It is well known that vendors pay lip service to security. That's because dealing with security issues, when they happen, is cheaper than having to do what it takes to prevent them. And that's because nothing much reality happens when they take place - witness Equifax, who had a catastrophic breach, but they are still very much in business. And nothing much happens because end users also pay lip service to these issues. As long as it does not happen to me alone, I am in the same boat as all the others. Who cares?
This phone shares a number of problems with the Samsung offering (other than the ridiculous price, which I will not discuss.) First, when folded, both phones remain WAY TOO LARGE! Second, when folded, both phones (especially Samsung's) have a main screen that is TOO SMALL! That's right, this does not contradict the first observation.
One can tell that these are first efforts. The concept is great, and hopefully things will improve a lot over the next couple of years. For the time being, I'll be giving them a miss.
Unable? As in they are so stupid that they can't figure it out, or are they explicitly banned by Apple from doing it? It is of course the latter but, would it have killed you to come up with a less biased headline?
Everybody did most certainly not know that apps that are not obviously affiliated with FB send users' personal data to FB, regardless whether or not you are a FB user.
Evolution is an empirical fact. Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is nothing but very thinly disguised religious dogma. You are either very ignorant or else a troll.
Samsung has earned a reputation for coming up with pretty good hardware - and with the worst software in the business. It will take far more than just this ad to change the general perception.
They all pay lip service to security. That's all. They don't do what they should, because it is simpler, and most cost-effective, for them to do damage control when the inevitable security breach happens than really trying to prevent it. We have heard about huge security breaches in Equifax, Target, Visa etc. Those companies are still there, business as usual. They sure took a hit, but it probably impacted on their bottom line less than having to invest on minimizing the probability of such breaches in the first place.
To each his own. I remember that Marvel superheroes stories were nice when I was a teenager. Starting in my 20s, I have found them repetitive, preposterous and just plain boring ever since. And I find it difficult to take those superheroes seriously when they don such ridiculous outfits. Like I said, to each his/her own.
I hope the system can do better than the sample in the summary, which is discombobulated, directionless, and just plain amorphous. Frankly, things like this have been available for a couple of decades. It seems to be these fellows are trying to pull an Eugene Goostman - and we all know how ridiculous that was.
What about giving them decent wages? Sure, the services will provide may be more expensive. But, then again, maybe not - after all, there is competition, right? I always find it amazing how certain employers - in particular, those in the restaurant business - have convinced the rest of Americans that it is the latter's duty to directly contribute to maximize the former's profit.
Frankly, unless you are built like your typical NBA player, holding one of those big phones to your ear makes you look like a jerk. And, yes, as unbelievable as it may sound, many of us still use smartphones to make and receive phone calls, among other things.
You people are always scared of something. What a miserable life, to be permanently in fear. Don't forget to put your gun under your pillow. And to change underwear often.
This is why companies don't take security seriously: huge leaks like those, and for both Dropbox and Linkedin it is pretty business as usual. In essence, no really serious backlash on them, no responsibilities to honor. It's cheaper for them to do nothing and absorb the cost of such breaches rather investing in the security that would make them far less likely to happen. As long as the lack of decent security does not affect companies' shareholders bottom lines in really noticeable ways, companies will carry on doing very, very little in this respect, other than paying lip service to security, in order to maintain a credible public facade.
Slashdot Mirror
It is well known that vendors pay lip service to security. That's because dealing with security issues, when they happen, is cheaper than having to do what it takes to prevent them. And that's because nothing much reality happens when they take place - witness Equifax, who had a catastrophic breach, but they are still very much in business. And nothing much happens because end users also pay lip service to these issues. As long as it does not happen to me alone, I am in the same boat as all the others. Who cares?
The question though is this: Where is APPLE?
There's nothing really new about a folding phone that morphs into a pad. Various folks have been talking about this for a long time.
I have been talking about this for a long. Like millions out there. Talk is very cheap.
This phone shares a number of problems with the Samsung offering (other than the ridiculous price, which I will not discuss.) First, when folded, both phones remain WAY TOO LARGE! Second, when folded, both phones (especially Samsung's) have a main screen that is TOO SMALL! That's right, this does not contradict the first observation.
One can tell that these are first efforts. The concept is great, and hopefully things will improve a lot over the next couple of years. For the time being, I'll be giving them a miss.
It must be horrible to have such an embittered life.
Unable? As in they are so stupid that they can't figure it out, or are they explicitly banned by Apple from doing it? It is of course the latter but, would it have killed you to come up with a less biased headline?
Everybody did most certainly not know that apps that are not obviously affiliated with FB send users' personal data to FB, regardless whether or not you are a FB user.
Many are going to be solely disappointed.
Evolution is an empirical fact. Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is nothing but very thinly disguised religious dogma. You are either very ignorant or else a troll.
And the much-maligned, all-but-dead Itanium is immune to Spectre. Fancy that.
Either that or else Joe "Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Bitch" Read.
Samsung has earned a reputation for coming up with pretty good hardware - and with the worst software in the business. It will take far more than just this ad to change the general perception.
They all pay lip service to security. That's all. They don't do what they should, because it is simpler, and most cost-effective, for them to do damage control when the inevitable security breach happens than really trying to prevent it. We have heard about huge security breaches in Equifax, Target, Visa etc. Those companies are still there, business as usual. They sure took a hit, but it probably impacted on their bottom line less than having to invest on minimizing the probability of such breaches in the first place.
To each his own. I remember that Marvel superheroes stories were nice when I was a teenager. Starting in my 20s, I have found them repetitive, preposterous and just plain boring ever since. And I find it difficult to take those superheroes seriously when they don such ridiculous outfits. Like I said, to each his/her own.
Actually, it is not worth the while for lowlifes like those at Goldman Sachs.
No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted.
Once again, demonstrating that politicians have no grasp on the workings of technology.
Or reality. Quite frankly, anybody who shows any interest in running for public office should be automatically disqualified to do so.
Samsung has got its filthy fingers in too many pies already.
I hope the system can do better than the sample in the summary, which is discombobulated, directionless, and just plain amorphous. Frankly, things like this have been available for a couple of decades. It seems to be these fellows are trying to pull an Eugene Goostman - and we all know how ridiculous that was.
Microsoft knows everything there is to know about buggy software.
What about giving them decent wages? Sure, the services will provide may be more expensive. But, then again, maybe not - after all, there is competition, right? I always find it amazing how certain employers - in particular, those in the restaurant business - have convinced the rest of Americans that it is the latter's duty to directly contribute to maximize the former's profit.
The question is, How long it will be before Google's very limited attention span can focus on it and moves on to the next shiny pebble?
Frankly, unless you are built like your typical NBA player, holding one of those big phones to your ear makes you look like a jerk. And, yes, as unbelievable as it may sound, many of us still use smartphones to make and receive phone calls, among other things.
In five years they can develop their own OS from scratch, and a layer to make sure that Android apps work on it.
Because there is a serious dearth of package infrastructures under Linux. While you are at it, come up with a new terminal emulator as well.
from hostile invaders threatening our borders.
You people are always scared of something. What a miserable life, to be permanently in fear. Don't forget to put your gun under your pillow. And to change underwear often.
This is why companies don't take security seriously: huge leaks like those, and for both Dropbox and Linkedin it is pretty business as usual. In essence, no really serious backlash on them, no responsibilities to honor. It's cheaper for them to do nothing and absorb the cost of such breaches rather investing in the security that would make them far less likely to happen. As long as the lack of decent security does not affect companies' shareholders bottom lines in really noticeable ways, companies will carry on doing very, very little in this respect, other than paying lip service to security, in order to maintain a credible public facade.