Something else would be worse from a privacy point of view. With Google at least you know what kind of data they collect. Apple or Microsoft don't tell. Oh, and you can use your Android device without any data transmission to Google. Try that with a similar product from a different vendor.
Of course it is about convenience, in fact convenience is always goal, and standards are just one way to get there. Having a common implementation is a much faster way to get there.
In fact you compare Apples and Oranges here. IE was proprietary and MS had a monopoly. Webkit is both open and free. And when three competing companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple) are working together on Webkit it's hardly a monopoly.
With Microsoft you have worse privacy than with Google. They collect at least the same amount of information, and because everything is closed you never know what else they transmit and collect.
Which is why Google carefully avoids collecting too much power. Your Nexus-device is completely open and free, if Google turns evil you are free to take your device elsewhere. Any other device is beyond your control and can be bricked if Ballmer/Cook are in a bad mood.
What exactly do you want? Those things come with an unlocked boot loader. The complete source of the software is available. Everybody can modify it freely. What else could Google possibly do?
This "it's unsafe" argument always comes from people in need of an excuse for not biking, and because they don't, they have no idea what they are talking about. Of course this argument goes well with most people, because most people are exactly like that: In need of an excuse for not biking. And of course it's always possible to come up with a single tragic example to "proof" that claim. And if none is available it's easy to make one up.
And no, hatred and a comment written in a minute are not superior to academic research based on extensive statistics.
Google offers to be your friend, even if you sell competing operating systems like Symbian or WP7. They just don't want to be your friend if you are using their freely and openly provided source as basis to create competition, and that appears reasonable.
Ah, sorry, of course my comment referred to NFC, as this is the topic at hand. And this article here in fact says they were not able to exploit NFC on current phones.
Wrong. It's not supposed to be as secure as *possible*, but as secure as *necessary*. And it apparently is: Even the world's leading experts were not able to break into current Android phones.
It is backwards-compatible, so what works today will most likely work tomorrow as well.
There is no other way. Maybe stay with HTML 4 until HTML 5 is finished?
But of course, it's much easier to whine and complain than coming up with a better proposal.
Calling this "Malware" without further specification is somewhat exaggerated. They do what many other apps do as well: Serve ads. Collect a very limited amount of personal data. That's it. It's annoying, but certainly not damaging.
A few obvious mistakes:
- They knew in advance what they wanted to prove, yet created the formal hypothesis only after they got the numbers.
- They tested children here. The most important biological differences develop at a later age, so the results cannot be generalized to adults.
- The title makes it clear this paper is meant to draw attention, but not to publish scientific results.
Convenience comes at a price.
You can buy your bread and butter at the local grocery with all your neighbors watching.
Or you can disguise and go to the other end of town, which takes time and increases traffic.
The researchers here are biased: They certainly are interested in finding such an effect because that would make them famous. So they not only need to prove there is an effect, but that effect must be larger than their bias.
Could you be more specific what's wrong with Google's offer? So far Google didn't do anything wrong, so no reason to assume they will. They provide a free service, they provide you options for downloading all your stuff, there is no lock in. And about data-mining: They probably do, but this doesn't hurt you at all. And as long as they don't do anything bad or wrong with all that information you don't need to care. And so far there is no sign of them doing the wrong thing.
And religion does not aim to create a model of the physical world at all, but to explore the dimensions of the spiritual one; therefore science and religion can coexist, as neither duplicates the efforts of the other. QED.
Sure, in general they can coexist. No argument there. But as you say, this holds only as long as the religious people stay off the realm of science. And since that realm is growing over the years, religion has to retreat more and more. A thousand years ago it was fine having religion making claims about the nature of rainbows and lightnings. Today science conquered that turf by delivering better explanations. Unfortunately Christians have a problem with updating the bible, and this is what upsets people.
A philosophical background doesn't prove anything. As long as religion takes some random text from some random book as the only truth it is arbirary. On top of it is even an arbitrary interpretation what should be taken literally and what's allegory.
And if String Theory indeed were unfalsifiable it would be completely useless. And making fun of it would be appropriate. Its supporters of course do know this and claim it is falsifiable. The whole idea of science is to create a *useful* model of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Something else would be worse from a privacy point of view. With Google at least you know what kind of data they collect. Apple or Microsoft don't tell. Oh, and you can use your Android device without any data transmission to Google. Try that with a similar product from a different vendor.
Webkit is open source and completely free software, so by definition it cannot be a monopoly.
Of course it is about convenience, in fact convenience is always goal, and standards are just one way to get there. Having a common implementation is a much faster way to get there. In fact you compare Apples and Oranges here. IE was proprietary and MS had a monopoly. Webkit is both open and free. And when three competing companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple) are working together on Webkit it's hardly a monopoly.
They call themselves Independent Centre for Privacy Protection, so they hardly have an unbiased opinion here.
With Microsoft you have worse privacy than with Google. They collect at least the same amount of information, and because everything is closed you never know what else they transmit and collect.
The ipad display was increased exactly by a factor of two to make the scaling of applications easier.
Which is why Google carefully avoids collecting too much power. Your Nexus-device is completely open and free, if Google turns evil you are free to take your device elsewhere. Any other device is beyond your control and can be bricked if Ballmer/Cook are in a bad mood.
What exactly do you want? Those things come with an unlocked boot loader. The complete source of the software is available. Everybody can modify it freely. What else could Google possibly do?
This "it's unsafe" argument always comes from people in need of an excuse for not biking, and because they don't, they have no idea what they are talking about. Of course this argument goes well with most people, because most people are exactly like that: In need of an excuse for not biking. And of course it's always possible to come up with a single tragic example to "proof" that claim. And if none is available it's easy to make one up. And no, hatred and a comment written in a minute are not superior to academic research based on extensive statistics.
Google offers to be your friend, even if you sell competing operating systems like Symbian or WP7. They just don't want to be your friend if you are using their freely and openly provided source as basis to create competition, and that appears reasonable.
Who says Microsoft doesn't spy?
Quite the opposite, M.Z. has out-smarted all the professional investors. They lost. He won. The company (facebook) won.
Ah, sorry, of course my comment referred to NFC, as this is the topic at hand. And this article here in fact says they were not able to exploit NFC on current phones.
Wrong. It's not supposed to be as secure as *possible*, but as secure as *necessary*. And it apparently is: Even the world's leading experts were not able to break into current Android phones.
The most important part is missing from your proposal: What would that standard be?
It is backwards-compatible, so what works today will most likely work tomorrow as well. There is no other way. Maybe stay with HTML 4 until HTML 5 is finished? But of course, it's much easier to whine and complain than coming up with a better proposal.
Calling this "Malware" without further specification is somewhat exaggerated. They do what many other apps do as well: Serve ads. Collect a very limited amount of personal data. That's it. It's annoying, but certainly not damaging.
I wonder why you consider this junk. In general search results should only improve by taking more information into account.
They do not slander anyone here. They just suggest you might want to search for a certain term because other people did so before.
A few obvious mistakes:
- They knew in advance what they wanted to prove, yet created the formal hypothesis only after they got the numbers.
- They tested children here. The most important biological differences develop at a later age, so the results cannot be generalized to adults.
- The title makes it clear this paper is meant to draw attention, but not to publish scientific results.
Convenience comes at a price.
You can buy your bread and butter at the local grocery with all your neighbors watching.
Or you can disguise and go to the other end of town, which takes time and increases traffic.
The researchers here are biased: They certainly are interested in finding such an effect because that would make them famous. So they not only need to prove there is an effect, but that effect must be larger than their bias.
Could you be more specific what's wrong with Google's offer? So far Google didn't do anything wrong, so no reason to assume they will. They provide a free service, they provide you options for downloading all your stuff, there is no lock in. And about data-mining: They probably do, but this doesn't hurt you at all. And as long as they don't do anything bad or wrong with all that information you don't need to care. And so far there is no sign of them doing the wrong thing.
And religion does not aim to create a model of the physical world at all, but to explore the dimensions of the spiritual one; therefore science and religion can coexist, as neither duplicates the efforts of the other. QED.
Sure, in general they can coexist. No argument there. But as you say, this holds only as long as the religious people stay off the realm of science. And since that realm is growing over the years, religion has to retreat more and more. A thousand years ago it was fine having religion making claims about the nature of rainbows and lightnings. Today science conquered that turf by delivering better explanations. Unfortunately Christians have a problem with updating the bible, and this is what upsets people.
A philosophical background doesn't prove anything. As long as religion takes some random text from some random book as the only truth it is arbirary. On top of it is even an arbitrary interpretation what should be taken literally and what's allegory.
And if String Theory indeed were unfalsifiable it would be completely useless. And making fun of it would be appropriate. Its supporters of course do know this and claim it is falsifiable. The whole idea of science is to create a *useful* model of the world.