apps.
The app usefulness is the issue - the API, is at bast, extremely lacking in a lot of areas. There are some modern things that are very useful for apps, that just can't be done effectively with it. Outside of single player games, and some trivial stuff, there's not much interesting, in a modern sense, that you can do effectively with it.
I have a WP7 phone (HTC). I've never seen those issues. I'm guessing they are hardware/driver issues. I'm guessing the UI toggle is tied to the processing state of the action - it stalled in the middle, so it died.
And you can't blame the phone OS if the store can't make their WiFi and phones work together. I've used my phone on my WiFi at work and the Sprint store, and had no issues whatsoever.
WP7 has it's flaws, particularly with the 3rd party dev API, but the issues you mentioned seem more likely to be AT&T or the hardware manufacturer.
I think your post misses one huge flaw with WP7
The developer API, it's too restrictive. No good way to get your apps to share data between each other. Only network connection allowed is HTTP. No single source of online storage (last I checked the SkyDrive API wasn't opened, so you can't use it, by the developer contract).
Yes, it has a clean and effective API, but in terms of functionality from 3rd party apps, it lacks, and would still lack, even if it had all the developers of iOS and Android combined.
I use wifi away from home only when it is a necessity. And only at when times I don't have an option. End even when I do use it, I restrict what I do (as stated previously, sorry if this mildly complex set of use-cases confused you). Also, it keeps anyone from accessing my home network via WiFI, should they manage a successful breakin. Using wifi elsewhere won't allow them to break in to my home network via wifi. If you need an explanation why, please go back to eating your crayons and glue.
If what I do is too complex for you, that's your problem, not mine. But I don't feel like wasting 10-15 mins on the phone to cancel a credit card, dealing with issues of someone having gotten into my filesystems because they've run rampant on my network, or having the cops come after me because someone hacked my network and started using my internet for illegal purposes.
You can't be that stupid...
If the system is open, an easily sniffable, you're an idiot for using it with stuff you don't want publically accessible.
* I don't use WiFi at home (easy enough to wire a place up, a simple weekend project).
* When I do use WiFi...
** If it is encrypted, then I will use things like email, etc. But only if they are on a secure pipe (such as https / pops / etc.). I still won't use it for anything financial.
** If it is unecrypted, then I will only do casual browsing - no stuff with user names or passwords.
* Wired is treated like secure/encrypted WiFi, except I will do financial things (if it is a network I trust)...
Remember, on the internet, paranoia is your friend because everyone IS out to get you.
Nice cover of it. Much better than TFS/TFA.
The only thing I'd want to add - while TFS/TFT said origin of the "tree of life" - I believe it would be closest to the eukaryotic branch of the tree. That lines up pretty well with the 1 billion years estimate as well.
I think from tfs, it is safe to say it is not a new form of life...
If the bank tracks the money down and can retrieve it, it should definitely go back to the person it was defrauded from - however these institutions are not perfect or omniscient - they can't always track it down.
>Does that apply if you are unaware of the fraud? For instance DNS hijack, MITM attack, both of which ensuring the first instance of you knowing of
> compromise is when you check your statement or the bank freezes your account? What about if your card is skimmed? [geek.com] It's happened to me,
> and I only ever use ATMs on bank buildings and am meticulous about shielding my PIN.
The only case that I really think could be the bank's fault, is the first two, and then only if the hacker got the bank's cert, and were using it. Otherwise, it is just as much my fault for using my particular DNS/ISP/etc. It certianly isn't the bank's fault. All of these cases, it's good business practice for the bank to help out - "protecting customer money" and giving them a sense of security using that bank - however it is not the bank's responsibility unless they screw up. I would have more choices in what happened, than they do.
Not necessarily - You can take responsibility for your actions and still believe that bankers (more precisely, many investors) are not held accountable for their losses.
That "1%" has the ability to screw things up and still get huge bonuses/payments equal to what would take someone with an average salary 50-100 years to make. Not is not being held responsible. Even someone who is responsible for their actions, ESPECIALLY someone who is responsible for their actions, can see that.
* note - I had not money lost in the meltdown, but at the same time, if I screw up like some of those people did, in my job, then I'd be fired on the spot, and rightfully so. Likewise, if I were dumb enough to enter my data to fraudulent site, then it would be my responsibility to fix the issue, and rightfully so.
Any issues I've had from debit card or credit card fraud from my bank, has had the money fixed/cleared in under 24 hours.
Some people have faster / more responsive banks. That doesn't make them clueless. You however...
Sorry for the late reply.
User or computers? Several dozen. A few years ago (2006? 2007?) a there was a virus (never got the name) that went around a department in the unviersity that has a lot of Mac users.
It's not that there was no malware, just that it was rare, back then.
Prior to that, I worked in a different department, and every year or two we had to clear out some new virus that got half the Windows machines. So, yeah, Windows is worse, I just got sick of the blanket statements of technical ignorance from some of the Mac users.
Sorry, I misunderstood the intent of the quoted statement.
In other words, the real reason they oppose this bill, is interferes with a revenue stream of American tax dollars from the 'unlimited cash cow' of the government.
Yes, but the post of mine he was replying to, I never said "always" or even "more often than not". None the less, there are plenty of us who are tired of that particular irrational vocal minority.
Two examples I've ran into:
Limiting it to just people who have IT experience that I know:
(1) One person literally told me that it is impossible for a mac to get a virus.
(2) One has said that, since he uses Chrome and MacOS, he can't get malware, period.
That's maybe 10% of the MacIT people I've dealt with, the rest have been in the 'it is less likely' camp.
From the non-IT Mac users, it's closer to closer to half, that fall into one of those (or similar, change the web browser), categories.
Yes, however, I think the GP just venting due to all of the "I have a Mac, so I'm immune to malware" and "Oh, they had problems because they used a PC, they should have gotten a Mac!" that has being going on for so long, even by some here on slashdot.
But, of course, you are correct, it is the user that is the biggest security vulnerability of a computer, in most cases.
Although not numbered, I'm going to label them 1 to 4 in the order they are shown:
#1 and #4 are simply economics - if they can't do that, then they won't come out.
#2 I believe I remember reading something like that before (80% at 30 minutes). I don't like that too much, can you imagine the lines at the fueling plugs? Do you really want to refuel for 30 minutes? Then again, I could see restaurants adding fueling stations. Fuel your car an you at the same time. It could be an interesting market. And when you don't have a long trip, then you'll probably fuel at home anyway.
#3 Given that they react with air, I think it would vary by the seal that 'shuts off' the battery. Trickle discharge could take from weeks to years, depending on the seal quality (an initial little bit of 'fast' discharge from air in the battery system, and then after that, rather slow).
Remember, I didn't use an absolute descriptor, but a relative one, and it was in comparison to Disney, leaving quite a large margin.
No, the argument is actually against small species, because that's where all the competition was. Butt hey had to start small - so they tried to jump through that phase quickly. Once you are larger, the competition with the smaller species is reduced. It's only once being larger became unfavorable, that they had issues.