That sounds just as bad as what Nokia is doing here, and should be treated the same.
Agree! My point exactyly with pointing this out is that this is a very broad issue that needs broader attention than just the fuck Nokia circle jerk happening here, based on a very uninformed blog post.
The difference is that Opera Mini is explicitly advertised as a "proxy browser". If you choose to use it, you know what it is about, and what the implied security risks are.
Here, we're talking about a stock browser in a smartphone, doing this by default with no warnings given to the user. I don't care why they thing it's a good idea, it's a major compromise of security.
Then the network operators in these cases are as responsible as Nokia is here.
Network operators, Samsung (the linked article lists a number of phones where Samsung pre-installs Opera Mini), etc. Which is exactly my point, this is something you can get from most phone makers (except Apple), for a long time, and as I agree education and information on this is needed that should be part of the story and discussion.
No. They didn't tell us. This isn't merely a proxy. A proxy can be used with SSL without decrypting the user's data.
This is Nokia _pretending_ to be whoever you're SSLing to, pre-configuring the browser to accept the ruse, DECRYPTING YOUR DATA, "compressing" it, sending it along their pipe, recrypting it, recompressing it, and then _pretending_ to be you to whoever you're trying to contact. This could only be more of a violation of your privacy (and potentially the law, somebody look into this) if they were blatantly reading your data and issued a press release saying "Yup, we're reading your emails. Go fuck youself."
Interestingly, this is as fraudulent to the recipient as it is to the user. Somebody might want to poke the higher-ups at Google or any common HTTPS destination and let them know that Nokia phones are fraudulently impersonating non-compromised users of their services. _That_ will be fun to watch.
Are people here really so unfamiliar with how server-based "browsers" (they are not real web browsers) work? They are basically fancy terminals to a server based browsing session. Of course SSL needs to be terminated at the server in such a setup because it is the server doing all the rendering and javascript processing. This has been common for a long time. Opera Mini operates exactly the same as this Nokia browser, also for SSL, and is pre-installed on a ton of phones from Samsung, Motorola, LG and others.
so, why can't they keep their fingers off httpS, then?
proxy thru the plaintext. fine. no one cares.
but my banking?
sheesh, keep your damned fingers off my bits! that's creepy that they'd feel JUSTIFIED in decrypting ssl.
ssl also is not usually bulk traffic. is it? I don't see graphics and movies coming thru in ssl. ssl is there FOR privacy.
why proxy this stuff when you can proxy the bulk-only stuff and everyone wins with no loss of privacy?
this is not rocket science.
Because the phone doesn't have a full web browser. The server is doing the rendering, you are basically surfing as a server session through a terminal. Exactly same as Opera Mini does (also pre-installed on a ton of phones, from Samsung, Motorola, LG and others)
It is a Nokia issue. Nokia gives you a cell phone with a MITM exploit preinstalled from factory.
Opera allows you to download and install their MITM Opera Mini suit, if you so wish and trust them, or:
If you need full end-to-end encryption, you should use a full web browser such as Opera Mobile.
As I said before, what Opera Mini is doing is the same thing. Though, I am not sure Opera Mini is doing it for https (maybe it does I just don't know). But Opera Mini tells you all the traffic is routed through them. Nokia Xpress Browser does not appear to tell the user (since some users are surprised of the behavior)
Opera Mini does it for https too. As for difference in information between the two.. I couldn't say, it is mentioned for both in Wikipedia, but this storm seems to be mainly wipped up from an inflammatory blog post from someone who clearly has very little insight on mobile browsers, posted to a site that currently hate all things Nokia..:)
I agree that there are concerns about this type of browsers to discuss, but making it a Nokia issue isn't helping that.
It doesn't matter what his credentials are, if he's right, which he appears to be based on Nokia's response.
Of course he is "right", in that he through incompetence has "discovered" that there is a class of mobile browser "front-ends" (not really full web browsers) that do server based rendering and compression to save bandwith and increase speed on slow connection. Which has been well known (at least for people interested in mobile browsers) for years, fx all Opera Mini browsers do this, on all platforms, with millions of users.
They are not really full web browsers but fancy terminals, you use a server to browse is another way to look at it, and of course the secure connection has to be terminated at the server in this scenario. There are really good questions to discuss about information and education around this, but to suddenly jump on Nokia is just obscuring the reality of this.
Windows hat upwards from 90% of the desktop market.
Google has, what, 50-70%, depending on country/region?
Depending on whose numbers you use, Google has 70-80% share in US (Comscore being the lowest, with just below 70%, NetApps and other measurement services pegging it higher), 80%-90% WW, and in Europe 90+% (as high as 95+% in many markets). And that is if you are measuring searches, their share is significantly higher on revenue, because they are the only actor in the market with enough critical mass in the ad auction system
Not arguing that Windows doesn't have a high marketshare (at least on traditional PCs, there was a story recently that the true market share on computing devices - including tablets and smartphones etc - was around 20%). But Google has a stronger dominance than many think. As for arguing monopoly or not, that is a different discussion, just jumping in on the numbers here.
Why do people just make things up as you've done here?
Using the built in browser, browsing to maps.google.com redirected to just the generic search page. Google was refusing to serve up the webpage to windows phone users. This has nothing to do with APIs accessing google maps. They blocked the phones' browsers entirely.
To his defense, he just seems to be confusing together two separate recent episodes of Google blocking access to their service for Microsoft platforms.
One was WP8 phones being redirected away from mobile Google maps, just based on browser UA string (if WP8 users faked their UA, the service worked perfectly, so the mobile IE10 browser is fully capable of rendering the code). The other was that Microsoft is not getting the same rich API access to Youtube for WP8 Youtube app as Android and iOS Youtube apps are using, so lacking much of the functionality.
Cross contamination & subsequent loss of organic certification isn't an issue then?
How about Monsanto dragging innocent farmers into court?
I would personally advocate slicing GMO issues into separate bins. What you're referring to is the Intellectual Property bin which is a problem with (at least the US) most countries and the ownership (whether an instance of or the general use of) genetic material. Put all those lawsuits and patents and copyright crap in one bin.
Then you have another bin where we analyze the human element of consumption of GMO foods. What is the process to determine when something has undergone enough testing and is ready to push it forward? How many years of human trials must be held before it can be released? We do this with drugs but strangely, I haven't heard of much about this with GMO crops -- why is that?
Lastly we have a more open problem like environmental issues both surrounding the plant's effect on its environment and also the adjusted actions of the humans cultivating this crop. For example: with Roundup ready plants from Monsanto, have we really analyzed what the increased usage of chemicals like Roundup has on the immediate vicinity of the fields? Do we know that these genetic constructs that are taken from an insect and inserted into a plant do not adversely affect the pollen and have indirect affects on hay fever or honey bees? Again, how do we test this and how long should it be tested before it's pushed nationwide.
Lynas raises an interesting point I had not considered -- that my above desires for process and bureaucracy will prevent a small company from venturing into this field. On the other hand, we've been using selective breeding to move past a lot of the hurdles Lynas mentioned that GMO crops are supposed to move us even further past. It's unfortunate but this isn't a black and white issue and I'm against the unfettered proliferation of gene constructs that have been taken from other organisms and inserted into plants without sufficient testing.
The process of DNA -> Amino Acid -> Protein is still a very difficult puzzle for us as humans and I feel we should not openly experiment with inserting stuff at Point A when we don't know the full effects that yields in points B and C. I feel like there is still a lot to be achieved with selective breeding and until we have a better understanding of protein folding, we should shy away from smashing DNA into strands of plants unless it's absolutely critical to humanity. Go ahead and do that stuff in a lab to better understand it but leave it in a lab until there's a process that ensures it is safe.
Skipping the IP discussion, on all the other points you raise, what do you see as the fundemental difference between GMO and aggressive selective breeding, cross-breeding and cross-species implantation ("natural", not GM). There was a scare some time ago, where cows where dying from cyanid gass sudenly released from some new supergrass, that was reported as GM grass, but turned out not to be, produced by non-GM means.
MS broke the standard agreement for do-not-track, so I don't blame anyone for ignoring the setting if from IE10. The standard was there for a reason: It was the only chance any site would agree to following the headers intention.
MS broke the standard agreement for do-not-track, so I don't blame anyone for ignoring the setting if from IE10. The standard was there for a reason: It was the only chance any site would agree to following the headers intention.
It is the wrong choice that cross site tracking and data aggregation on users should be the default expectation, and this standard is the unholy result of advertising driven companies bending over backwards to try to make a compromise with the big advertisers - that never even intended to honor the choice of users who did manually try to opt out!
I remember the exact same discussion and arguments when pop-up blockers first appeared included in browsers, that it was wrong and harmful to web sites' economy that they were on by default, and that this did not reflect an active user choice.
Exactly. The fact that they can do this practically screams "We haven't bothered to implement even the most basic security precautions on our password database!" I mean come on - wasn't it established that storing recoverable passwords was a bad idea back in the text-only mainframe days? I could kind of understand it if it was some backwater site created by a high-school computer wiz, but Microsoft? Sigh. Yeah *sure* I'll trust your security software to keep my home PC safe - after all you're the company that did such a great job on the OS itself that running separate security software is practically mandatory.
The explanation is in an update at the end of the article. They have always just used the first 16 characters, and hashed that, and ignored any additional characters you enter. The only change here is that they don't anymore let you enter the additional characters that they ignored anyway.
Just wanted to point out that the 'alternative browsers' are just skins on top of the built in webkit engine. You're not allowed to provide your own engine. At least, that's the case last I checked.
This is still the case, and it is even worse than that. They are only allowed to use the old javascript engine built into iOS, not the faster JIT javascript engine (Nitro) that Safari have access to. So all "alternative" browsers on iOS are just reskinned, slower versions of Safari (except Opera Mini which offloads the work to remote Opera servers and basically just displays it).
63 countries with a combined population of 4.5 billion people
Yeah, I'm sure some Bolivian dirt farmer is going to miss the traffic report on his new iPad.
Apple knows damned well who their customer base is. And I bet it isn't in those 63 countries. Those are countries where people are buying $45 android tablets. You think Apple gives a shit about spending extra to keep up with subways and traffic there? Give me a break.
You have most of Western Europe on two of those lists. Your argument is that Apple doesn't consider us their customer base. Got it.
The idea is that if you forgot your charger cable, you could still charge your phone without buying a high priced proprietary charger.
No, the idea is to get rid of the proprietary charger. The wall wart. Apple have always charged off USB, and Apple USB chargers can be used to charge any device with a USB cable.
My iPad2 does not charge if I plug the Apple connector cable into my standard USB charger. Has that changed?
Microsoft are setting DNT on Windows 8 (and by extension their phones and tablets) so that competing advertising services like Google et al are shut out of their ecosystem. I bet whatever terms and conditions pop up when a Windows 8 starts for the first time, or via those Bing apps means that the DNT setting don't apply to Microsoft itself.
Actually, it seems IE10-team has a pretty independent focus on user experience. On my Windows 8 test machine it has proactively several times recommended to remove addins from Microsoft to speed up performance (from Bing, from Windows Live, from Office!). I'm guessing those other MS divisions must be livid. I know we've loved to make fun of IE for quite some time, but it is a good thing that IE10 is shaping up quite nicely (we don't want to replace "made for IE6" with "made for webkit", and you can see what more is coming at http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/
We care that they care. If they choose to ignore DNT due to Microsoft's actions (or rather, probably deliberate attempt to make the feature ignored) we do care. We prefer that the ad networks honor DNT, and they might, if it's not turned on by default.
It's that simple.
The moment a number of users started to turn on DNT ad networks would find a reason to not honor it anyway. It seems DNT was a privacy standard built on the peculiar premise that it only works as long as it stays unknown to most users ('if few enough know about enabling DNT then maybe the ad networks will leave us that do alone').
You can't (for instance) use MHL at the same time as USB on the go (USB host mode). Or at the same time as USB AT ALL, as far as I know.
At least, you couldn't, until they released a new INCOMPATIBLE spec for the connector (starting with, I think, the Galaxy S3).
Also, there's no standard interface for external controls, so you can't have a dock that supports skipping forward/backward/etc.
There's no line level analogue out (as previously mentioned), so that connector is not useable as a dock connector.
Apple make questionable choices about some things, but the dock connector is something they got emphatically right, in my opinion.
I know that my Samsung SII do have line level analogue out through the micro usb port, so it is possible. And, the new connector spec they are releasing is to adress exactly the shortcomings of the old you are mentioning. What we are discussing here is that Apple too is in process of introducing a new connector spec, incompatible with everything currently out there. Why couldn't they then join the MHL/MicroUSB standard group, using the new version. I'm sure they would be able to get support for external controls in there if they wanted to.
Let me know when your USB port has serial, audio, and video connectors.
You can argue that it's better to have a whole slew of other connectors -- and in many (but not all) cases I'd agree -- but you can't argue that USB is replacement for the dock port (new or old).
Ok, I can let you know right away. Many phones have that today, including phones as old as Samsung Galaxy S2. MHL is a standard for exactly this, supported by multiple manufacturers (except Apple). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_High-Definition_Link
It seems to me that every person that makes this argument forgets that the dock connector does so much more than USB does. It has pins for USB, Firewire, analogue audio and video, component video, whatever it needs to connect a HDMI port on the AV adapter, VGA out via an adapter and probably some other things I've missed!
According to reports Apple is planning to strip out Firewire and video to get to the new smaller connector and lower pin count. Granted, this is not confirmed by Apple yet, but something has to go when the pins goes. And, as mentioned by others here - Apple's competitors are able to do this with MicroUSB ports, including analogue sound (on Samsungs at least, don't know about others).
anyone else see him spending 136 hours as kinda fishy? did he really spend that much time?
Well, to put it this way, if it took him 136 hours to see that the Samsung design was similar to the Apple design (he was a design witness), maybe Samsung should call him to the stand:)
Get public link: right click on a file in Dropbox, get link for sharing with people. A killer feature that Skydrive just doesn't have.
My SkyDrive does exactly this. Right-click on file, share - get a link (select to give view or edit rights, built in URL shortener). You can also make file public, share on Facebook or send directly as an email from within SkyDrive.
I hate arguing with AC's, but while you are 100% factual, you just don't get it.
The point isn't whether or not you can get to the classic desktop in 1-click. The point is you can't boot to the classic desktop, and every goddamn time you need to go to the "Start" menu you're back in Metro.
I don't want a PC that acts like its a tablet. If I want a PC that acts like a tablet, I'll BUY A FUCKING TABLET. (disclamer: I do own an iPad and use it regularly. That said, I would NEVER want iOS on my desktop. NEVER)
I get what Microsoft is trying to do - they're trying to unify the interfaces so that the tablet experience mirrors the desktop experience. The problem is...mouse vs touch as the device input NEED different experiences. Either its designed for touch, which makes everything giant and bulky for mouse use...or its designed for mouse, which makes touch all but impossible.
In conclusion...I see absolutely NO reason to install Windows 8 on either my home PCs OR work PCs. There is no benefit that I can see....I'd rather stay with 7.
I'll add a non-AC to the mix. I've tried the Win8RC quite extensivly on a laptop (non-touch) and do see multiple benefits (speed - this thing is fast, multiscreen capabilities, battery life and a couple of other things - it really is a better Windows 7 than Windows 7. And it has been impressively rock stable). Then you have the metro start screen replacing the old start menu thrown into that picture. Yes, that is, well, jarring. . For me it is a question whether this new full screen start menu replacing the old pop-up start menu is a blocker against getting the other OS improvements, and for me the answer is no, the start menu is not where i spend my time. Pin the programs you use to the taskbar, use a couple of keyboard screenshots like WinKey-X (I've always done that, if you are allergic to shortcuts or want to make snarky comments about the need to do so, be my guest:) and you hardly ever will see or use metro at all, so the whole "tablet/phone touch interface vs mouse and keyboard desktop interface" discussion doesn't really seem relevant to me (to me! I have no issues with people seeing this as a blocker for them).
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
I don't understand this argument (I know it after much discussion was the compromise in the standard, but it is not a good one). Do not stalk me unless I allow you to should be the default expected behavior. That the built-in popup-blocker block popup ads by default doesn't give the website any right to claim that I didn't really actively choose to block popup ads so they are free to circumvent it.
It seems some people were hoping advertisers would respect their settings to opt-out, as long as not too many people knew about it and did it (because a significant number of users opting out would surely also "KILL the do-not-track project", stopping advertisers from respecting the setting, if they ever will). I just think this is a strange and unsustainable approach. Hopefully this will provoke a better approach.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds just as bad as what Nokia is doing here, and should be treated the same.
Agree! My point exactyly with pointing this out is that this is a very broad issue that needs broader attention than just the fuck Nokia circle jerk happening here, based on a very uninformed blog post.
The difference is that Opera Mini is explicitly advertised as a "proxy browser". If you choose to use it, you know what it is about, and what the implied security risks are.
Here, we're talking about a stock browser in a smartphone, doing this by default with no warnings given to the user. I don't care why they thing it's a good idea, it's a major compromise of security.
Opera Mini is pre-installed on a number of models from Samsung, Motorola, LG and others. I had a phone a few years ago that came with Opera Mini, I can not remember it giving any special warnings. http://tech2.in.com/news/mobile-phones/samsung-feature-phones-come-preinstalled-with-opera-mini/284642
Then the network operators in these cases are as responsible as Nokia is here.
Network operators, Samsung (the linked article lists a number of phones where Samsung pre-installs Opera Mini), etc. Which is exactly my point, this is something you can get from most phone makers (except Apple), for a long time, and as I agree education and information on this is needed that should be part of the story and discussion.
No. They didn't tell us. This isn't merely a proxy. A proxy can be used with SSL without decrypting the user's data.
This is Nokia _pretending_ to be whoever you're SSLing to, pre-configuring the browser to accept the ruse, DECRYPTING YOUR DATA, "compressing" it, sending it along their pipe, recrypting it, recompressing it, and then _pretending_ to be you to whoever you're trying to contact. This could only be more of a violation of your privacy (and potentially the law, somebody look into this) if they were blatantly reading your data and issued a press release saying "Yup, we're reading your emails. Go fuck youself."
Interestingly, this is as fraudulent to the recipient as it is to the user. Somebody might want to poke the higher-ups at Google or any common HTTPS destination and let them know that Nokia phones are fraudulently impersonating non-compromised users of their services. _That_ will be fun to watch.
Are people here really so unfamiliar with how server-based "browsers" (they are not real web browsers) work? They are basically fancy terminals to a server based browsing session. Of course SSL needs to be terminated at the server in such a setup because it is the server doing all the rendering and javascript processing. This has been common for a long time. Opera Mini operates exactly the same as this Nokia browser, also for SSL, and is pre-installed on a ton of phones from Samsung, Motorola, LG and others.
so, why can't they keep their fingers off httpS, then?
proxy thru the plaintext. fine. no one cares.
but my banking?
sheesh, keep your damned fingers off my bits! that's creepy that they'd feel JUSTIFIED in decrypting ssl.
ssl also is not usually bulk traffic. is it? I don't see graphics and movies coming thru in ssl. ssl is there FOR privacy.
why proxy this stuff when you can proxy the bulk-only stuff and everyone wins with no loss of privacy?
this is not rocket science.
Because the phone doesn't have a full web browser. The server is doing the rendering, you are basically surfing as a server session through a terminal. Exactly same as Opera Mini does (also pre-installed on a ton of phones, from Samsung, Motorola, LG and others)
It is a Nokia issue. Nokia gives you a cell phone with a MITM exploit preinstalled from factory. Opera allows you to download and install their MITM Opera Mini suit, if you so wish and trust them, or:
If you need full end-to-end encryption, you should use a full web browser such as Opera Mobile.
A ton of devices have come pre-installed with Opera Mini, from Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony-Ericsson, etc., depending on network operator. http://tech2.in.com/news/mobile-phones/samsung-feature-phones-come-preinstalled-with-opera-mini/284642
As I said before, what Opera Mini is doing is the same thing. Though, I am not sure Opera Mini is doing it for https (maybe it does I just don't know). But Opera Mini tells you all the traffic is routed through them. Nokia Xpress Browser does not appear to tell the user (since some users are surprised of the behavior)
Opera Mini does it for https too. As for difference in information between the two.. I couldn't say, it is mentioned for both in Wikipedia, but this storm seems to be mainly wipped up from an inflammatory blog post from someone who clearly has very little insight on mobile browsers, posted to a site that currently hate all things Nokia.. :)
I agree that there are concerns about this type of browsers to discuss, but making it a Nokia issue isn't helping that.
It doesn't matter what his credentials are, if he's right, which he appears to be based on Nokia's response.
Of course he is "right", in that he through incompetence has "discovered" that there is a class of mobile browser "front-ends" (not really full web browsers) that do server based rendering and compression to save bandwith and increase speed on slow connection. Which has been well known (at least for people interested in mobile browsers) for years, fx all Opera Mini browsers do this, on all platforms, with millions of users.
They are not really full web browsers but fancy terminals, you use a server to browse is another way to look at it, and of course the secure connection has to be terminated at the server in this scenario. There are really good questions to discuss about information and education around this, but to suddenly jump on Nokia is just obscuring the reality of this.
Windows hat upwards from 90% of the desktop market. Google has, what, 50-70%, depending on country/region?
Depending on whose numbers you use, Google has 70-80% share in US (Comscore being the lowest, with just below 70%, NetApps and other measurement services pegging it higher), 80%-90% WW, and in Europe 90+% (as high as 95+% in many markets). And that is if you are measuring searches, their share is significantly higher on revenue, because they are the only actor in the market with enough critical mass in the ad auction system
Latest US ComScore: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2232359/Google-Takes-67-Search-Engine-Market-Share One by country list: http://returnonnow.com/2012/06/search-engine-market-share-country/
Not arguing that Windows doesn't have a high marketshare (at least on traditional PCs, there was a story recently that the true market share on computing devices - including tablets and smartphones etc - was around 20%). But Google has a stronger dominance than many think. As for arguing monopoly or not, that is a different discussion, just jumping in on the numbers here.
Why do people just make things up as you've done here?
Using the built in browser, browsing to maps.google.com redirected to just the generic search page. Google was refusing to serve up the webpage to windows phone users. This has nothing to do with APIs accessing google maps. They blocked the phones' browsers entirely.
To his defense, he just seems to be confusing together two separate recent episodes of Google blocking access to their service for Microsoft platforms.
One was WP8 phones being redirected away from mobile Google maps, just based on browser UA string (if WP8 users faked their UA, the service worked perfectly, so the mobile IE10 browser is fully capable of rendering the code). The other was that Microsoft is not getting the same rich API access to Youtube for WP8 Youtube app as Android and iOS Youtube apps are using, so lacking much of the functionality.
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/05/calling-shenanigans-on-googles-windows-phone-8-maps-narrative/ http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/microsoft-fuming-over-google-block-of-youtube-windows-app-102979
Cross contamination & subsequent loss of organic certification isn't an issue then? How about Monsanto dragging innocent farmers into court?
I would personally advocate slicing GMO issues into separate bins. What you're referring to is the Intellectual Property bin which is a problem with (at least the US) most countries and the ownership (whether an instance of or the general use of) genetic material. Put all those lawsuits and patents and copyright crap in one bin. Then you have another bin where we analyze the human element of consumption of GMO foods. What is the process to determine when something has undergone enough testing and is ready to push it forward? How many years of human trials must be held before it can be released? We do this with drugs but strangely, I haven't heard of much about this with GMO crops -- why is that? Lastly we have a more open problem like environmental issues both surrounding the plant's effect on its environment and also the adjusted actions of the humans cultivating this crop. For example: with Roundup ready plants from Monsanto, have we really analyzed what the increased usage of chemicals like Roundup has on the immediate vicinity of the fields? Do we know that these genetic constructs that are taken from an insect and inserted into a plant do not adversely affect the pollen and have indirect affects on hay fever or honey bees? Again, how do we test this and how long should it be tested before it's pushed nationwide. Lynas raises an interesting point I had not considered -- that my above desires for process and bureaucracy will prevent a small company from venturing into this field. On the other hand, we've been using selective breeding to move past a lot of the hurdles Lynas mentioned that GMO crops are supposed to move us even further past. It's unfortunate but this isn't a black and white issue and I'm against the unfettered proliferation of gene constructs that have been taken from other organisms and inserted into plants without sufficient testing. The process of DNA -> Amino Acid -> Protein is still a very difficult puzzle for us as humans and I feel we should not openly experiment with inserting stuff at Point A when we don't know the full effects that yields in points B and C. I feel like there is still a lot to be achieved with selective breeding and until we have a better understanding of protein folding, we should shy away from smashing DNA into strands of plants unless it's absolutely critical to humanity. Go ahead and do that stuff in a lab to better understand it but leave it in a lab until there's a process that ensures it is safe.
Skipping the IP discussion, on all the other points you raise, what do you see as the fundemental difference between GMO and aggressive selective breeding, cross-breeding and cross-species implantation ("natural", not GM). There was a scare some time ago, where cows where dying from cyanid gass sudenly released from some new supergrass, that was reported as GM grass, but turned out not to be, produced by non-GM means.
MS broke the standard agreement for do-not-track, so I don't blame anyone for ignoring the setting if from IE10. The standard was there for a reason: It was the only chance any site would agree to following the headers intention.
MS broke the standard agreement for do-not-track, so I don't blame anyone for ignoring the setting if from IE10. The standard was there for a reason: It was the only chance any site would agree to following the headers intention.
The advertising industry never intended to honor Do Not Track anyway.
It is the wrong choice that cross site tracking and data aggregation on users should be the default expectation, and this standard is the unholy result of advertising driven companies bending over backwards to try to make a compromise with the big advertisers - that never even intended to honor the choice of users who did manually try to opt out!
I remember the exact same discussion and arguments when pop-up blockers first appeared included in browsers, that it was wrong and harmful to web sites' economy that they were on by default, and that this did not reflect an active user choice.
Exactly. The fact that they can do this practically screams "We haven't bothered to implement even the most basic security precautions on our password database!" I mean come on - wasn't it established that storing recoverable passwords was a bad idea back in the text-only mainframe days? I could kind of understand it if it was some backwater site created by a high-school computer wiz, but Microsoft? Sigh. Yeah *sure* I'll trust your security software to keep my home PC safe - after all you're the company that did such a great job on the OS itself that running separate security software is practically mandatory.
The explanation is in an update at the end of the article. They have always just used the first 16 characters, and hashed that, and ignored any additional characters you enter. The only change here is that they don't anymore let you enter the additional characters that they ignored anyway.
Just wanted to point out that the 'alternative browsers' are just skins on top of the built in webkit engine. You're not allowed to provide your own engine. At least, that's the case last I checked.
This is still the case, and it is even worse than that. They are only allowed to use the old javascript engine built into iOS, not the faster JIT javascript engine (Nitro) that Safari have access to. So all "alternative" browsers on iOS are just reskinned, slower versions of Safari (except Opera Mini which offloads the work to remote Opera servers and basically just displays it).
63 countries with a combined population of 4.5 billion people
Yeah, I'm sure some Bolivian dirt farmer is going to miss the traffic report on his new iPad.
Apple knows damned well who their customer base is. And I bet it isn't in those 63 countries. Those are countries where people are buying $45 android tablets. You think Apple gives a shit about spending extra to keep up with subways and traffic there? Give me a break.
You have most of Western Europe on two of those lists. Your argument is that Apple doesn't consider us their customer base. Got it.
The idea is that if you forgot your charger cable, you could still charge your phone without buying a high priced proprietary charger.
No, the idea is to get rid of the proprietary charger. The wall wart. Apple have always charged off USB, and Apple USB chargers can be used to charge any device with a USB cable.
My iPad2 does not charge if I plug the Apple connector cable into my standard USB charger. Has that changed?
Microsoft are setting DNT on Windows 8 (and by extension their phones and tablets) so that competing advertising services like Google et al are shut out of their ecosystem. I bet whatever terms and conditions pop up when a Windows 8 starts for the first time, or via those Bing apps means that the DNT setting don't apply to Microsoft itself.
Actually, it seems IE10-team has a pretty independent focus on user experience. On my Windows 8 test machine it has proactively several times recommended to remove addins from Microsoft to speed up performance (from Bing, from Windows Live, from Office!). I'm guessing those other MS divisions must be livid. I know we've loved to make fun of IE for quite some time, but it is a good thing that IE10 is shaping up quite nicely (we don't want to replace "made for IE6" with "made for webkit", and you can see what more is coming at http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/
We care that they care. If they choose to ignore DNT due to Microsoft's actions (or rather, probably deliberate attempt to make the feature ignored) we do care. We prefer that the ad networks honor DNT, and they might, if it's not turned on by default. It's that simple.
The moment a number of users started to turn on DNT ad networks would find a reason to not honor it anyway. It seems DNT was a privacy standard built on the peculiar premise that it only works as long as it stays unknown to most users ('if few enough know about enabling DNT then maybe the ad networks will leave us that do alone').
And it sucks.
You can't (for instance) use MHL at the same time as USB on the go (USB host mode). Or at the same time as USB AT ALL, as far as I know.
At least, you couldn't, until they released a new INCOMPATIBLE spec for the connector (starting with, I think, the Galaxy S3).
Also, there's no standard interface for external controls, so you can't have a dock that supports skipping forward/backward/etc.
There's no line level analogue out (as previously mentioned), so that connector is not useable as a dock connector.
Apple make questionable choices about some things, but the dock connector is something they got emphatically right, in my opinion.
I know that my Samsung SII do have line level analogue out through the micro usb port, so it is possible. And, the new connector spec they are releasing is to adress exactly the shortcomings of the old you are mentioning. What we are discussing here is that Apple too is in process of introducing a new connector spec, incompatible with everything currently out there. Why couldn't they then join the MHL/MicroUSB standard group, using the new version. I'm sure they would be able to get support for external controls in there if they wanted to.
Let me know when your USB port has serial, audio, and video connectors.
You can argue that it's better to have a whole slew of other connectors -- and in many (but not all) cases I'd agree -- but you can't argue that USB is replacement for the dock port (new or old).
Ok, I can let you know right away. Many phones have that today, including phones as old as Samsung Galaxy S2. MHL is a standard for exactly this, supported by multiple manufacturers (except Apple). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_High-Definition_Link
It seems to me that every person that makes this argument forgets that the dock connector does so much more than USB does. It has pins for USB, Firewire, analogue audio and video, component video, whatever it needs to connect a HDMI port on the AV adapter, VGA out via an adapter and probably some other things I've missed!
According to reports Apple is planning to strip out Firewire and video to get to the new smaller connector and lower pin count. Granted, this is not confirmed by Apple yet, but something has to go when the pins goes. And, as mentioned by others here - Apple's competitors are able to do this with MicroUSB ports, including analogue sound (on Samsungs at least, don't know about others).
anyone else see him spending 136 hours as kinda fishy? did he really spend that much time?
Well, to put it this way, if it took him 136 hours to see that the Samsung design was similar to the Apple design (he was a design witness), maybe Samsung should call him to the stand :)
Get public link: right click on a file in Dropbox, get link for sharing with people. A killer feature that Skydrive just doesn't have.
My SkyDrive does exactly this. Right-click on file, share - get a link (select to give view or edit rights, built in URL shortener). You can also make file public, share on Facebook or send directly as an email from within SkyDrive.
I hate arguing with AC's, but while you are 100% factual, you just don't get it.
The point isn't whether or not you can get to the classic desktop in 1-click. The point is you can't boot to the classic desktop, and every goddamn time you need to go to the "Start" menu you're back in Metro.
I don't want a PC that acts like its a tablet. If I want a PC that acts like a tablet, I'll BUY A FUCKING TABLET. (disclamer: I do own an iPad and use it regularly. That said, I would NEVER want iOS on my desktop. NEVER)
I get what Microsoft is trying to do - they're trying to unify the interfaces so that the tablet experience mirrors the desktop experience. The problem is...mouse vs touch as the device input NEED different experiences. Either its designed for touch, which makes everything giant and bulky for mouse use...or its designed for mouse, which makes touch all but impossible.
In conclusion...I see absolutely NO reason to install Windows 8 on either my home PCs OR work PCs. There is no benefit that I can see....I'd rather stay with 7.
I'll add a non-AC to the mix. I've tried the Win8RC quite extensivly on a laptop (non-touch) and do see multiple benefits (speed - this thing is fast, multiscreen capabilities, battery life and a couple of other things - it really is a better Windows 7 than Windows 7. And it has been impressively rock stable). Then you have the metro start screen replacing the old start menu thrown into that picture. Yes, that is, well, jarring. . For me it is a question whether this new full screen start menu replacing the old pop-up start menu is a blocker against getting the other OS improvements, and for me the answer is no, the start menu is not where i spend my time. Pin the programs you use to the taskbar, use a couple of keyboard screenshots like WinKey-X (I've always done that, if you are allergic to shortcuts or want to make snarky comments about the need to do so, be my guest :) and you hardly ever will see or use metro at all, so the whole "tablet/phone touch interface vs mouse and keyboard desktop interface" discussion doesn't really seem relevant to me (to me! I have no issues with people seeing this as a blocker for them).
But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
I don't understand this argument (I know it after much discussion was the compromise in the standard, but it is not a good one). Do not stalk me unless I allow you to should be the default expected behavior. That the built-in popup-blocker block popup ads by default doesn't give the website any right to claim that I didn't really actively choose to block popup ads so they are free to circumvent it.
It seems some people were hoping advertisers would respect their settings to opt-out, as long as not too many people knew about it and did it (because a significant number of users opting out would surely also "KILL the do-not-track project", stopping advertisers from respecting the setting, if they ever will). I just think this is a strange and unsustainable approach. Hopefully this will provoke a better approach.