I'd say the issue here is not connecting a number with a person but rather that many of these numbers are mobile phone numbers. This can lead to a significant amount of SMS spam, phishing and other nasty stuff. In the days of phonebooks, while there were robo-dialers and whatnot, the volume and availability of automating this kind of spam has increased exponentially.
He thought he’d cleared the last hurdle standing between him and the trade of his life in January 2011, when the FCC granted LightSquared permission to operate a combined cellular/satellite communications network in the so-called L-band, adjacent to the frequencies GPS uses. That theoretically made Falcone’s 56 megahertz of radio spectrum, purchased for about $2 billion in a series of transactions a few years ago....
You're right, almost all apps require internet access but not letting apps make phone calls or send texts is just the walled garden approach.
Wouldn't it be better if third party apps just generally weren't allowed to send SMS messages and make phone calls?
No. That would mean no alternative texting apps, or special dialers like T9 stuff. Additionally, the "Send SMS" permission is one of the most strongly worded by Google (one they actually explained well). It's even under the category of "Services that cost you money"
Anyways, personally I don't think it's fair to blame the OS for what is clearly a rip-off by the carriers. The problem here is that people don't know that SMS can cost them money or that the carriers are happily complicit in the process.
Yes and no. I think you are quite right in that they have a bit too much engineering in the solutions and not enough "human." But they do think through some of it quite a bit more than one might guess from a glance. For example, the INTERNET permission is something that was made intentionally broad in scope. Additionally any app can send an HTTP get or post request via the browser (no permission needed). These two things were done intentionally to not cripple apps right out of the gate. If they had made it more restrictive, there would be complaints about how the phone is constantly asking if I want to deny/allow stuff (like those Mac v PC commercials)./my $0.99
One I can think of right away would be making current touch lamp switches more accurate, right now you just turn them on/off if you brush against them. It would be nicer if they needed a grasp or multiple fingers to turn them on/off.
Even better would be if you could "CLAP ON" and "CLAP OFF" the lights.
Themes were/can be great. But there was/is a time, that they kept breaking by changing the core of FF. I used to love Camifox, but then it eventually couldnt even change the background color of FF. I think they have since fixed some of this stuff. But there is a (seeming) lack of respect the FF devs have for plugins and themes as they let/cause major ones break often. And given rapid release, who wants to go re-editing userChrome.css every other month?
The concept is great, but the implementations are a bit rough around the edges.
AFAIK, contrary to popular belief Google does not make much off of app sales. That money goes to the user's carrier. Rumor has it this was a back-room deal in the early days of Android to prevent carrier app stores (which were terrible back in the BREW days).
You can also use a password (most secure), pattern unlock (not very secure, though new screens are less smudge prone), or face recognition (fun gimmick, not secure at all).
Though I cant imagine having to type hunter2 into my phone every time I unlock it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say the issue here is not connecting a number with a person but rather that many of these numbers are mobile phone numbers. This can lead to a significant amount of SMS spam, phishing and other nasty stuff. In the days of phonebooks, while there were robo-dialers and whatnot, the volume and availability of automating this kind of spam has increased exponentially.
Ah never mind -- I missed your point, sorry -- you are saying they are playing a two-faced game. They very well may be.
Eh? They bought spectrum but were not allowed to use it for interference with neighboring spectrum...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2011/12/21/falcones-lightsquared-faces-enemies-on-all-sides/
He thought he’d cleared the last hurdle standing between him and the trade of his life in January 2011, when the FCC granted LightSquared permission to operate a combined cellular/satellite communications network in the so-called L-band, adjacent to the frequencies GPS uses. That theoretically made Falcone’s 56 megahertz of radio spectrum, purchased for about $2 billion in a series of transactions a few years ago....
/em mine
Mod parent higher than it's current score +
New? They just haven't invented it yet.
-1 for not linking to the Wikipedia page
Also in the news, a study of H.P. Lovecraft fans showed Cthulhu has the most impact on voting behavior
You're right, almost all apps require internet access but not letting apps make phone calls or send texts is just the walled garden approach.
Wouldn't it be better if third party apps just generally weren't allowed to send SMS messages and make phone calls?
No. That would mean no alternative texting apps, or special dialers like T9 stuff. Additionally, the "Send SMS" permission is one of the most strongly worded by Google (one they actually explained well). It's even under the category of "Services that cost you money"
Anyways, personally I don't think it's fair to blame the OS for what is clearly a rip-off by the carriers. The problem here is that people don't know that SMS can cost them money or that the carriers are happily complicit in the process.
You shouldn't want something dead, you should want a better technology to replace it.
I think it's for backwards comparability. But they now allow you to bundle AIR in your apk if you wish.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/air/build/WS901d38e593cd1bac-4f1413de12cd45ccc23-8000.html
I was not involved!
This is their 3rd attempt at DRM actually.
Yes and no. I think you are quite right in that they have a bit too much engineering in the solutions and not enough "human." But they do think through some of it quite a bit more than one might guess from a glance. For example, the INTERNET permission is something that was made intentionally broad in scope. Additionally any app can send an HTTP get or post request via the browser (no permission needed). These two things were done intentionally to not cripple apps right out of the gate. If they had made it more restrictive, there would be complaints about how the phone is constantly asking if I want to deny/allow stuff (like those Mac v PC commercials). /my $0.99
Exactly. This money should be spent preparing for the zombie apocalypse.
One I can think of right away would be making current touch lamp switches more accurate, right now you just turn them on/off if you brush against them. It would be nicer if they needed a grasp or multiple fingers to turn them on/off.
Even better would be if you could "CLAP ON" and "CLAP OFF" the lights.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/04/mogees
With some type of triangulation you should be able to determine location too I would think.
Themes were/can be great. But there was/is a time, that they kept breaking by changing the core of FF. I used to love Camifox, but then it eventually couldnt even change the background color of FF. I think they have since fixed some of this stuff. But there is a (seeming) lack of respect the FF devs have for plugins and themes as they let/cause major ones break often. And given rapid release, who wants to go re-editing userChrome.css every other month?
The concept is great, but the implementations are a bit rough around the edges.
I'd love to see them try to actually take someone to court over this.
You don't need a permission to read the Android Device ID, however READ_PHONE_STATE gives them access to the ESN, MEID, IMEI, IMSI etc...
The other worrisome problems with that permission are that:
1) It is granted by default for any apps targeting 1.5 or below, and the user is not warned about it.
2) It also allows some access to see incoming and outgoing numbers when a call is taking place.
AFAIK, contrary to popular belief Google does not make much off of app sales. That money goes to the user's carrier. Rumor has it this was a back-room deal in the early days of Android to prevent carrier app stores (which were terrible back in the BREW days).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe Age of the universe is thought to be about 13B years. I think even "unlikely" is newsworthy. Kinda cool to think of planets that old.
Also one apparently has fields of red grass and is named "Gallifrey".
You can also use a password (most secure), pattern unlock (not very secure, though new screens are less smudge prone), or face recognition (fun gimmick, not secure at all).
Though I cant imagine having to type hunter2 into my phone every time I unlock it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
It's not codified as law for all classes but for many it is. It also varies by state.
Another good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
(just wanted to provide some info about it, I'm not going to get into the why/why not stuff)
Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause
They are definitely legal. However sometimes they are rule unconscionable.
Both are pretty equally evil though -- easily confused.