Of course! We don't want the terrorists to win! They are also given the ability to kill civilians, destroy towns, etc. without much oversight because we all know that if we don't THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN!!!!111!! You don't want another 9/11 to happen do you?
No, the main problem was stated above. It doesn't help shareholders, it harms them. The problem is that due to government grants and the like, Verizon was pretty much given taxpayer money (Remember, Verizon basically was a spin-off of AT&T) to gain a huge amount of infrastructure and initial capital. So because of this, it is not immediately obvious that a lost customer costs them lots of money, because of this in its early years, it eventually turned into this.
And really, honestly, I don't understand why everyone is all upset about this for. This is what life insurance is supposed to cover, bills.
Right, because we all know that there are perfectly secure computers. Perfectly secure software. Silly Google for not adding in Perfectly Secure Browser V 1.0
Lets face it, the only secure computer is one in a perfectly secure vault, powered off and has the only person know where the vault is killed.
But Google won't see a point in installing crapware OTA. Google has no "YOU MUST DO THINGS OUR WAY" like Apple does, Google also is blocked from really innovating because of the carriers, I have little doubt in my mind that if Google didn't think that carriers would make a huge deal about it, Android would have tethering from the beginning and a lot of other features.
If worse comes to worse I have little doubt in my mind that Google will keep top-tier phones free from crap similar to the Nexus One and the G1 Dev Phone.
Yeah, and really how many people do you think are going to bother? Lets face it, there are a lot easier targets out there to hack for some script kiddie. For a really, really good black hat cracker they'd need some kind of personal motivation (such as bragging that your network at XXXX address is unhackable) for them to bother.
Lets face it, chances are your neighbors aren't 1337 h@x0rz who are just looking to get into your router and redirect all requests to Goatse, the guy out in his car just wants free wi-fi to check Facebook most probably and the rare hacker is going to pick easier targets.
Unless you personally piss off some black-hat cracker, you live next to one, or you happen to live right next to where Defcon is being held, no one is going to bother to hack your wi-fi because no one cares.
Seriously, if everyone was a 1337 computer knowledgeable cracker, we wouldn't have all these crappy computer "help" and installation centers across the country who charge $30 to pop in a PCI card or $50 to spend 5 minutes clicking "next" buttons.
Ok, so Google can install new apps to give new features? Not really sure what I should be worried about... Yes I know they -could- install in new applications which are completely evil provided by Sprint/T-Mobile/Verizon/AT&T but I'm not sure if Google would end up doing that because carriers really hold back Android more than anything else.
There is competition now in the phone market, Google doesn't want to screw up anything because I could go to iOS, BlackBerry OS, WinMobile, Symbian, or heck, I could just root my phone and remove the crap.
Google attracts the people who don't want to play games and jump through hoops like you have to with Windows Mobile or the iPhone. Google knows this and wouldn't want to kill their main vocal market.
The difference is, an App could very well be a part of the OS (for example the browser) it just isn't part of the Kernel/UI. A critical flaw in the browser certainly warrants a quick update. Plus, OS updates might not always come to phones. With no OS level updates coming to some phones due to manufacture/carrier apathy vulnerabilities need to be fixed somehow, and OTA updates are a good way of doing it for phones who can't support the new technologies with new Android versions.
Really, this makes a bit more sense than having 234234234324234 OS updates every year. The majority of updates can be done by removing/updating apps, not to mention security patches. Really, some phones already have the latest Android they will ever get, barring rooting. But people will keep using that phone for 4+ years, that is a long time to have a security flaw out there that could steal information. Since the browser is going to be the main attack vector which is an app, it makes sense.
While this could be used to push more carrier crapware, I think updates and upgrades of installed apps are more likely to work for more phones and easier for the average user to use.
In all honesty, would you rather be using an outdated version of a browser with security flaws because your phone doesn't support Android 2.75 Double Chocolate Chunk Cookie or just have your browser update to a more secure version OTA?
Yes but think about it, if there is a terrible vulnerability in the browser, I think I'd like Google to patch it even if it didn't have an entire new kernel and the like.
Chances are your browser is going to be the most targeted part of any OS and it is an app.
Yeah because wardriving is soooo terrible. Look, if you don't want people connecting to your wi-fi network hide the SSD and encrypt it securely. If not, then does it matter too much if you lose a few bytes of data? There are very, very, few people who are going to bother even trying to break an encrypted connection, especially when they can go to a cafe and get free internet pretty much everywhere.
Wouldn't that be more likely caused by fluctuations in the power supply though? I'm not an electrical engineer nor an expert on earthquakes, but wouldn't it be possible that a quick loss of power or too high of power for a split second could mess up the data on the RAM?
The difference though is this isn't Apple saying that they don't have problems, it is a well-informed person telling what is wrong in a very un-Apple way
Apple is using a bonding agent called Organofunctional Silane Z-6011 to bond the layers of glass. Apparently, Apple (or more likely Foxconn) is shipping these products so quickly that the evaporation process is not complete. However, after one or two days of use, especially with the screen on, will complete the evaporation process and the yellow "blotches" will disappear. How do I know? I was involved in pitching Z-6011 to Apple.
No one is denying that it exists, its just that it could very well just be the bonding agent not drying yet.
The difference is that with a car there are very few situations where you would need to go 90 MPH + and if you were going that fast, chances are you already know enough about the car to re-tune it to remove it, and cars don't make it impossible to remove, you don't need to look for security flaws.
On the other hand, there are a lot of applications that would be useful that Apple forbids because it "competes" with Apple's own offerings, can run other code (with the new A4 processor that opens up a lot of emulation possibilities), etc.
Ok, how much memory does the average system have? A lot. Does it -matter- if Firefox uses 2 GB of memory if I have 4+ gigs? Memory is dirt cheap now, even insanely cheap systems come with 2 GB standard. Heck, phones are starting to get 512 MB + of RAM! Plus, memory is rewritable, reusable and if you aren't using it it won't be utilized. Would you rather gain a performance benefit by using 2 GB of RAM if you've got no other major programs running on a system with 4 gigs of RAM, or rather have a few GB of idle RAM to lower memory usage? Low memory systems now have at least 1 gig of RAM, embedded systems now have 256 MB + of RAM. Memory is dirt cheap, might as well use it.
So in other words, the thing runs perfectly if you disable the default options and install ad-ons to make it work right and then disable plugins.
Lets face it, a good browser wouldn't require those things to be done in order to browser decently.
Now, I use Firefox, but only because I hate the lack of customization on Chrome, don't like the proprietary-ness of Opera, run Linux so can't really use Safari, and obscure WebKit/Gecko browsers usually don't have needed plugins like AdBlock and manytimes don't have enough customization.
Is it too much to ask for Chrome's rendering engine with Firefox's UI only if it was a bit faster?
No, but I can get a pretty good idea of hiring an employee by knowing past career history and try to make an educated guess. That very risk is why most companies hesitate to hire people unless they have great work experience.
Finally, no our economy isn't based on convenience
Then what is it based on? Every development in the last 50 years has been centered upon convenience. The car, the internet, computers, automation, robotics, music, TV, radio, tapes, DVDs, Blu-Ray, NetFlix, Roomba, iPhone, etc. every major part of our economy is driven by the need for convenience.
This is great, now if only Firefox could separate tabs into processes and get a JavaScript engine comparable to V8 they could start to pull ahead of Chrome.
Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?
Yes, most people. See, that is the key. Most people don't have enough free time to sit down and read an entire book. But the thing is, they don't stop you if you read the entire book. Same thing with an album or DVD, few people are going to sit down and watch/listen to the entire thing, or same thing with games, but why stop them? Our entire economy is based on convenience, I have broadband because its more convenient than dial-up, I've got a car because its a whole lot easier to drive 15 miles to work everyday rather than walk those 15 miles, I've got a refrigerator rather than buying food everyday because its easier, etc. I could probably save money if I bought a modem for my laptop and subscribed to a dirt-cheap dial-up service, but it would be a lot less convenient.
You would gain more sales than "losses" according to the *AA if you could watch an entire movie or listen to an entire album before you purchased it. The problem with 30 second samples is that it doesn't reflect the entire song. The -vast- majority of my iTunes purchases are songs that I've been listening to for a while on YouTube, I don't go out and buy obscure albums without knowing what the songs are. And unless the album is at a steep discount when compared to the songs I like individually, I won't buy an entire album.
I like certainty in my purchases. Why should I spend the price for a decent meal on an album unless I know for sure I will like it? Does this strategy mean I buy less music? Yes. Does this strategy mean that I spend more on my music? Yes. Using YouTube and other sites with music on it I will generally end up finding more artists that I really like, that I will buy their albums and go to see concerts, buy merchandise, etc.
I'm going to end up spending less money if I buy a few sub-par albums I don't really like when compared to one album that I really love so I go to the concerts.
This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.
Whether you vote Republican or Democrat you will get essentially the same politicians which differ on small, trivial issues that hide the underlying sameness of the parties.
Until we get a third party elected, we will have mostly the same which is parties bought by various corporations, parties ignoring the constitution, parties ignoring those who they've been elected by.
The way I see it, both major parties fail at listening to those who elected them and most importantly actually reading the constitution.
But depending on the candidates, various Libertarian/Constitution party members will oppose intellectual "property" in its current form based on various extensions from the original constitution which contains much more sane terms. Of course some of them actively support it, so it just really depends on the candidate.
Most importantly, pirated Windows will be eradicated and those unable to buy the full version will be forced into Free software.
What are you talking about? How many people really "buy" Windows as a stand alone product? My guess is a few people who build their own systems and don't want to rely on cracks and Mac users. For the other 99.99% of Americans, they get Windows bundled with their computer. The thing about computers is that the price is really important, if you pay less than $300 or so for a computer, people are going to think it is crap, even if the savings is by not having OEM Windows installed and having Linux installed. Americans tend to think more money == greater quality, hence why companies like Monster Cable are still in business. There are small niches for sub-$300 computers but for the masses, they seem to think that cheaper hardware is cheaper quality. And the specs don't really matter, get an Atom CPU and a few gigs of RAM, slap a VAIO label on it and charge $500 and people will buy it thinking it is better than a $400 Core i5 box.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course! We don't want the terrorists to win! They are also given the ability to kill civilians, destroy towns, etc. without much oversight because we all know that if we don't THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN!!!!111!! You don't want another 9/11 to happen do you?
No, the main problem was stated above. It doesn't help shareholders, it harms them. The problem is that due to government grants and the like, Verizon was pretty much given taxpayer money (Remember, Verizon basically was a spin-off of AT&T) to gain a huge amount of infrastructure and initial capital. So because of this, it is not immediately obvious that a lost customer costs them lots of money, because of this in its early years, it eventually turned into this.
And really, honestly, I don't understand why everyone is all upset about this for. This is what life insurance is supposed to cover, bills.
My guess is though, Google isn't going to do that. Carriers are their number one hindrance to innovation.
Right, because we all know that there are perfectly secure computers. Perfectly secure software. Silly Google for not adding in Perfectly Secure Browser V 1.0
Lets face it, the only secure computer is one in a perfectly secure vault, powered off and has the only person know where the vault is killed.
But Google won't see a point in installing crapware OTA. Google has no "YOU MUST DO THINGS OUR WAY" like Apple does, Google also is blocked from really innovating because of the carriers, I have little doubt in my mind that if Google didn't think that carriers would make a huge deal about it, Android would have tethering from the beginning and a lot of other features.
If worse comes to worse I have little doubt in my mind that Google will keep top-tier phones free from crap similar to the Nexus One and the G1 Dev Phone.
No, no, the real news is "Disable hidden secret Apple rootkit by holding iPhone in left hand!"
Yeah, and really how many people do you think are going to bother? Lets face it, there are a lot easier targets out there to hack for some script kiddie. For a really, really good black hat cracker they'd need some kind of personal motivation (such as bragging that your network at XXXX address is unhackable) for them to bother.
Lets face it, chances are your neighbors aren't 1337 h@x0rz who are just looking to get into your router and redirect all requests to Goatse, the guy out in his car just wants free wi-fi to check Facebook most probably and the rare hacker is going to pick easier targets.
Unless you personally piss off some black-hat cracker, you live next to one, or you happen to live right next to where Defcon is being held, no one is going to bother to hack your wi-fi because no one cares.
Seriously, if everyone was a 1337 computer knowledgeable cracker, we wouldn't have all these crappy computer "help" and installation centers across the country who charge $30 to pop in a PCI card or $50 to spend 5 minutes clicking "next" buttons.
Ok, so Google can install new apps to give new features? Not really sure what I should be worried about... Yes I know they -could- install in new applications which are completely evil provided by Sprint/T-Mobile/Verizon/AT&T but I'm not sure if Google would end up doing that because carriers really hold back Android more than anything else.
There is competition now in the phone market, Google doesn't want to screw up anything because I could go to iOS, BlackBerry OS, WinMobile, Symbian, or heck, I could just root my phone and remove the crap.
Google attracts the people who don't want to play games and jump through hoops like you have to with Windows Mobile or the iPhone. Google knows this and wouldn't want to kill their main vocal market.
The difference is, an App could very well be a part of the OS (for example the browser) it just isn't part of the Kernel/UI. A critical flaw in the browser certainly warrants a quick update. Plus, OS updates might not always come to phones. With no OS level updates coming to some phones due to manufacture/carrier apathy vulnerabilities need to be fixed somehow, and OTA updates are a good way of doing it for phones who can't support the new technologies with new Android versions.
Really, this makes a bit more sense than having 234234234324234 OS updates every year. The majority of updates can be done by removing/updating apps, not to mention security patches. Really, some phones already have the latest Android they will ever get, barring rooting. But people will keep using that phone for 4+ years, that is a long time to have a security flaw out there that could steal information. Since the browser is going to be the main attack vector which is an app, it makes sense.
While this could be used to push more carrier crapware, I think updates and upgrades of installed apps are more likely to work for more phones and easier for the average user to use.
In all honesty, would you rather be using an outdated version of a browser with security flaws because your phone doesn't support Android 2.75 Double Chocolate Chunk Cookie or just have your browser update to a more secure version OTA?
Yes but think about it, if there is a terrible vulnerability in the browser, I think I'd like Google to patch it even if it didn't have an entire new kernel and the like.
Chances are your browser is going to be the most targeted part of any OS and it is an app.
Yeah because wardriving is soooo terrible. Look, if you don't want people connecting to your wi-fi network hide the SSD and encrypt it securely. If not, then does it matter too much if you lose a few bytes of data? There are very, very, few people who are going to bother even trying to break an encrypted connection, especially when they can go to a cafe and get free internet pretty much everywhere.
Wouldn't that be more likely caused by fluctuations in the power supply though? I'm not an electrical engineer nor an expert on earthquakes, but wouldn't it be possible that a quick loss of power or too high of power for a split second could mess up the data on the RAM?
Apple is using a bonding agent called Organofunctional Silane Z-6011 to bond the layers of glass. Apparently, Apple (or more likely Foxconn) is shipping these products so quickly that the evaporation process is not complete. However, after one or two days of use, especially with the screen on, will complete the evaporation process and the yellow "blotches" will disappear. How do I know? I was involved in pitching Z-6011 to Apple.
No one is denying that it exists, its just that it could very well just be the bonding agent not drying yet.
The difference is that with a car there are very few situations where you would need to go 90 MPH + and if you were going that fast, chances are you already know enough about the car to re-tune it to remove it, and cars don't make it impossible to remove, you don't need to look for security flaws.
On the other hand, there are a lot of applications that would be useful that Apple forbids because it "competes" with Apple's own offerings, can run other code (with the new A4 processor that opens up a lot of emulation possibilities), etc.
Possibly not for long though http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/iphone-4s-yellow-spot-issue-goes-away-with-a-bit-of-time/
So first Apple controls what apps you can use, now they are controlling which hand you can use the iPhone in?
Ok, how much memory does the average system have? A lot. Does it -matter- if Firefox uses 2 GB of memory if I have 4+ gigs? Memory is dirt cheap now, even insanely cheap systems come with 2 GB standard. Heck, phones are starting to get 512 MB + of RAM! Plus, memory is rewritable, reusable and if you aren't using it it won't be utilized. Would you rather gain a performance benefit by using 2 GB of RAM if you've got no other major programs running on a system with 4 gigs of RAM, or rather have a few GB of idle RAM to lower memory usage? Low memory systems now have at least 1 gig of RAM, embedded systems now have 256 MB + of RAM. Memory is dirt cheap, might as well use it.
So in other words, the thing runs perfectly if you disable the default options and install ad-ons to make it work right and then disable plugins.
Lets face it, a good browser wouldn't require those things to be done in order to browser decently.
Now, I use Firefox, but only because I hate the lack of customization on Chrome, don't like the proprietary-ness of Opera, run Linux so can't really use Safari, and obscure WebKit/Gecko browsers usually don't have needed plugins like AdBlock and manytimes don't have enough customization.
Is it too much to ask for Chrome's rendering engine with Firefox's UI only if it was a bit faster?
Finally, no our economy isn't based on convenience
Then what is it based on? Every development in the last 50 years has been centered upon convenience. The car, the internet, computers, automation, robotics, music, TV, radio, tapes, DVDs, Blu-Ray, NetFlix, Roomba, iPhone, etc. every major part of our economy is driven by the need for convenience.
This is great, now if only Firefox could separate tabs into processes and get a JavaScript engine comparable to V8 they could start to pull ahead of Chrome.
Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?
Yes, most people. See, that is the key. Most people don't have enough free time to sit down and read an entire book. But the thing is, they don't stop you if you read the entire book. Same thing with an album or DVD, few people are going to sit down and watch/listen to the entire thing, or same thing with games, but why stop them? Our entire economy is based on convenience, I have broadband because its more convenient than dial-up, I've got a car because its a whole lot easier to drive 15 miles to work everyday rather than walk those 15 miles, I've got a refrigerator rather than buying food everyday because its easier, etc. I could probably save money if I bought a modem for my laptop and subscribed to a dirt-cheap dial-up service, but it would be a lot less convenient.
You would gain more sales than "losses" according to the *AA if you could watch an entire movie or listen to an entire album before you purchased it. The problem with 30 second samples is that it doesn't reflect the entire song. The -vast- majority of my iTunes purchases are songs that I've been listening to for a while on YouTube, I don't go out and buy obscure albums without knowing what the songs are. And unless the album is at a steep discount when compared to the songs I like individually, I won't buy an entire album.
I like certainty in my purchases. Why should I spend the price for a decent meal on an album unless I know for sure I will like it? Does this strategy mean I buy less music? Yes. Does this strategy mean that I spend more on my music? Yes. Using YouTube and other sites with music on it I will generally end up finding more artists that I really like, that I will buy their albums and go to see concerts, buy merchandise, etc.
I'm going to end up spending less money if I buy a few sub-par albums I don't really like when compared to one album that I really love so I go to the concerts.
This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.
Whether you vote Republican or Democrat you will get essentially the same politicians which differ on small, trivial issues that hide the underlying sameness of the parties.
Until we get a third party elected, we will have mostly the same which is parties bought by various corporations, parties ignoring the constitution, parties ignoring those who they've been elected by.
The way I see it, both major parties fail at listening to those who elected them and most importantly actually reading the constitution.
http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php
But depending on the candidates, various Libertarian/Constitution party members will oppose intellectual "property" in its current form based on various extensions from the original constitution which contains much more sane terms. Of course some of them actively support it, so it just really depends on the candidate.
Most importantly, pirated Windows will be eradicated and those unable to buy the full version will be forced into Free software.
What are you talking about? How many people really "buy" Windows as a stand alone product? My guess is a few people who build their own systems and don't want to rely on cracks and Mac users. For the other 99.99% of Americans, they get Windows bundled with their computer. The thing about computers is that the price is really important, if you pay less than $300 or so for a computer, people are going to think it is crap, even if the savings is by not having OEM Windows installed and having Linux installed. Americans tend to think more money == greater quality, hence why companies like Monster Cable are still in business. There are small niches for sub-$300 computers but for the masses, they seem to think that cheaper hardware is cheaper quality. And the specs don't really matter, get an Atom CPU and a few gigs of RAM, slap a VAIO label on it and charge $500 and people will buy it thinking it is better than a $400 Core i5 box.