Android phones have a cache file with the last 50 or so cell locations, and about 200 wi-fi locations. This is stored in a folder accessable only via root access to the phone - unlike iOS, it will never leave the phone unless a user goes looking for it.
Also, note the word 'cache'. It's used to speed up location requests, especially for their Navigation application and Latitude - oldest entries are deleted permanently as new ones come in, and from then on, if that location data survives anywhere, which knowing Google, it does, it'll be in anonymous format, with no way to link each location point with another one and no way to find out whose data it IS. iOS does not have a cache, it has a log. This is the key difference.
Well, there's that and the MULTIPLE warning screens on the device when you setup or install anything location aware. This cache file is empty if you never tick the "I allow my location to be used" box.
It's not particularly fair to compare the iOS logging to the Android...well...location functionality. The cache speeds up functionality massively.
I have a Logitech MX518, with it's DPI cranked up to 1800. I am very quick with this mouse, whereas any of my friends who touch it tend to be slower, as the increased sensitivity often means they overshoot buttons on screen.
I would hazard that the testers might be quicker using office mice because that's what they are used to.
Summary is totally misleading - it describes both iOS and Android applications as being non-compliant, and doesn't even offer separate numbers for the two.
I'm all for OS bashing of one kind or another, but can we do it with some semblance of rationality, rather than only reporting half a story?
To be honest, it means that (if nothing else) it'll make non-governmental attackers of the site a bit wary. After all, who want's to be DDoS'd into oblivion? I'm not sure what anon are going to do about the US Government though.
Well technically this isn't true. Digital media has VERY LITTLE reproduction cost, insofar that it's negligible on a small scale, but I wouldn't say it has infinite supply. Take Steam, for example. They have a pay a LOT of money for hosting servers and bandwidth (and boy do they use a lot of bandwidth). Not to mention the power costs.
And I've been whizzing through all of your comments, and I can sum them up thus:
The current 'system' (which you haven't defined), is somehow broken, causing the need for piracy.
The act of piracy doesn't directly hurt anyone.
A pirate is the same as someone who doesn't give a developer money anyway.
Digital media is comparatively cheap to reproduce, so why limit it?
So, in order. To which system are you referring, copyright, or as you seem to be, basic capitalism? The act of paying money for a good or service may have it's flaws, but it's sure as hell the best we have right now. There have been some alternatives tried, they didn't go too well.
Interesting that piracy doesn't apparently hurt anyone. I've long viewed piracy as a sort of trial run - you download a game, then if you decide you like it, you pay up. If not, you probably weren't going to buy it anyway, so nothing lost from either party. This is true that nothing is lost.
Now here's the kicker. What if that pirate then gives his friends free copies, saying "I know you were going to go buy it, but save your money". Now the business HAS lost revenue, there's no question about it - people who were going to buy the game now no longer have to. If you can debate out of that one without using flawed logic you can have an internet cookie.
The idea that 'piracy hurts noone' is flawed, it's only blameless on the very upper tiers of who does it and who it affects. If you start following the chain of events from piracy as a whole, it does do damage. Nowhere near as much as companies would have you believe it does on their own products, but on an INDUSTRY.
A pirate is most certainly not the same as someone who just doesn't buy it in a shop and deprives a shop of a sale. The key difference is the pirate now has no technical reason to even spend the money, as he now has a copy of something he didn't pay for. The non-buyer may still spend the money at a later date, as he doesn't have a copy. The pirate is no longer even a potential customer, and therefore does not deserve to be treated as such.
As best I can tell, your morals regarding people getting something for nothing vary slightly from a large number of people here. You replied to an example of people sneaking into a cinema being okay, provided it wasn't a full house. I'd say that purely from a moral standpoint, that's wrong. It's your opinion however.
I covered digital media up top there, but artificially limiting supply of things is actually a long standing business tactic. Messing with this limiting will reduce market value. It's only possible to mess with the system with digital products, but another real world example is diamonds - they have controlled distribution, thus keeping the prices high.
I'm in Europe. I see about 8 Android phones to every one iPhone (of any generation). About 1 in each 8 of those phones is the carrier locked Nexus One. So this 'big hit' of your's may not happen.
But yeah, OS X is Unix based, not Linux, as I recall.
I'd refer to myself and a hell of a lot of people I know as 'technical people', and we still refer to the OS as the top level framework. We call the kernel the, wait for it...kernel. It keeps things simple if you don't decide to branch out your own language from what the normal people use.
It's like ping and latency. Yes they are different, but only a right asshat would start complaining if someone says in a video game "Damn I have a high ping". Met one of those guys so far.
Ridiculously stale news, but cool nonetheless. I think the news source must have been looking at Google's slideshow of stuff on the internet - Miku and her concerts were on the third or fourth page or so.
Because cameras record, eyeballs simply memorize, as well as using up additional time. The fact is, my boss is welcome to stand directly behind me - aside from the fact he doesn't speak the same language that I do - that's a use of his time which he simply won't do.
A human cannot record all of my personal e-mails, or watch the types of traffic my computer issues to a network. Technology can. There's your difference.
It's a software company, but the machines aren't networked in any meaningful way. The company networks that we can access are essentially internet access and some limited file access. There's no real need for security, provided all computers connected treat each other like they would the internet - untrustworthy until told otherwise.
Were it that I wanted to connect to the software deployment server, then yes, it'd be likely I'd need some more stringent checks on my hardware. But there's no need for such strict policies if you have separate networks as we do.
Home built sub? Hopefully not home built boosters, home built life-support...where would you draw the line! Personally, I draw it at home built McDonalds. It's never quite the same.
I'm at work right now, using a mobile broadband connection I own, on a computer that I own.
So no equipment or infrastructure that belongs to the company is in use. You say they should be able to monitor my computer via cameras, or software on the off-chance I need to use the company network for files?
Interesting. Personally, I'm neither for nor against such measures - I use SSH as a matter of course when I'm not at home, and don't use work computers if I can avoid it (and kill the VNC process if I have to use one). I've got nothing to hide, except possibly my personal e-mails to family, but I'm happier knowing there's no-one watching over my every move.
That said, the developers have stated in no uncertain terms that they will not be dragging the cake joke back. They are fed up with it, and rather hope the internet is now too, at this point.
Hah! I pity them.
I've never had AdBlock, and my internet works fine, thank you very much. No delays, no overwhelming adverts, no popups, no flash adverts, and certainly no annoyance whatsoever.
If a site has a ton of truly annoying adverts, then that site probably isn't one worth visiting anyway. Punish the bad sites, not the good ones seeking the revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, head on back to the YouTube comments where you usually reside, because most people here are going to stop reading your comment at "LOL".
Android phones have a cache file with the last 50 or so cell locations, and about 200 wi-fi locations. This is stored in a folder accessable only via root access to the phone - unlike iOS, it will never leave the phone unless a user goes looking for it.
Also, note the word 'cache'. It's used to speed up location requests, especially for their Navigation application and Latitude - oldest entries are deleted permanently as new ones come in, and from then on, if that location data survives anywhere, which knowing Google, it does, it'll be in anonymous format, with no way to link each location point with another one and no way to find out whose data it IS. iOS does not have a cache, it has a log. This is the key difference.
Well, there's that and the MULTIPLE warning screens on the device when you setup or install anything location aware. This cache file is empty if you never tick the "I allow my location to be used" box.
It's not particularly fair to compare the iOS logging to the Android...well...location functionality. The cache speeds up functionality massively.
Hopefully they'd pick the ID of someone who actually owns GMod - nothing at all would happen then.
I have a Logitech MX518, with it's DPI cranked up to 1800. I am very quick with this mouse, whereas any of my friends who touch it tend to be slower, as the increased sensitivity often means they overshoot buttons on screen.
I would hazard that the testers might be quicker using office mice because that's what they are used to.
I'm all for OS bashing of one kind or another, but can we do it with some semblance of rationality, rather than only reporting half a story?
To be honest, it means that (if nothing else) it'll make non-governmental attackers of the site a bit wary. After all, who want's to be DDoS'd into oblivion? I'm not sure what anon are going to do about the US Government though.
And I've been whizzing through all of your comments, and I can sum them up thus:
So, in order. To which system are you referring, copyright, or as you seem to be, basic capitalism? The act of paying money for a good or service may have it's flaws, but it's sure as hell the best we have right now. There have been some alternatives tried, they didn't go too well.
Interesting that piracy doesn't apparently hurt anyone. I've long viewed piracy as a sort of trial run - you download a game, then if you decide you like it, you pay up. If not, you probably weren't going to buy it anyway, so nothing lost from either party. This is true that nothing is lost.
Now here's the kicker. What if that pirate then gives his friends free copies, saying "I know you were going to go buy it, but save your money". Now the business HAS lost revenue, there's no question about it - people who were going to buy the game now no longer have to. If you can debate out of that one without using flawed logic you can have an internet cookie.
The idea that 'piracy hurts noone' is flawed, it's only blameless on the very upper tiers of who does it and who it affects. If you start following the chain of events from piracy as a whole, it does do damage. Nowhere near as much as companies would have you believe it does on their own products, but on an INDUSTRY.
A pirate is most certainly not the same as someone who just doesn't buy it in a shop and deprives a shop of a sale. The key difference is the pirate now has no technical reason to even spend the money, as he now has a copy of something he didn't pay for. The non-buyer may still spend the money at a later date, as he doesn't have a copy. The pirate is no longer even a potential customer, and therefore does not deserve to be treated as such.
As best I can tell, your morals regarding people getting something for nothing vary slightly from a large number of people here. You replied to an example of people sneaking into a cinema being okay, provided it wasn't a full house. I'd say that purely from a moral standpoint, that's wrong. It's your opinion however.
I covered digital media up top there, but artificially limiting supply of things is actually a long standing business tactic. Messing with this limiting will reduce market value. It's only possible to mess with the system with digital products, but another real world example is diamonds - they have controlled distribution, thus keeping the prices high.
Really? I always look diagonally.
In Soviet Russia...
Here's an article you won't see written about the iPhone: How Can I Tell If An Android App Is Malware?
Sure you will! Researcher warns of risks from rogue iPhone apps
Quick! Call Steve! He needs to increase the power levels!
But yeah, OS X is Unix based, not Linux, as I recall.
I'd refer to myself and a hell of a lot of people I know as 'technical people', and we still refer to the OS as the top level framework. We call the kernel the, wait for it...kernel. It keeps things simple if you don't decide to branch out your own language from what the normal people use.
It's like ping and latency. Yes they are different, but only a right asshat would start complaining if someone says in a video game "Damn I have a high ping". Met one of those guys so far.
The irony! It is so sweeeet.
They used to. The technology used in building the PS3 is now such that they make money per console. Source
You'd like StumbleUpon then.
Because cameras record, eyeballs simply memorize, as well as using up additional time. The fact is, my boss is welcome to stand directly behind me - aside from the fact he doesn't speak the same language that I do - that's a use of his time which he simply won't do.
A human cannot record all of my personal e-mails, or watch the types of traffic my computer issues to a network. Technology can. There's your difference.
It's a software company, but the machines aren't networked in any meaningful way. The company networks that we can access are essentially internet access and some limited file access. There's no real need for security, provided all computers connected treat each other like they would the internet - untrustworthy until told otherwise.
Were it that I wanted to connect to the software deployment server, then yes, it'd be likely I'd need some more stringent checks on my hardware. But there's no need for such strict policies if you have separate networks as we do.
Home built sub? Hopefully not home built boosters, home built life-support...where would you draw the line! Personally, I draw it at home built McDonalds. It's never quite the same.
I'm at work right now, using a mobile broadband connection I own, on a computer that I own.
So no equipment or infrastructure that belongs to the company is in use. You say they should be able to monitor my computer via cameras, or software on the off-chance I need to use the company network for files?
Interesting. Personally, I'm neither for nor against such measures - I use SSH as a matter of course when I'm not at home, and don't use work computers if I can avoid it (and kill the VNC process if I have to use one). I've got nothing to hide, except possibly my personal e-mails to family, but I'm happier knowing there's no-one watching over my every move.
That said, the developers have stated in no uncertain terms that they will not be dragging the cake joke back. They are fed up with it, and rather hope the internet is now too, at this point.
Hah! I pity them.
Given that its extremely likely there are wi-fi signals within range at home.
I'd say those that AREN'T worried have a screw loose. Or ten.
If a site has a ton of truly annoying adverts, then that site probably isn't one worth visiting anyway. Punish the bad sites, not the good ones seeking the revenue.