Well, just based on this photo: slightly different dimensions, frontal camera, different rounding radius, different bezel profile, three front buttons instead of one, visible side buttons on iPhone and none on Samsung and Samsung logo right above the screen.
Not included in the photo: the fact that it's not the home screen, but all apps menu, different phone profile.
Also not included in the photo: the fact that if you get to play with both phones, you'd have to be an idiot to mistake one for another.
So yeah, it's a complete copy of the rounded rectangular iPhone except for all the places that aren't.
Yes, and when you enter the name "rick santorum" into Google it gives you the official page.
And when you enter "santorum", which has been appropriated as a neologism for almost a decade, Google considers the site with definition relevant thanks to all the links and discussions.
Yes, that's how relevance works, and it's not far away from demanding that searching for "cocks" shows you Baron Somers instead of mixture of male chickens and penises.
It's an algorithm and it doesn't know whether you're searching for a proper name or a common noun.
Being embarassed in the locker room crowd is temporary, limited and soon forgotten just a month or so after body of the bullied is removed from the noose and put 6 feet under and the suicide note gets "misplaced" by an official who doesn't want problems on his turf.
SpreadingSantorum.com is on the internet, known about by millions of people, and is permanently on the record as "clever trick" for those who already oppose Santorum and "what the fuck was that?" or "heh, they're getting desperate" for those who're neutral or support Santorum.
"Name belongs to them" shouldn't even enter the search algorithm unless someone's buying that name as ad words.
If I search for $celebrity_name, I'd surely prefer an unofficial fan site with huge community and lots of interesting info to a "name belongs to them" official site which only contains a photo, "buy merchandise" link and links to social media profiles.
Now the article's case is arguable, but search algorithms are largely ad-hocery and prone to glitches and being tricked. Search bombs happen to public persons regularly, but it's just a reason for another ad-hoc nudge, not generic rule to prioritize "MY NAME, MY, MY! BUY MY STUFF AND LOOK AT MY HALF-EMPTY SITE BECAUSE IT'S MY NAME" sites over possibly more relevant others.
With a million unique visitors daily, Reddit has long ago lost status of "nerd site", it's already become yet another site with sexy/funny pictures/post/demotivational posters/advice animals/rage comics and a few nerd reservations from earlier days.
He has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe in censoring child pornography or preventing its distribution (see links here).
Yes, he also doesn't believe in censoring collateral murder videos and animal abuse videos in those same links. That surely makes him a latent pedophile, murderer and cat strangler.
Trying to dismiss his writing as sarcasm is absurd when he has repeated his views on so-called "voluntary pedophilia" and child porn elsewhere.
I thought "I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)." is quite a giveaway. Your missing sense of humour aside, 'Richard Stallman, who wrote on his blog [stallman.org] that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."' is quite a way to frame a quote, don't you think?
You mean Richard Stallman, who quoted on his blog and then proceeded with sarcasm:
Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
Same binaries will be relevant when they'll produce UI usable both in dominantly kb+mouse desktop/laptop x86 world and dominantly touchscreen small devices ARM world.
I think this is one of biggest current impediments to the often proclaimed "desktop will soon be dead, you'll just stick your smartphone in a dockstation with keyboard and big display" future.
I'd like to see some advancement in the UI frameworks and guidelines towards interface adapting to the environment - automatically provide toolbars and menus for bigger displays, don't forget about keyboard shortcuts and multiple mouse buttons when docked, and so on, and so on.
Right now, many iOS and Android apps can't even handle landscape/portrait and smartphone/tablet differences gracefully.
With this technology we can send some FREEDOM to/from the orbit easily, and cover wide areas with devastating LOVE flechette rounds and COOPERATION bunker busters.
Here, have some peace coming at you at supersonic speed!
Seriously, though, it could be awesome for delivering supplies to space with minimal dead weight for casing, control systems and a bit of fuel for maneuvering engines at final stage.
Time to shot some scrap metal to the moon and start building a colony?
It's pretty obviously preferable that they take down the whole website. Then people notice. There is a large hole in the Internet where the site used to be, things still link to it, and people realize that and start looking for ways around the block. Then many people have sufficient incentive to take countermeasures and the censorship is thwarted.
Yeah, because remember how when Google pulled out of China it sparked the revolution and led to establishment of democracy in China?.. Oh, wait, didn't happen, Google just lost a part of "chinese censored web search" market to Baidu.
The problem with removing whole site is a) government doesn't care unless people start a massive uprisal, b) only those who visited that site will know what was there. All the thoughts shared there will be lost and general public won't even know why did it get banned, was it really inciting ideas, or was it just idiotic rambling and flaming.
The best solution would be removing page from the domain under that countries jurisdiction, but letting know people from outside that it's not available elsewhere.
If a government screws over everyone at once by taking down major websites, it's a lot more likely they'll have to answer for it.
Answer for it, as in: "Did we do that? Hmm, let us ask around. (time passes) We're still gathering information about that incident, wait some more (time passes) Erm, yup, seems like we did that. What an unfortunate mistake! That Bob or Dave or whatshisname surely won't get a bonus this holidays. I hope our sincere apologies will cover your losses for lost business days and reputation lost thanks to our IP THIEF/CHILD MOLESTER/TERRORIST DOMAIN SEIZED BY $LEA banner"
It's not about government ability to pull down domains, it's about Google's ability to pull down pages.
For example, let's say someone on blogger.com makes a post stating that king of Douchelandia didn't look all so well at last parade. Douchelandia sends a takedown notice to Google for it's a laise majeste to imply that the king is not godly and perfect. Now Google has a choice to pull this page either only at.blogspot.com.dl, or for the whole world, or get sued and get whole blogger.com banned in the Douchelandia.
Which is preferable, and who's gonna pay collateral damages in latter two cases?
P.S.: LOL'd at this part:
since those countries then don't have to pay the cost of the collateral damage caused by censoring people with a bomb instead of a switchblade.
If the government indulges in web censoring, what makes you think it would even as much as say "sorry" to a luckless SoB who lost his site along with whole blocked hosting domain?
Did any of subdomain owners at mooo.com get anything from DHS when the whole domain got seized last year?
And whilst you have the arrogance to call people who's specialism isn't IT "morons", you're never going to be able to see that the problem is your own inability to see past current solutions.
Why the fuck do you need to be an IT specialist to refrain from clicking dancing_bunnies.exe or sending passwords?
Do you need to be a security pro to refrain from giving keys to your house to random strangers? Do you need to be an automechanic to refrain from crossing the street on red light? Do you need to be an electrician to refrain from shoving a hairpin in the outlet?
It's a new technology entering everyday life and people has to learn the rules, just like they did with electricity a century ago.
You're the one that put the arbitrary requirement of open registration and lack of proof of identity in there
And you're the one that put the arbitrary requirement of "one man - one account". Making everyone go naked because someone might have a weapon under clothes is not a rational solution and replacing all forks with spoons because someone might stick it in his eye is not a rational solution. Trading liberty for security, yada, yada, yada.
Can your mom differentiate between a good URL and a bad URL?
She can. Why shouldn't she? It's not like there are no bad URLs outside apps. It should be as much common sense as knowledge of mail frauds and con tricks.
Delegating vetting of apps behaviour to end users is a fundamentally bad idea. It's a task that requires skills and experience, and you can't assume them in a consumer product. This is stuff that should be done by professionals in the supply chain.
May be, though I, like many others, prefer choice. But why does that invalidate a need for better permission system? AFAIK, iOS basically permits applications to do whatever they want with internet, relying on vetting to weed out abuse - and it's not guaranteed to work. There already was a handful of examples, like Dolphin browser quietly sending every URL you visit to their server "to check compatibility with Webzine"
You seem to be opposed to it only on "iOS approach good, Android approach bad" basis. I don't see anything wrong with requiring basic knowledge from smartphone users. Is "Don't install games that want to send paid messages on your phone" so much harder than "Don't put metallic tableware in the microwave"?
One could write a book on it. Spammers and worms spoof all sorts of headers in email. So ask yourself what they know that you don't.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I'll rephrase: "Why do you need to spoof anything to make morons do what you need?"
What difference do headers make, when a) sender uses throw-away account on legitimate mail service (or worm uses victim's mailbox and address book), b) user doesn't understand "Don't tell your password to anyone", c) user wants his motherfucking dancing bunnies and doesn't even look at sender's name?
You're lacking in imagination. For example: You want access to the internet, you go to an ISP and you subscribe and get an account.
> as long as registration is open and doesn't require a proof of identity.
You basically propose yet another variation on the Internet passport theme.
People gladly email passwords to adminlstrator@gmail.com and run the attachment to "Subj: Look at those dancing bunnies ^_^ From: Jenny <os107vwvrb@yahoo.com>" without any spoofing going on.
There's no way to stop this with any messaging system as long as registration is open and doesn't require a proof of identity.
receive WAP Allows application to receive and process WAP messages. Malicious applications may monitor your messages or delete them without showing them to you....
read contact data Allows an application to read all of the contact (address) data stored on your device. Malicious applications can use this to send your data to other people....
intercept outgoing calls Allows application to process outgoing calls and change the number to be dialed. Malicious applications may monitor, redirect, or prevent outgoing calls....
modify global system settings Allows an application to modify the system's settings data. Malicious applications can corrupt your system's configuration....
mount and unmount filesystems Allows the application to mount and unmount filesystems for removable storage.
Description
ENJOY THIS SPECIAL FREE VERSION WITH NEW LEVELS NOT FOUND IN THE FULL GAME!
ENJOY THIS SPECIAL FREE VERSION WITH EXCLUSIVE NEW LEVELS NOT FOUND IN THE FULL GAME!
Whereâ(TM)s My Water is the hit app that everyone is playing. In this FREE version, enjoy more than 20 new puzzles not found in the full game.
What the fuck. Is it really Disney? Because nothing says "I'm not a fraud!" like ALL-CAPS SPECIAL FREE EXCLUSIVE VERSION coupled with I-own-your-phone permissions.
I just really wish for a more fine-grained permissions system.
I mean:
full Internet access Allows an application to create network sockets.
Wouldn't it be fucking nice if it only could have unchecked internet access to an explicit list of URLs and "full internet access" meant "initiated by user action"?
Same for file system and for "Read phone state and identity" - 95% of apps in the market want the same permission.
It just gets devalued, like UAC's very helpful and informative "Allow this program to make changes to your computer?" prompt (More details? Sure: "Origin: Hard drive on this computer"). With all kinds of "changes" and their frequency it's not hard to see why UAC is often turned off. WIth all kinds of "full internet access" it's not hard to see why permission page is just to click "Accept".
Yes. The status bar is the only reason people are leaving Firefox or using 3.6. This is clearly a more reasonable figure than "number of people who actually turned the status bar back on."
Aaaaand you still miss the point. Let me step you through. Status bar was a part of the FF UI overhaul, as well as many other changes. Some part of FF users didn't like the lack of status bar, some part didn't like something about the tabs or menu or... FF didn't want to pander to all of those small groups, and so they left. And there we see, Firefox, which had stable 30-31% for all 2010 and beginning of 2011, lost 5% in 9 months since FF4.0. That's how it happens, spit on small groups, and they eventually leave. It would be rather convenient if all those small groups were mostly intersecting, but as they're not you can lose quite a bit of following in process.
I'm not a UX designer. I don't care what you think about them, and I don't care to defend the profession.
And I didn't claim you're one. You're just displaying same arrogant attitude which seems to drive useless "innovation" for its own sake in UI.
Only 156,000 people care enough to restore the old behavior.
Nope, 156,000 people restored old behaviour by installing this extension. Indeed, we don't know exactly how many users restored old behaviour by installing 3.6 and how many didn't restore old behaviour, but chose new browser with new behaviour instead. All we can observe is this pretty correlation between introduction of FF4 with radically changed UI and acceleration of FF's user share decline
As for your take on Unity or UX designers, I couldn't care less. I'm not a UX designer, my Linuces don't have GUIs, and none of that has anything to do with why Google should pander to an exceptionally small number of toxic users..
You seem to miss the point. UX design matters and "not pandering to an exceptionally small number of toxic users" seem to mean "everyone who doesn't think as me is small and toxic" both for you and many UX designers. Unity was just an example of such "not pandering", as well as FF4. Google is safe for now, as it's the only real choice after migrating from IE and FF. If, for example, MS - I know, unimaginable - starts to "pander". while Google still disregards all them "toxic users" and proceeds on the because-I-wanted-to-put-in-this-feature development path, it will start bleeding users just like FF bleeds them now.
P.S.: And again you refer to "exceptionally small number of toxic users". You must be a real hit at parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, just based on this photo: slightly different dimensions, frontal camera, different rounding radius, different bezel profile, three front buttons instead of one, visible side buttons on iPhone and none on Samsung and Samsung logo right above the screen.
Not included in the photo: the fact that it's not the home screen, but all apps menu, different phone profile.
Also not included in the photo: the fact that if you get to play with both phones, you'd have to be an idiot to mistake one for another.
So yeah, it's a complete copy of the rounded rectangular iPhone except for all the places that aren't.
Yes, and when you enter the name "rick santorum" into Google it gives you the official page.
And when you enter "santorum", which has been appropriated as a neologism for almost a decade, Google considers the site with definition relevant thanks to all the links and discussions.
Yes, that's how relevance works, and it's not far away from demanding that searching for "cocks" shows you Baron Somers instead of mixture of male chickens and penises.
It's an algorithm and it doesn't know whether you're searching for a proper name or a common noun.
I'll see your "Romney squeezes out Santorum" and raise you "Santorum nearly squeezes out come-from-behind victory"
Almost feels like reporters are fully aware and trying to outdo each other with those headlines.
Yep, I heartfully agree.
Being embarassed in the locker room crowd is temporary, limited and soon forgotten just a month or so after body of the bullied is removed from the noose and put 6 feet under and the suicide note gets "misplaced" by an official who doesn't want problems on his turf.
SpreadingSantorum.com is on the internet, known about by millions of people, and is permanently on the record as "clever trick" for those who already oppose Santorum and "what the fuck was that?" or "heh, they're getting desperate" for those who're neutral or support Santorum.
"Name belongs to them" shouldn't even enter the search algorithm unless someone's buying that name as ad words.
If I search for $celebrity_name, I'd surely prefer an unofficial fan site with huge community and lots of interesting info to a "name belongs to them" official site which only contains a photo, "buy merchandise" link and links to social media profiles.
Now the article's case is arguable, but search algorithms are largely ad-hocery and prone to glitches and being tricked. Search bombs happen to public persons regularly, but it's just a reason for another ad-hoc nudge, not generic rule to prioritize "MY NAME, MY, MY! BUY MY STUFF AND LOOK AT MY HALF-EMPTY SITE BECAUSE IT'S MY NAME" sites over possibly more relevant others.
Then start one. There's obviously a niche for it, as seen even on this page.
If you're ready to spend some time and money for building an engine and initial setup and promotion, you might have a next big thing.
It's not like /. and Reddit were here forever and came to existence looking same as now.
Nerds?.. On Reddit?.. How long did you sleep?
With a million unique visitors daily, Reddit has long ago lost status of "nerd site", it's already become yet another site with sexy/funny pictures/post/demotivational posters/advice animals/rage comics and a few nerd reservations from earlier days.
He has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe in censoring child pornography or preventing its distribution (see links here).
Yes, he also doesn't believe in censoring collateral murder videos and animal abuse videos in those same links. That surely makes him a latent pedophile, murderer and cat strangler.
Trying to dismiss his writing as sarcasm is absurd when he has repeated his views on so-called "voluntary pedophilia" and child porn elsewhere.
I thought "I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)." is quite a giveaway. Your missing sense of humour aside, 'Richard Stallman, who wrote on his blog [stallman.org] that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."' is quite a way to frame a quote, don't you think?
You mean Richard Stallman, who quoted on his blog and then proceeded with sarcasm:
Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
Please, troll harder.
Same binaries will be relevant when they'll produce UI usable both in dominantly kb+mouse desktop/laptop x86 world and dominantly touchscreen small devices ARM world.
I think this is one of biggest current impediments to the often proclaimed "desktop will soon be dead, you'll just stick your smartphone in a dockstation with keyboard and big display" future.
I'd like to see some advancement in the UI frameworks and guidelines towards interface adapting to the environment - automatically provide toolbars and menus for bigger displays, don't forget about keyboard shortcuts and multiple mouse buttons when docked, and so on, and so on.
Right now, many iOS and Android apps can't even handle landscape/portrait and smartphone/tablet differences gracefully.
With this technology we can send some FREEDOM to/from the orbit easily, and cover wide areas with devastating LOVE flechette rounds and COOPERATION bunker busters.
Here, have some peace coming at you at supersonic speed!
Seriously, though, it could be awesome for delivering supplies to space with minimal dead weight for casing, control systems and a bit of fuel for maneuvering engines at final stage.
Time to shot some scrap metal to the moon and start building a colony?
At least, for some values of "hacks" and some values of "gets their phone".
Here, for example, how to get root on Android using generic Linux kernel vulnerability.
It's pretty obviously preferable that they take down the whole website. Then people notice. There is a large hole in the Internet where the site used to be, things still link to it, and people realize that and start looking for ways around the block. Then many people have sufficient incentive to take countermeasures and the censorship is thwarted.
Yeah, because remember how when Google pulled out of China it sparked the revolution and led to establishment of democracy in China?.. Oh, wait, didn't happen, Google just lost a part of "chinese censored web search" market to Baidu.
The problem with removing whole site is a) government doesn't care unless people start a massive uprisal, b) only those who visited that site will know what was there. All the thoughts shared there will be lost and general public won't even know why did it get banned, was it really inciting ideas, or was it just idiotic rambling and flaming.
The best solution would be removing page from the domain under that countries jurisdiction, but letting know people from outside that it's not available elsewhere.
If a government screws over everyone at once by taking down major websites, it's a lot more likely they'll have to answer for it.
Answer for it, as in: "Did we do that? Hmm, let us ask around. (time passes) We're still gathering information about that incident, wait some more (time passes) Erm, yup, seems like we did that. What an unfortunate mistake! That Bob or Dave or whatshisname surely won't get a bonus this holidays. I hope our sincere apologies will cover your losses for lost business days and reputation lost thanks to our IP THIEF/CHILD MOLESTER/TERRORIST DOMAIN SEIZED BY $LEA banner"
It's not about government ability to pull down domains, it's about Google's ability to pull down pages.
For example, let's say someone on blogger.com makes a post stating that king of Douchelandia didn't look all so well at last parade. Douchelandia sends a takedown notice to Google for it's a laise majeste to imply that the king is not godly and perfect. Now Google has a choice to pull this page either only at .blogspot.com.dl, or for the whole world, or get sued and get whole blogger.com banned in the Douchelandia.
Which is preferable, and who's gonna pay collateral damages in latter two cases?
P.S.: LOL'd at this part:
since those countries then don't have to pay the cost of the collateral damage caused by censoring people with a bomb instead of a switchblade.
If the government indulges in web censoring, what makes you think it would even as much as say "sorry" to a luckless SoB who lost his site along with whole blocked hosting domain?
Did any of subdomain owners at mooo.com get anything from DHS when the whole domain got seized last year?
Oh my, ran out of arguments so fast? :( Well, good day to you too.
P.S.: "Ah, you're a libertarian." - nope. Try some better ad hominems next time.
And whilst you have the arrogance to call people who's specialism isn't IT "morons", you're never going to be able to see that the problem is your own inability to see past current solutions.
Why the fuck do you need to be an IT specialist to refrain from clicking dancing_bunnies.exe or sending passwords?
Do you need to be a security pro to refrain from giving keys to your house to random strangers? Do you need to be an automechanic to refrain from crossing the street on red light? Do you need to be an electrician to refrain from shoving a hairpin in the outlet?
It's a new technology entering everyday life and people has to learn the rules, just like they did with electricity a century ago.
You're the one that put the arbitrary requirement of open registration and lack of proof of identity in there
And you're the one that put the arbitrary requirement of "one man - one account". Making everyone go naked because someone might have a weapon under clothes is not a rational solution and replacing all forks with spoons because someone might stick it in his eye is not a rational solution. Trading liberty for security, yada, yada, yada.
Can your mom differentiate between a good URL and a bad URL?
She can. Why shouldn't she? It's not like there are no bad URLs outside apps. It should be as much common sense as knowledge of mail frauds and con tricks.
Delegating vetting of apps behaviour to end users is a fundamentally bad idea. It's a task that requires skills and experience, and you can't assume them in a consumer product. This is stuff that should be done by professionals in the supply chain.
May be, though I, like many others, prefer choice. But why does that invalidate a need for better permission system? AFAIK, iOS basically permits applications to do whatever they want with internet, relying on vetting to weed out abuse - and it's not guaranteed to work. There already was a handful of examples, like Dolphin browser quietly sending every URL you visit to their server "to check compatibility with Webzine"
You seem to be opposed to it only on "iOS approach good, Android approach bad" basis. I don't see anything wrong with requiring basic knowledge from smartphone users. Is "Don't install games that want to send paid messages on your phone" so much harder than "Don't put metallic tableware in the microwave"?
One could write a book on it. Spammers and worms spoof all sorts of headers in email. So ask yourself what they know that you don't.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I'll rephrase: "Why do you need to spoof anything to make morons do what you need?"
What difference do headers make, when a) sender uses throw-away account on legitimate mail service (or worm uses victim's mailbox and address book), b) user doesn't understand "Don't tell your password to anyone", c) user wants his motherfucking dancing bunnies and doesn't even look at sender's name?
You're lacking in imagination. For example: You want access to the internet, you go to an ISP and you subscribe and get an account.
> as long as registration is open and doesn't require a proof of identity.
You basically propose yet another variation on the Internet passport theme.
Why do you need to spoof anything?
People gladly email passwords to adminlstrator@gmail.com and run the attachment to "Subj: Look at those dancing bunnies ^_^ From: Jenny <os107vwvrb@yahoo.com>" without any spoofing going on.
There's no way to stop this with any messaging system as long as registration is open and doesn't require a proof of identity.
And next logical step from playing Quake III and Counter-Strike is going to school with a gun.
Your "logical" misses actual logic.
Permissions ...
receive WAP ...
Allows application to receive and process WAP messages. Malicious applications may monitor your messages or delete them without showing them to you.
read contact data ...
Allows an application to read all of the contact (address) data stored on your device. Malicious applications can use this to send your data to other people.
intercept outgoing calls ...
Allows application to process outgoing calls and change the number to be dialed. Malicious applications may monitor, redirect, or prevent outgoing calls.
modify global system settings ...
Allows an application to modify the system's settings data. Malicious applications can corrupt your system's configuration.
mount and unmount filesystems
Allows the application to mount and unmount filesystems for removable storage.
Description
ENJOY THIS SPECIAL FREE VERSION WITH NEW LEVELS NOT FOUND IN THE FULL GAME!
ENJOY THIS SPECIAL FREE VERSION WITH EXCLUSIVE NEW LEVELS NOT FOUND IN THE FULL GAME!
Whereâ(TM)s My Water is the hit app that everyone is playing. In this FREE version, enjoy more than 20 new puzzles not found in the full game.
What the fuck. Is it really Disney? Because nothing says "I'm not a fraud!" like ALL-CAPS SPECIAL FREE EXCLUSIVE VERSION coupled with I-own-your-phone permissions.
I just really wish for a more fine-grained permissions system.
I mean:
full Internet access
Allows an application to create network sockets.
Wouldn't it be fucking nice if it only could have unchecked internet access to an explicit list of URLs and "full internet access" meant "initiated by user action"?
Same for file system and for "Read phone state and identity" - 95% of apps in the market want the same permission.
It just gets devalued, like UAC's very helpful and informative "Allow this program to make changes to your computer?" prompt (More details? Sure: "Origin: Hard drive on this computer"). With all kinds of "changes" and their frequency it's not hard to see why UAC is often turned off. WIth all kinds of "full internet access" it's not hard to see why permission page is just to click "Accept".
Why should you scroll, when the always-on status bar is already included when calculating window height?
Yes. The status bar is the only reason people are leaving Firefox or using 3.6. This is clearly a more reasonable figure than "number of people who actually turned the status bar back on."
Aaaaand you still miss the point. Let me step you through. Status bar was a part of the FF UI overhaul, as well as many other changes. Some part of FF users didn't like the lack of status bar, some part didn't like something about the tabs or menu or ... FF didn't want to pander to all of those small groups, and so they left. And there we see, Firefox, which had stable 30-31% for all 2010 and beginning of 2011, lost 5% in 9 months since FF4.0. That's how it happens, spit on small groups, and they eventually leave. It would be rather convenient if all those small groups were mostly intersecting, but as they're not you can lose quite a bit of following in process.
I'm not a UX designer. I don't care what you think about them, and I don't care to defend the profession.
And I didn't claim you're one. You're just displaying same arrogant attitude which seems to drive useless "innovation" for its own sake in UI.
Only 156,000 people care enough to restore the old behavior.
Nope, 156,000 people restored old behaviour by installing this extension. Indeed, we don't know exactly how many users restored old behaviour by installing 3.6 and how many didn't restore old behaviour, but chose new browser with new behaviour instead. All we can observe is this pretty correlation between introduction of FF4 with radically changed UI and acceleration of FF's user share decline
As for your take on Unity or UX designers, I couldn't care less. I'm not a UX designer, my Linuces don't have GUIs, and none of that has anything to do with why Google should pander to an exceptionally small number of toxic users..
You seem to miss the point. UX design matters and "not pandering to an exceptionally small number of toxic users" seem to mean "everyone who doesn't think as me is small and toxic" both for you and many UX designers. Unity was just an example of such "not pandering", as well as FF4. Google is safe for now, as it's the only real choice after migrating from IE and FF. If, for example, MS - I know, unimaginable - starts to "pander". while Google still disregards all them "toxic users" and proceeds on the because-I-wanted-to-put-in-this-feature development path, it will start bleeding users just like FF bleeds them now.
P.S.: And again you refer to "exceptionally small number of toxic users". You must be a real hit at parties.