at least windows phone has comment documents area for some apps, build in trial mode so you don't need a free demo app and a full app, more open to in app user maps, and other custom stuff.
Well except for the quite recent study that showed the gap between projected warming and actual warming was likely do to the increased coal power plants in China which are polluting the atmosphere so much that light is being reflected out before it gets in.
(Emphasis mine). Here's where part of the problem lies. None of these studies can prove it one way or the other.
But its irrelevant. We probably should recognise that there are measurable ill-effects of polution and try to cut down on it anyway.
Why does the world need to be near-ending before companies will do something about cleaning things up?
I use LookOut which does remote backup and remote wipe (and can locate your phone I believe).
Its like this: 1. Enable remote backup. (should be able to find something that only syncs on wifi if you're worried about data usage). 2. Enable remote wipe. 3. Try to never lose your phone - treat it as if it is your credit card, because in many ways, it is. 4. Oh, and make sure you secure the passwords used for #1 and #2 - and never save them on the device.
Using encryption just seems like overkill and inconvenience, compared to the above - which achieves much the same purpose.
If your phone has data on it that is just as sensitive as your credit card details, then treat it that way.
You wouldn't leave your wallet lying around would you? Then treat your phone the same way.
I dont see how this is any different to keeping your wallet safe.
I really dont see anyone trying to "encrypt" their wallet (whatever that would mean), and yet the issue is exactly the same. I guess the difference is you can cancel your cards if your wallet gets stolen...so install an app that can do remote-wipe, and you're done. If it can do backup as well - that's probably a good idea because then you wont lose your data in the event you need to remote-wipe it.
Its a serious problem, but not one that requires encryption, just extra care. If you needed to enter a password every time you picked up your phone, I'm pretty sure you'd turn that feature off within a day. If you dont need to enter a password to decrypt your data...then what's the point?
The reaction is as if we have been tricked. The thing wants us to believe it is human, but we know it isn't.
Suddenly, we become suspicious, and we "freak out" because our brain is telling us that the thing is not what it looks like - ie. that what our eyes are seeing is different to what our brain is telling us.
I imagine there are a whole range of emotions triggered in quick succession, which is enough to cause panic in anyone.
The android has tried to con us, and like you said, we start getting very suspicious and extremely skeptical about it.
yes, until LightDM reaches feature parity with GDM at which point it will be labelled "bloated" and there will be a new EvenLighterDM project start up and so it goes on.
Even if your phone is rooted, an app needs to request root permissions before it is granted them. If you run an app and it asks for root permissions, you'd be stupid to say "yes" unless you explicitly trust the app (and expected it to need root permissions).
The exception is if there is a software flaw that allows an app to gain root access, but I'd suggest this would affect non-rooted phones equally, if such a flaw were to exist. I should note there are no known flaws of this kind.
You may have more sensitive data on your pc, but its unlikely to be stored in well-defined and well-known places. With a phone, a malware-creator knows exactly what data they can access and exactly where it is. Its not the amount of data, its the combination of the data's usefulness and ease-of-access. The rest is up to social engineering - which is the weakest link in any system.
The fact that they can send ANYTHING to these unauthorized servers is bad.
The problem with Android's security is that without using a network scanning tool, the user has no idea what info the app is sending. There are a LOT of apps that require access to your personal data, as well as full internet access. It also may look legit.
Whilst this may be just a scare story (and I believe it is), the fact is that any competent developer could easily write malware to run on Android.
The case for Apple is that they have an approval process which will hopefully catch the malware before it is released to consumers. This may not be perfect, but with security, sometimes a deterent is good enough. If you want to steal a car and see 2 otherwise identical cars in an unsecured carpark, one with an alarm and one without - which one will you choose? Its the same with malware. If Google becomes the easiest/most rewarding target (like windows), then that is the one they will target. Simple cost/benefit analysis.
That worries me, as a user and developer. And if Google dont do something about it, I will - by switching to Apple with my next phone and also for app development. Everyone has a breaking point.
maybe it is misleading. Maybe it technically is authorized by your definition.
However, note that ALL apps with ads need internet access, and yet the internet access gives them access to the whole internet, not just the ad server.
This always concerns me when its simple apps that really dont need internet access other than to display ads. How would I know what the app is doing?
I'm normally against the walled garden approach but Google's complete hands-off thing is really starting to get serious. Its almost like they dont care about their own platform? Like they've disowned the market and they're only interested in the Google search box.
I dont think this approach will work for Google in the long term. Why do people spend more on the App Store? Maybe its because they trust it more...
Doom III. I'm sorry but Doom III wasnt a game, it was a tech demo. While I understand what you are getting at, you have some big skeletons in your closet regarding this particular complaint.
Yes it was a tech demo in some ways, but that's just a compliment.
It absolutely was a game, just obviously not the one you wanted it to be. I think it was mostly destroyed by hype (some of which can be attributed to id), because there was so much that the game could never possibly live up to it.
The other problem was that HL2 came out around the same time and had an actual storyline. Hardly hear much of either game these days - they both seemed to die quickly in the public arena.
I believe Doom 3 could still be entertaining in its place.
You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?
I believe you can look at the iphone (and almost all apple products) as if they were being tailor-made for SJ himself. I say this in a respectful way, and in fact it appears to be a very successful strategy since the man obviously has fairly good and well-accepted taste in what makes a great device.
I would suggest you are correct in that certain seemingly essential features were dropped because SJ either didn't think it was necessary or like you said, prioritized other features. In the case of the ability to change the background, I'm guessing it was that he felt it was unnecessary.
Apple are all about giving you only the features they think you need. Read that carefully. And for many people, they're right on the money. The complaints about Apple products tend to come from people who are not (or at least not directly) Apple's target market, including myself, although I find myself edging closer to iOS development every time Google stuffs me around on my Android Developer Console (its almost always broken somewhere, including now).
That's how I interpreted it. A 3rd party cannot collect damages since they are not the copyright owners either, and have not entered into any agreement with the copyright owners.
Quite the opposite. At least according to the lawyers. If you can take an existing process and substantially add to it, or modify it, and make original claims, it makes no difference if the existing process is patented. You can still be awarded the patent...
However....... that does not eliminate your obligations to the patent holder of the existing process. You need to have a licensing deal with them, and in order for them to use your "added value" process they need to license from you.
It does work that way, but it is quite rare because nobody puts the resources in to put a patent "on top" of another patent. The "top" can be effectively prohibited from bringing a product to market and the "bottom" can just sit there forever and not care.
I doubt that. You would only need to license the existing patent if you actually CREATE something based on the patent. The stupid patent system allows you to patent things you have no intention of following through on...so it is your patent licensees, and not you, who would need to license the original patent.
If you think a rotating display is the same thing, take one of those displays in your hand and turn it around in the air. You know what happens, nothing. They did not rotate based on an orientation sensor. They rotated based on a electro-mechanical switch...
The fact that it is even called an orientation sensor should be enough to invalidate this patent. Or do you think we can go crazy patenting every possible thing an accelerometer can be used in? I'm sure the USPTO would be fine with it, but I think its just nuts.
Well maybe it is as far as patent law is concerned, but here's the stupid part. this is such an obvious thing to do once the technology becomes available.
I'm not arguing that Apple didn't come up with the idea first. Maybe they did - who cares?
The fact is that once you have a device with an accelerometer in it, rotating the display based on accelerometer movement is a logical next step. So logical that almost every portable device with an accelerometer does that nowadays.
Someone needs to make a judgement about whether someone else with the right tools and knowledge could reasonably come up with the same idea having had no contact or communication with the patent applicant. If the answer is yes, then we should throw it into the public domain.
If we must grant patents like this, how about shortening the lifespan according to how generic it is or how likely it is for someone else to "invent" it independently.
ok, but as a photographer I really dont think I'd have any recourse if in this example the camera owner decided to publish the photos.
And anyway I'd suggest that given the copyright owners are monkeys, the copyright would probably transfer to the "owner" of the monkeys. If they are wild monkeys, then who really cares?
Slashdot Mirror
at least windows phone has comment documents area for some apps, build in trial mode so you don't need a free demo app and a full app, more open to in app user maps, and other custom stuff.
That's great.
let us know when it has users.
Well except for the quite recent study that showed the gap between projected warming and actual warming was likely do to the increased coal power plants in China which are polluting the atmosphere so much that light is being reflected out before it gets in.
(Emphasis mine). Here's where part of the problem lies. None of these studies can prove it one way or the other.
But its irrelevant. We probably should recognise that there are measurable ill-effects of polution and try to cut down on it anyway.
Why does the world need to be near-ending before companies will do something about cleaning things up?
Exactly.
I use LookOut which does remote backup and remote wipe (and can locate your phone I believe).
Its like this:
1. Enable remote backup. (should be able to find something that only syncs on wifi if you're worried about data usage).
2. Enable remote wipe.
3. Try to never lose your phone - treat it as if it is your credit card, because in many ways, it is.
4. Oh, and make sure you secure the passwords used for #1 and #2 - and never save them on the device.
Using encryption just seems like overkill and inconvenience, compared to the above - which achieves much the same purpose.
I disagree.
If your phone has data on it that is just as sensitive as your credit card details, then treat it that way.
You wouldn't leave your wallet lying around would you? Then treat your phone the same way.
I dont see how this is any different to keeping your wallet safe.
I really dont see anyone trying to "encrypt" their wallet (whatever that would mean), and yet the issue is exactly the same. I guess the difference is you can cancel your cards if your wallet gets stolen...so install an app that can do remote-wipe, and you're done. If it can do backup as well - that's probably a good idea because then you wont lose your data in the event you need to remote-wipe it.
Its a serious problem, but not one that requires encryption, just extra care. If you needed to enter a password every time you picked up your phone, I'm pretty sure you'd turn that feature off within a day. If you dont need to enter a password to decrypt your data...then what's the point?
I think you're on the money.
The reaction is as if we have been tricked. The thing wants us to believe it is human, but we know it isn't.
Suddenly, we become suspicious, and we "freak out" because our brain is telling us that the thing is not what it looks like - ie. that what our eyes are seeing is different to what our brain is telling us.
I imagine there are a whole range of emotions triggered in quick succession, which is enough to cause panic in anyone.
The android has tried to con us, and like you said, we start getting very suspicious and extremely skeptical about it.
I dunno, KDE tends to login in about 5-10 seconds and you're usually ready to go straight away.
Your claim of a few minutes is overstated.
yes, until LightDM reaches feature parity with GDM at which point it will be labelled "bloated" and there will be a new EvenLighterDM project start up and so it goes on.
I thought the theory was that "nothing with mass can accelerate past C" ?
Even if your phone is rooted, an app needs to request root permissions before it is granted them. If you run an app and it asks for root permissions, you'd be stupid to say "yes" unless you explicitly trust the app (and expected it to need root permissions).
The exception is if there is a software flaw that allows an app to gain root access, but I'd suggest this would affect non-rooted phones equally, if such a flaw were to exist. I should note there are no known flaws of this kind.
You may have more sensitive data on your pc, but its unlikely to be stored in well-defined and well-known places. With a phone, a malware-creator knows exactly what data they can access and exactly where it is. Its not the amount of data, its the combination of the data's usefulness and ease-of-access. The rest is up to social engineering - which is the weakest link in any system.
The fact that they can send ANYTHING to these unauthorized servers is bad.
The problem with Android's security is that without using a network scanning tool, the user has no idea what info the app is sending. There are a LOT of apps that require access to your personal data, as well as full internet access. It also may look legit.
Whilst this may be just a scare story (and I believe it is), the fact is that any competent developer could easily write malware to run on Android.
The case for Apple is that they have an approval process which will hopefully catch the malware before it is released to consumers. This may not be perfect, but with security, sometimes a deterent is good enough. If you want to steal a car and see 2 otherwise identical cars in an unsecured carpark, one with an alarm and one without - which one will you choose? Its the same with malware. If Google becomes the easiest/most rewarding target (like windows), then that is the one they will target. Simple cost/benefit analysis.
That worries me, as a user and developer. And if Google dont do something about it, I will - by switching to Apple with my next phone and also for app development. Everyone has a breaking point.
I assume this is for those times where you want your Core i7 machine to run like a 486?
nope, its for those times when you want to run windows...oh wait...nevermind.
I was wondering if this means the employees "20% time" to work on any project of their choosing will also soon be scrapped.
That would be the beginning of the end for Google if it were to happen...
maybe it is misleading. Maybe it technically is authorized by your definition.
However, note that ALL apps with ads need internet access, and yet the internet access gives them access to the whole internet, not just the ad server.
This always concerns me when its simple apps that really dont need internet access other than to display ads. How would I know what the app is doing?
I'm normally against the walled garden approach but Google's complete hands-off thing is really starting to get serious. Its almost like they dont care about their own platform? Like they've disowned the market and they're only interested in the Google search box.
I dont think this approach will work for Google in the long term. Why do people spend more on the App Store? Maybe its because they trust it more...
Doom III. I'm sorry but Doom III wasnt a game, it was a tech demo. While I understand what you are getting at, you have some big skeletons in your closet regarding this particular complaint.
Yes it was a tech demo in some ways, but that's just a compliment.
It absolutely was a game, just obviously not the one you wanted it to be. I think it was mostly destroyed by hype (some of which can be attributed to id), because there was so much that the game could never possibly live up to it.
The other problem was that HL2 came out around the same time and had an actual storyline. Hardly hear much of either game these days - they both seemed to die quickly in the public arena.
I believe Doom 3 could still be entertaining in its place.
You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?
I believe you can look at the iphone (and almost all apple products) as if they were being tailor-made for SJ himself. I say this in a respectful way, and in fact it appears to be a very successful strategy since the man obviously has fairly good and well-accepted taste in what makes a great device.
I would suggest you are correct in that certain seemingly essential features were dropped because SJ either didn't think it was necessary or like you said, prioritized other features. In the case of the ability to change the background, I'm guessing it was that he felt it was unnecessary.
Apple are all about giving you only the features they think you need. Read that carefully. And for many people, they're right on the money. The complaints about Apple products tend to come from people who are not (or at least not directly) Apple's target market, including myself, although I find myself edging closer to iOS development every time Google stuffs me around on my Android Developer Console (its almost always broken somewhere, including now).
that's just the appearance of the logo. Gmail as a product is officially out of the beta process.
here's hoping said n00bs aren't female...
That's how I interpreted it. A 3rd party cannot collect damages since they are not the copyright owners either, and have not entered into any agreement with the copyright owners.
It's 2012.
you're from the future? this thread just gets weirder...
and Gmail is no longer in beta!
Quite the opposite. At least according to the lawyers. If you can take an existing process and substantially add to it, or modify it, and make original claims, it makes no difference if the existing process is patented. You can still be awarded the patent...
However....... that does not eliminate your obligations to the patent holder of the existing process. You need to have a licensing deal with them, and in order for them to use your "added value" process they need to license from you.
It does work that way, but it is quite rare because nobody puts the resources in to put a patent "on top" of another patent. The "top" can be effectively prohibited from bringing a product to market and the "bottom" can just sit there forever and not care.
I doubt that. You would only need to license the existing patent if you actually CREATE something based on the patent. The stupid patent system allows you to patent things you have no intention of following through on...so it is your patent licensees, and not you, who would need to license the original patent.
IANAL though.
If you think a rotating display is the same thing, take one of those displays in your hand and turn it around in the air. You know what happens, nothing. They did not rotate based on an orientation sensor. They rotated based on a electro-mechanical switch...
The fact that it is even called an orientation sensor should be enough to invalidate this patent. Or do you think we can go crazy patenting every possible thing an accelerometer can be used in? I'm sure the USPTO would be fine with it, but I think its just nuts.
Well maybe it is as far as patent law is concerned, but here's the stupid part. this is such an obvious thing to do once the technology becomes available.
I'm not arguing that Apple didn't come up with the idea first. Maybe they did - who cares?
The fact is that once you have a device with an accelerometer in it, rotating the display based on accelerometer movement is a logical next step. So logical that almost every portable device with an accelerometer does that nowadays.
Someone needs to make a judgement about whether someone else with the right tools and knowledge could reasonably come up with the same idea having had no contact or communication with the patent applicant. If the answer is yes, then we should throw it into the public domain.
If we must grant patents like this, how about shortening the lifespan according to how generic it is or how likely it is for someone else to "invent" it independently.
ok, but as a photographer I really dont think I'd have any recourse if in this example the camera owner decided to publish the photos.
let me clarify that - sure the law says such and such, but taking it to the next step is often a matter of money...and lawyers...
ok, but as a photographer I really dont think I'd have any recourse if in this example the camera owner decided to publish the photos.
And anyway I'd suggest that given the copyright owners are monkeys, the copyright would probably transfer to the "owner" of the monkeys. If they are wild monkeys, then who really cares?