From what I can tell, it has more to do with the GPU-accelerated GUI and HTML5 rendering.
They could neuter it and backport it... maybe they will... but I'd guess they'll opt to leave Browser as "good enough" for those devices.
This really does behave like a browser, after all - not all features you expect from Chrome are implemented, there are some reports of crashes, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like it's prime-time Browser-replacing material yet.
Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.
That 100 isn't the whole story, if the rendering isn't also correct.
Acid3 is also a cherry-picked group of tests, some of which are still drafts, some of which have no real use in standard practice.
AND... most importantly, here - it doesn't test HTML 5. That's one of the big things Google is pushing with Chrome for Android, hardware-accelerated HTML 5 rendering and support.
(This could be related to the ICS requirement - GPU acceleration of UI elements)
Chrome for Android also is single-process.
Do you have a source? TFA says otherwise, official docs say otherwise.
Yes, this seems to be the only *real* distinction between Chrome and Android's Web Browser.
Clearly you're ignorant on the subject, so please don't take offense if I continue to ignore your claims.
Now, I don't have an exhaustive list... But there are the things mentioned above, addition of the Omnibox, better developer tools, Incognito Mode, pre-loading and rendering pages as an option for don't/wifi only/always, no limit for number of tabs to have open, hardware accelerated rendering, redesigned UI that seems to be both better and more consistent with the desktop platform... Sandboxing isn't there yet, though they claim to be working on it.
Chrome and Android's web browser are both WebKit + V8, in which there was a fork from Chromium at Version 4, as outlined in the Google Android Commit Logs. Seems more as though Android's web browser has always been Chrome, with modifications to support mobile devices, from what was at the time a Current Chromium version (read: Chrome). Seems as though Google has simply made a more up-to-date build of their web browser available.
Chrome 4 was ages ago. At the time, sure, maybe the Android browser was Chrome 4 + enhancements for mobile devices - really don't care to go research the state of Chrome 4 and what Android Browser had then and what has been added since. But how well has the Android stock browser kept up with Chrome development?
There's some obvious, fundamental differences to how the two versions worked. They apparently was a fair amount of neutering done to make it work on the phone quickly and easily, or it was from such an early Chrome build that a lot of the features associated with Chrome weren't present yet.
That's a big part of this. They're working to keep both versions working off the same codebase. This will keep the Android browser more current going forward.
And realize that he started his days at the company working on the production floor. He started from the ground and worked his way up.
He's been with the company for ages, and obviously worked with a lot of people in the company. This doesn't appear to be your oft-maligned appointed figurehead. He probably cared about the company and the people there.
Go around the web and read some of the comments on some of the articles. Lots of people who work or worked for Micron seem to have a lot of good things to say about him.
The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.
Have any evidence to back that up? Have Samsung and Apple been increasing their prices?
Apple could maybe get away with it. Samsung, probably not, as people could just substitute into similar Android phones of other brands. But I personally haven't seen a price shift.
Leaky, though, as are all apps which use root permissions. During boot, everything has access until DroidWall has loaded, been granted Su permissions, and applied rules.
It's possible to block things better, but it requires custom ROMs or modifications to the stock ROM.
And there's a (probably small) number of users like me, who will occasionally install something against my better judgement that I need for a one time use... and I neuter the permissions with things like DroidWall, LBE Privacy Guard, Permissions Denied, and others... and I think CM7 included its own permissions control.
Hell, even "normal" apps need some control. Many, many apps want access to your phone ID (IMEI, etc.). Block, block, block. That's a hardware ID unique to your handset. Only good reason to grab it is user tracking.
Pretty much, yeah. Quibbles with your numbers and lack of regard for inflation and purchasing power and the requirements of competing internationally, and the assumption that the lawsuits will net Apple nothing, casting them both aside... Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. Everything scales with size, including waste. With scale, it becomes cost-prohibitive to do the auditing to reduce waste. You can end up losing more by trying too hard to waste less. The focus has to switch to percent waste, not gross figures. Though the gross may be huge, sometimes the benefits outweigh it.
It's not like Apple is going to set aside that $100 million and vow never to touch it unless it's nearly bankrupt. That's not how an effective business works, on the average. Spending it now, appropriately, can mean you never get to that point anyway.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.
Here's a citation, though I see nothing about highways.
Yet. Highways are mass transit, especially certain times of day and locations. Wouldn't be hard to put some TSA guys at toll booths, cars are stopping anyway...
My initial reaction to this is that this is a very good thing.
But a serious question. Police now cannot track your car via GPS without a warrant. But is there anything preventing police from just following you? Is the location of your car, driving around in public places, reasonably considered private, personal information?
So what's the objection to GPS tracking, if it is no less invasive than other means of tracking can be? The only thing that seems to separate GPS tracking is its passive nature; that it could be done to many targets easily and the data stored for future use; that instead of finding a suspect to follow, we instead track data from everyone and retrospectively see if any of the data fits. This would not be possible if it required paying ~3 people to follow someone around all day and night.
Now, I'm firmly against the dystopian big brother future that technology enables... But it seems like a better line needs to be drawn, rather than "well, you can do it, but you can't do it with certain technology." While that may be effective in practice, in the short term, it seems like it's awfully prone to creep and workarounds.
In other words, this seems like a start, but the hard work is still to be done: trying to define the role and limitations of government, expectations of privacy, etc., in a world where many of your communications and your location at any given time can be monitored. Or am I being to short-sighted? Is this exactly how that does get formed, that it is set by the sum many rulings? In which case, are we being to passive about the government's apparent policy of trying anything and seeing what sticks?
But what the xkcd proposes does not fit the description in the man page, because it is not a simple sentence or . The point is to use random words, so that the chosen words and positioning of the words bear no relation to one another or gives hints to the passphrase, and so that the passphrase is not easily found in existence elsewhere.. See Spot run is a poor phrase, for example.
Because many websites require numbers as they think that adds security, and many sites limit the password length. Even/. limits it to 20 characters, last I checked.... so his password is probably just correcthorsebattery.
But they don't know who s/he is, aliases on other sites, email addresses, etc.
And knowing that part of the password is common to his other passwords still isn't helpful - we still don't know how many chars, how he intersperses the site-specific portion, etc.
You'd have to know his password for at least two websites before you could figure out his method, unless he's just adding a few chars of the website to the end and you can recognize that easily. And even then it would need to be a pretty targeted attack against this one individual - if someone compromises two different website and obtains access to a bunch of logins... they go for the low hanging fruit, and just try what they have elsewhere. It's unlikely that they would go through both datasets, see that an email address appears twice - assuming the same email address was used and that email addresses were also compromised in both cases, could be a username to log in as well - compare the two passwords, and spend time trying to see if the two are related.
tl;dr - it's not the best security practice to advertise how you select passwords, but s/he is still fairly safe until at least one password is compromised, and the whole point of the question is to come up with a better solution and change everything over to that, meaning whatever information is divulged in the question is probably going to become irrelevant soon enough.
I use this as well. Fairly convenient, generates pretty secure passwords... just make sure you have at least one special character in the user-supplied password to get special chars in the final password.
I still often use some site and/or account-specific in my master, though.
This does not fix the problem of not remembering a password that you used on a site, however. Changing your master password doesn't change your password on all of your sites unless you go visit each one and change it there, so if you forget to change one site you don't use much you may still be stuck guessing. I don't see a good way around this unless you're using a database though, and that lacks the portability of pwdhash. Away from home, can't access your database and you're SoL.
anybody interested in unlocking their bootloader can and has done without any help from HTC.
Absolutely wrong. Their (and others') devices have become increasingly locked down. A few of HTC's newest phones (e.g. the Vigor/Rezound) have not had any progress in unlocking or getting S-OFF despite a good bit of effort. Read around if you're interested, HTC locked these newer devices down harder than they ever have.
That's not to say they'd never have been unlocked, but it's been getting harder and taking longer. Combine that with being released near to the Nexus, and developer support to cracking it diminishes. Now, HTC does it easily for anyone interested.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I can tell, it has more to do with the GPU-accelerated GUI and HTML5 rendering.
They could neuter it and backport it... maybe they will... but I'd guess they'll opt to leave Browser as "good enough" for those devices.
This really does behave like a browser, after all - not all features you expect from Chrome are implemented, there are some reports of crashes, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like it's prime-time Browser-replacing material yet.
Gingerbread's Web Browser also gets 100 on the Acid3 test.
That 100 isn't the whole story, if the rendering isn't also correct.
Acid3 is also a cherry-picked group of tests, some of which are still drafts, some of which have no real use in standard practice.
AND... most importantly, here - it doesn't test HTML 5. That's one of the big things Google is pushing with Chrome for Android, hardware-accelerated HTML 5 rendering and support.
(This could be related to the ICS requirement - GPU acceleration of UI elements)
Chrome for Android also is single-process.
Do you have a source? TFA says otherwise, official docs say otherwise.
Yes, this seems to be the only *real* distinction between Chrome and Android's Web Browser.
Clearly you're ignorant on the subject, so please don't take offense if I continue to ignore your claims.
Now, I don't have an exhaustive list... But there are the things mentioned above, addition of the Omnibox, better developer tools, Incognito Mode, pre-loading and rendering pages as an option for don't/wifi only/always, no limit for number of tabs to have open, hardware accelerated rendering, redesigned UI that seems to be both better and more consistent with the desktop platform... Sandboxing isn't there yet, though they claim to be working on it.
Chrome and Android's web browser are both WebKit + V8, in which there was a fork from Chromium at Version 4, as outlined in the Google Android Commit Logs. Seems more as though Android's web browser has always been Chrome, with modifications to support mobile devices, from what was at the time a Current Chromium version (read: Chrome). Seems as though Google has simply made a more up-to-date build of their web browser available.
Chrome 4 was ages ago. At the time, sure, maybe the Android browser was Chrome 4 + enhancements for mobile devices - really don't care to go research the state of Chrome 4 and what Android Browser had then and what has been added since. But how well has the Android stock browser kept up with Chrome development?
There's some obvious, fundamental differences to how the two versions worked. They apparently was a fair amount of neutering done to make it work on the phone quickly and easily, or it was from such an early Chrome build that a lot of the features associated with Chrome weren't present yet.
That's a big part of this. They're working to keep both versions working off the same codebase. This will keep the Android browser more current going forward.
And realize that he started his days at the company working on the production floor. He started from the ground and worked his way up.
He's been with the company for ages, and obviously worked with a lot of people in the company. This doesn't appear to be your oft-maligned appointed figurehead. He probably cared about the company and the people there.
Go around the web and read some of the comments on some of the articles. Lots of people who work or worked for Micron seem to have a lot of good things to say about him.
The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.
Have any evidence to back that up? Have Samsung and Apple been increasing their prices?
Apple could maybe get away with it. Samsung, probably not, as people could just substitute into similar Android phones of other brands. But I personally haven't seen a price shift.
Hard to benefit from the publicity when the product receiving publicity is, well, banned.
How do the bans work, anyway? Just sale in the country, or is it illegal to buy overseas and ship one in?
Leaky, though, as are all apps which use root permissions. During boot, everything has access until DroidWall has loaded, been granted Su permissions, and applied rules.
It's possible to block things better, but it requires custom ROMs or modifications to the stock ROM.
The hell? Why should that be public? It's only purpose in an app is user-level tracking and ad-serving.
And there's a (probably small) number of users like me, who will occasionally install something against my better judgement that I need for a one time use... and I neuter the permissions with things like DroidWall, LBE Privacy Guard, Permissions Denied, and others... and I think CM7 included its own permissions control.
Hell, even "normal" apps need some control. Many, many apps want access to your phone ID (IMEI, etc.). Block, block, block. That's a hardware ID unique to your handset. Only good reason to grab it is user tracking.
Pretty much, yeah. Quibbles with your numbers and lack of regard for inflation and purchasing power and the requirements of competing internationally, and the assumption that the lawsuits will net Apple nothing, casting them both aside... Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. Everything scales with size, including waste. With scale, it becomes cost-prohibitive to do the auditing to reduce waste. You can end up losing more by trying too hard to waste less. The focus has to switch to percent waste, not gross figures. Though the gross may be huge, sometimes the benefits outweigh it.
It's not like Apple is going to set aside that $100 million and vow never to touch it unless it's nearly bankrupt. That's not how an effective business works, on the average. Spending it now, appropriately, can mean you never get to that point anyway.
You forgot the New World Order.
Seems to be one of the leading causes of stupid I see anymore.
Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.
Yes.
And don't forget - the monetary cost to the defendants is only part of the cost to the platform as a whole.
Right.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.
Here's a citation, though I see nothing about highways.
Yet. Highways are mass transit, especially certain times of day and locations. Wouldn't be hard to put some TSA guys at toll booths, cars are stopping anyway...
My initial reaction to this is that this is a very good thing.
But a serious question. Police now cannot track your car via GPS without a warrant. But is there anything preventing police from just following you? Is the location of your car, driving around in public places, reasonably considered private, personal information?
So what's the objection to GPS tracking, if it is no less invasive than other means of tracking can be? The only thing that seems to separate GPS tracking is its passive nature; that it could be done to many targets easily and the data stored for future use; that instead of finding a suspect to follow, we instead track data from everyone and retrospectively see if any of the data fits. This would not be possible if it required paying ~3 people to follow someone around all day and night.
Now, I'm firmly against the dystopian big brother future that technology enables... But it seems like a better line needs to be drawn, rather than "well, you can do it, but you can't do it with certain technology." While that may be effective in practice, in the short term, it seems like it's awfully prone to creep and workarounds.
In other words, this seems like a start, but the hard work is still to be done: trying to define the role and limitations of government, expectations of privacy, etc., in a world where many of your communications and your location at any given time can be monitored. Or am I being to short-sighted? Is this exactly how that does get formed, that it is set by the sum many rulings? In which case, are we being to passive about the government's apparent policy of trying anything and seeing what sticks?
S/he didn't mean website domain, but the top-level domain. I think s/he blocked all of .cn and .ru.
That defeats robots, not hordes of cheap labor.
In other words, you've missed the point.
Came here to say exactly this. Not much new here.
Yes, I understand that. I just didn't have the impression you were asking these questions rhetorically.
But what the xkcd proposes does not fit the description in the man page, because it is not a simple sentence or . The point is to use random words, so that the chosen words and positioning of the words bear no relation to one another or gives hints to the passphrase, and so that the passphrase is not easily found in existence elsewhere.. See Spot run is a poor phrase, for example.
Because many websites require numbers as they think that adds security, and many sites limit the password length. Even /. limits it to 20 characters, last I checked.... so his password is probably just correcthorsebattery.
Nobody said anything about intentionally...
Here is an article, not-so-old, about Amazon truncating users' password to 8 characters, which were also case-insensitive.
But they don't know who s/he is, aliases on other sites, email addresses, etc.
And knowing that part of the password is common to his other passwords still isn't helpful - we still don't know how many chars, how he intersperses the site-specific portion, etc.
You'd have to know his password for at least two websites before you could figure out his method, unless he's just adding a few chars of the website to the end and you can recognize that easily. And even then it would need to be a pretty targeted attack against this one individual - if someone compromises two different website and obtains access to a bunch of logins... they go for the low hanging fruit, and just try what they have elsewhere. It's unlikely that they would go through both datasets, see that an email address appears twice - assuming the same email address was used and that email addresses were also compromised in both cases, could be a username to log in as well - compare the two passwords, and spend time trying to see if the two are related.
tl;dr - it's not the best security practice to advertise how you select passwords, but s/he is still fairly safe until at least one password is compromised, and the whole point of the question is to come up with a better solution and change everything over to that, meaning whatever information is divulged in the question is probably going to become irrelevant soon enough.
I use this as well. Fairly convenient, generates pretty secure passwords... just make sure you have at least one special character in the user-supplied password to get special chars in the final password.
I still often use some site and/or account-specific in my master, though.
This does not fix the problem of not remembering a password that you used on a site, however. Changing your master password doesn't change your password on all of your sites unless you go visit each one and change it there, so if you forget to change one site you don't use much you may still be stuck guessing. I don't see a good way around this unless you're using a database though, and that lacks the portability of pwdhash. Away from home, can't access your database and you're SoL.
anybody interested in unlocking their bootloader can and has done without any help from HTC.
Absolutely wrong. Their (and others') devices have become increasingly locked down. A few of HTC's newest phones (e.g. the Vigor/Rezound) have not had any progress in unlocking or getting S-OFF despite a good bit of effort. Read around if you're interested, HTC locked these newer devices down harder than they ever have.
That's not to say they'd never have been unlocked, but it's been getting harder and taking longer. Combine that with being released near to the Nexus, and developer support to cracking it diminishes. Now, HTC does it easily for anyone interested.