Never said it was 100% secure, but the only way to break the encryption without loosing all data (from what I gather) was targeted at the backups and not the phone themselves. If you steal a phone, I don't think you can break it without the government codes.
Yes. They do secure, as you said, RIM gives the keys to governments. I don't consider that insecurity, but compliance with laws of a certain place. If you steal a BB phone you'll have a hard time getting what's in there if you're not a government. The only reason I wouldn't recommend BB is if you're a terrorist. You might get nailed by your phone then.
On the other hand, you might argue that having a single point of failure is a bad architecture. But it is not insecure, just dumb.
And depending on model, Android exploits can be more than that. Just look at the way some phones get rooted (some exploits don't even require a PC). And you forget that Android phones either don't get security fixes past a certain point or most handset makers take months to release new OS versions. Android has a lot of malicious apps but in terms of security, some phones, are extremely low. On the other hand, you can build a secure android device - but it'd still fail in the communication department unless you implement a RIM like VPN architecture.
No, what he means is that it hasn't been put to the test yet. The argument "there are no exploits yet so it is more secure" is a flawed one because it doesn't look at the big picture. Macs also claimed they were more secure than PC's - they weren't. Windows architecture is actually more secure than the macs.
Your argument is flawed for the same reason that people say macs are more secure than pc's.
Just because something is not popular enough to attract attention (and btw, it was rooted not long after it was released, which in turn prompted microsoft to offer a legit way to do it), doesn't mean it is more secure.
Android and iOS are victims to their popularity. On the other hand, BB handsets are, by design, extremely secure. Weird that you did not mention that.
RIM's OS, especially due to the way they handle communications, is by far (as far as I know) the most secure OS. And neither iOS nor Android look particularly secure to me, since every other week you see some news of them getting exploited.
That's exactly what I meant. The Nokia brand (big everywhere but the US, I'd say), the good hardware and a clean/user friendly interface will be enough, I expect, for a 10% smarphone market share by itself. Imagine if google endorses Nokia (with a Nexus phone). I'd say they could easily be among the top 3 android handset manufacturers.
You mean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share showing that Microsoft is even losing market share (up until Q4 when the nokia phones came in - at least that) means they will dominate the market by 2014? Behind Bada? You honestly expect people to believe this will change anytime soon?
I'm quite sure that windows phone will sell, eventually, near infinite money can do that to a product. But if Nokia doesn't change it's strategy, they won't be around to see it.
If you're going to lock yourself for 2 years, you could, at least, have chosen one of the best phones on the market: The Galaxy SII (any of it's US variants)
The flaw in your argument is, you can build a clean working interface for Android and differentiate yourself that way, while having hundreds of thousands apps available to captivate users.
No one denies the Lumia 800 is a good phone, but windows mobile clearly fails to captivate a user base. The only reason it isn't dead yet is that Microsoft can afford to keep throwing money at it. On any other company it'd be dead already.
Very simple. People don't dislike Nokia, they dislike the OS (Symbian) and don't believe in Windows mobile (as those handset sales show).
Samsung is competing on Android and sells almost as many smartphones as Apple itself. The reason for this is a quality lineup with a friendly UI (that the geeks hate but the laymen love).
If they did a good quality android set it'd sell 10x more than the Lumia line, I'm quite sure of this. Same with RIM. If you can't win, join them. The potential for profit will be lower, but you might survive (and Nokia needs to survive now and think about high margins later).
Android is even easier to customize, making it possible to differentiate themselves from the pack. Nokia clearly has some nice ideas, and their smartphones have been really well build lately (didn't see a single review criticizing the Lumia 800's hardware).
The windows mobile sales are a clear indicator that Nokia is on the road to destruction anyways. Why not risk it?
You have to people represented by lawyers. Those lawyers need to know, if they work in the field, that there is a bias from certain people to big companies / the little man. In the end the just ones will end up getting more jobs simply because they are the ones most agreed upon.
You need a lawyer. You'll be paying him and he should know the reputation of an arbitrator. In the end, if someone is known to favor big companies, no respectable lawyer will ever allow you to chose them.
That leaves those who are just. Because, if you won't choose those who favor big companies and, obviously, big companies won't chose those who favor you...
You're forgetting that the decision on an arbitrator has to be agreed by both parties. If you feel you're getting the short end of the stick, simply don't agree to him and another one needs to be found.
Your assumption that every arbitrator in the country will be corrupt is the reason why there is no progress and the courts are jammed. The man is not always out to get you. You can get a fair judgment.
Arbitration doesn't work like this (at least where I come from). There are 3 arbitrators, one yours, one from them and one neutral, as in, agreed by both parties. So the "neutral" should be neutral. And even if it is only one, it should still be agreed by both.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that you'll ever get a giant compensation via arbitration, and I believe that is what they are trying to avoid. It is also extremely more cost effective in terms of legal bills.
Unlike most people, I do believe that most claims should be decided like this. Decisions would be speedier, there would be no legal system to abuse because you have more money and power than the common joe...
Most people don't know what arbitration is... That's why they complain. It is actually a common clause in contracts between giant companies - and believe me, none of them want to lose money.
But python brings some things to the table that other languages don't have, like some of those libraries that, as you said, are not well documented, but most of the time do what you want and you don't have to worry about memory management, pointers, etc. while having access to dictionaries out of the box.
I'm all for writing the program in whatever language you feel more comfortable on and just do the heavy duty stuff in c++ daemons or something like that.
Could you buy the CD for 30$ on any retail store? (never saw them there).
Could you download it to your computer for fast access? (I don't think you can, even today)
Did it have a rich collection of historic videos (for example)? First time I heard the "I have a dream" speech (and this was before the internet) was a chilling moment, since I'm too young to have seen it live, and too old, it seems, to not care about it.
Sure, they have it now. But they failed the moment they started assuming people would still pay 100's of $ when 99.9% of them only wanted to know stuff out of curiosity...
I own one set and it's not nearly as cool as it sounds. Unless I'm doing serious research work on some even/someone (which I haven't done since I enrolled in college), you're not using it. And even those have been replaced by Encarta and things like that.
There are way better mediums than paper and some are actually done by the so called experts. They spelled their own death by not adapting to the times and wanting the times to adapt to them. Now they have an on-line presence and CD/DVD's, but they are years too late.
Exactly my point. People in Europe are now paying the price for not caring about those things. And the wars were what got you into debt so they did not have a "low cost". But the ones that decide elections are exactly the same people that, using your words, don't care about those things.
And whoever is in office will not care about unemployment unless it brings them any other benefit. The system is flawed because it gives way too much power to those that don't deserve it at all.
Democracy is a beauty contest. They still make wrong decisions, cave to interest groups and simply rule the way everyone else before them did.
It is the "best". The implementation of democracy we have in most of the modern world is not the best for the people, but the best for those who govern us. The whole problem lies in the fact that those with the power will never decide to change that, so we keep perpetuating a flawed system.
On theory, yes, you can't piss off too many people on stuff that actually matters. On the other hand, you can have 2 ridiculous wars, high unemployment, large external debt, etc. But as long as you cave to the interest groups demands (those that give large campaign contributions and/or represent an ethnicity or religion), you'll be alright.
It does not matter. When a church group or an representative for an ethnicity is able to gather millions of votes independent of the merits of the arguments and based solely on who will give them more money, then your elections are a farse.
People who watch debates, question ideologies and do informed decisions should have more weight than those that vote on someone because he's black, hispanic or simply "cute" (I've seen those given as reasons for it, so don't deny it). Because the color of your skin or how good looking you are should play no part whatsoever on who gets elected.
On the other hand it seems to be unable to weed out the highly motivated idiots. There are a whole lot of very brilliant people that I actually know that don't vote, simply because their vote does not matter. The blind idiots will outnumber you and decide the course of every single election.
If you stopped to think about it, you'd see it's true. It's the big flaw of the democratic system.
The big problem, unlike the story suggests, it's not security. It is the fact that you cannot guarantee that the vote is coming from whoever is registered. Anyone with a login and password can usurp your vote, so you'll never have a doubt free election ever again.
On the other hand, I do believe that you can design a secure system for voting, as long as you can guarantee that the machines were not tampered with.
What stunts? They provide you with a place to host your apps and communicate with your audience. All they ask is that you don't cut them out of the loop if you DO use their market that, by the way, no one forces you to.
True that there are countries that can't use it yet, and that is said, but I was under the impression this was for those trying to avoid paying google its fair share.
Slashdot Mirror
Never said it was 100% secure, but the only way to break the encryption without loosing all data (from what I gather) was targeted at the backups and not the phone themselves. If you steal a phone, I don't think you can break it without the government codes.
Yes. They do secure, as you said, RIM gives the keys to governments. I don't consider that insecurity, but compliance with laws of a certain place. If you steal a BB phone you'll have a hard time getting what's in there if you're not a government. The only reason I wouldn't recommend BB is if you're a terrorist. You might get nailed by your phone then.
On the other hand, you might argue that having a single point of failure is a bad architecture. But it is not insecure, just dumb.
And depending on model, Android exploits can be more than that. Just look at the way some phones get rooted (some exploits don't even require a PC). And you forget that Android phones either don't get security fixes past a certain point or most handset makers take months to release new OS versions. Android has a lot of malicious apps but in terms of security, some phones, are extremely low. On the other hand, you can build a secure android device - but it'd still fail in the communication department unless you implement a RIM like VPN architecture.
No, what he means is that it hasn't been put to the test yet. The argument "there are no exploits yet so it is more secure" is a flawed one because it doesn't look at the big picture. Macs also claimed they were more secure than PC's - they weren't. Windows architecture is actually more secure than the macs.
Your argument is flawed for the same reason that people say macs are more secure than pc's.
Just because something is not popular enough to attract attention (and btw, it was rooted not long after it was released, which in turn prompted microsoft to offer a legit way to do it), doesn't mean it is more secure.
Android and iOS are victims to their popularity. On the other hand, BB handsets are, by design, extremely secure. Weird that you did not mention that.
RIM's OS, especially due to the way they handle communications, is by far (as far as I know) the most secure OS. And neither iOS nor Android look particularly secure to me, since every other week you see some news of them getting exploited.
I'm sure you know all about android, to make such a claim (:
That's exactly what I meant. The Nokia brand (big everywhere but the US, I'd say), the good hardware and a clean/user friendly interface will be enough, I expect, for a 10% smarphone market share by itself. Imagine if google endorses Nokia (with a Nexus phone). I'd say they could easily be among the top 3 android handset manufacturers.
You mean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share showing that Microsoft is even losing market share (up until Q4 when the nokia phones came in - at least that) means they will dominate the market by 2014? Behind Bada? You honestly expect people to believe this will change anytime soon?
I'm quite sure that windows phone will sell, eventually, near infinite money can do that to a product. But if Nokia doesn't change it's strategy, they won't be around to see it.
If you're going to lock yourself for 2 years, you could, at least, have chosen one of the best phones on the market: The Galaxy SII (any of it's US variants)
The flaw in your argument is, you can build a clean working interface for Android and differentiate yourself that way, while having hundreds of thousands apps available to captivate users.
No one denies the Lumia 800 is a good phone, but windows mobile clearly fails to captivate a user base. The only reason it isn't dead yet is that Microsoft can afford to keep throwing money at it. On any other company it'd be dead already.
Very simple. People don't dislike Nokia, they dislike the OS (Symbian) and don't believe in Windows mobile (as those handset sales show).
Samsung is competing on Android and sells almost as many smartphones as Apple itself. The reason for this is a quality lineup with a friendly UI (that the geeks hate but the laymen love).
If they did a good quality android set it'd sell 10x more than the Lumia line, I'm quite sure of this. Same with RIM. If you can't win, join them. The potential for profit will be lower, but you might survive (and Nokia needs to survive now and think about high margins later).
Android is even easier to customize, making it possible to differentiate themselves from the pack. Nokia clearly has some nice ideas, and their smartphones have been really well build lately (didn't see a single review criticizing the Lumia 800's hardware).
The windows mobile sales are a clear indicator that Nokia is on the road to destruction anyways. Why not risk it?
You have to people represented by lawyers. Those lawyers need to know, if they work in the field, that there is a bias from certain people to big companies / the little man. In the end the just ones will end up getting more jobs simply because they are the ones most agreed upon.
You need a lawyer. You'll be paying him and he should know the reputation of an arbitrator. In the end, if someone is known to favor big companies, no respectable lawyer will ever allow you to chose them.
That leaves those who are just. Because, if you won't choose those who favor big companies and, obviously, big companies won't chose those who favor you...
An arbitrator wins nothing by being partial.
the decision is because you can chose your arbitrator.
you lose the right to sue because it is binding and you agree that whatever decision it reaches will be fair.
the decision on an arbitrator means, you can chose the person who will judge you and both parties need to agree on that
You're forgetting that the decision on an arbitrator has to be agreed by both parties. If you feel you're getting the short end of the stick, simply don't agree to him and another one needs to be found.
Your assumption that every arbitrator in the country will be corrupt is the reason why there is no progress and the courts are jammed. The man is not always out to get you. You can get a fair judgment.
Arbitration doesn't work like this (at least where I come from). There are 3 arbitrators, one yours, one from them and one neutral, as in, agreed by both parties. So the "neutral" should be neutral. And even if it is only one, it should still be agreed by both.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that you'll ever get a giant compensation via arbitration, and I believe that is what they are trying to avoid. It is also extremely more cost effective in terms of legal bills.
Unlike most people, I do believe that most claims should be decided like this. Decisions would be speedier, there would be no legal system to abuse because you have more money and power than the common joe...
Most people don't know what arbitration is... That's why they complain. It is actually a common clause in contracts between giant companies - and believe me, none of them want to lose money.
But python brings some things to the table that other languages don't have, like some of those libraries that, as you said, are not well documented, but most of the time do what you want and you don't have to worry about memory management, pointers, etc. while having access to dictionaries out of the box.
I'm all for writing the program in whatever language you feel more comfortable on and just do the heavy duty stuff in c++ daemons or something like that.
Could you buy the CD for 30$ on any retail store? (never saw them there).
Could you download it to your computer for fast access? (I don't think you can, even today)
Did it have a rich collection of historic videos (for example)? First time I heard the "I have a dream" speech (and this was before the internet) was a chilling moment, since I'm too young to have seen it live, and too old, it seems, to not care about it.
Sure, they have it now. But they failed the moment they started assuming people would still pay 100's of $ when 99.9% of them only wanted to know stuff out of curiosity...
I own one set and it's not nearly as cool as it sounds. Unless I'm doing serious research work on some even/someone (which I haven't done since I enrolled in college), you're not using it. And even those have been replaced by Encarta and things like that.
There are way better mediums than paper and some are actually done by the so called experts. They spelled their own death by not adapting to the times and wanting the times to adapt to them. Now they have an on-line presence and CD/DVD's, but they are years too late.
Exactly my point. People in Europe are now paying the price for not caring about those things. And the wars were what got you into debt so they did not have a "low cost". But the ones that decide elections are exactly the same people that, using your words, don't care about those things.
And whoever is in office will not care about unemployment unless it brings them any other benefit. The system is flawed because it gives way too much power to those that don't deserve it at all.
Democracy is a beauty contest. They still make wrong decisions, cave to interest groups and simply rule the way everyone else before them did.
It is the "best". The implementation of democracy we have in most of the modern world is not the best for the people, but the best for those who govern us. The whole problem lies in the fact that those with the power will never decide to change that, so we keep perpetuating a flawed system.
On theory, yes, you can't piss off too many people on stuff that actually matters. On the other hand, you can have 2 ridiculous wars, high unemployment, large external debt, etc. But as long as you cave to the interest groups demands (those that give large campaign contributions and/or represent an ethnicity or religion), you'll be alright.
It does not matter. When a church group or an representative for an ethnicity is able to gather millions of votes independent of the merits of the arguments and based solely on who will give them more money, then your elections are a farse.
People who watch debates, question ideologies and do informed decisions should have more weight than those that vote on someone because he's black, hispanic or simply "cute" (I've seen those given as reasons for it, so don't deny it). Because the color of your skin or how good looking you are should play no part whatsoever on who gets elected.
On the other hand it seems to be unable to weed out the highly motivated idiots. There are a whole lot of very brilliant people that I actually know that don't vote, simply because their vote does not matter. The blind idiots will outnumber you and decide the course of every single election.
If you stopped to think about it, you'd see it's true. It's the big flaw of the democratic system.
The big problem, unlike the story suggests, it's not security. It is the fact that you cannot guarantee that the vote is coming from whoever is registered. Anyone with a login and password can usurp your vote, so you'll never have a doubt free election ever again.
On the other hand, I do believe that you can design a secure system for voting, as long as you can guarantee that the machines were not tampered with.
What stunts? They provide you with a place to host your apps and communicate with your audience. All they ask is that you don't cut them out of the loop if you DO use their market that, by the way, no one forces you to.
True that there are countries that can't use it yet, and that is said, but I was under the impression this was for those trying to avoid paying google its fair share.