Unless your WinMo phone has very little RAM (less than 50MB free on bootup), you should be a be able to run Opera Mobile. They offer it for free now on their site.
Every phone I've ever owned, from cheap-o flip phones, to multiple Blackberries, to multiple HTC/WinMo phones, has been able to accurately tell me the quality of my signal, in real time via the "bar" type display. Based on that I would surmise that programmatically translating raw signal into "bars" has long been a solved problem.
So....
a) Apple programmers can't even build a bike shed. b) Apple programmers have been intentionally obfuscating signal strength from iPhone users.
Prior to updating the phone to iOS 4.0, I could put the phone into engineering mode and the db level was correct, in regards to db level to bars displayed.
+1
I would bet that the particular code in iOS4 that translates db level into bars was probably originally written for the first iPhone OS and hasn't changed one iota since.
I wonder if the people handling the class action against Apple can subpoena their source code and catch them in this obvious lie.
Unless you redefine what a depression means, the great depression did not last for 15 years.
Starting in 1933, the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace than it has ever grown. The only break in growth from 1933 to the recession after WWII was in 1937, right after FDR instituted spending cuts (I'm sure that was just an anomaly, right?). Unemployment did remain high, but it was so incredibly high in 1930, that it inevitably took many years to fully recover. At no other time in our nations history has employment been so low, so to say that employment didn't recover fast enough cannot be qualified by comparing it to another time. When unemployment is at 25%, expecting it to return to normal levels in a couple of years is simply not realistic.
After WWII, the U.S. government continued to practice Keynesian economics all the way through the 1970s. During that time, the WWII debt was steadily paid down and there were no major financial crises. By the time Reagan entered office, the remaining WWII federal debt was very small - virtually nothing compared to the debt we have now. Reagan, showing his complete lack of understanding regarding economics campaigned on the danger of our "growing" debt, not understanding that while nominally, it was growing slightly every year, as a percentage of GDP it was actually shrinking.
What Reagan started practicing in 1980 was *NOT* Keynesian economics by any stretch of the imagination, and it sure as hell wasn't Austrian economics either. The only stint of Keynesian economic policy we've had since 1980 has been the Clinton years.
In fact that's why the Depression of 1921 only lasted a year - the government cut spending/taxes and it freed-up money to be invested (at the corporate level) and spent (at the consumer level).
Meanwhile, back in realityland...
The "depression" of 1921 was due to WWI ending and the resulting transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy. There was also a short, and very deep recession immediately after the second world war. As for spending, it was cut was because the government wasn't fighting a war anymore.
I have this "problem" in online forums where I'll write a huge long post, reread it, decide it's crap, and delete it and not post anything.
Glad I'm not the only one that does this from time to time. A few times, I've typed out a long response to something only go back and realize that my entire reply was based on something I misread.
*facepalm*
Re:also: more doctors, less pay, more compassion.
on
What US Health Care Needs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sure, keep true insurance around for catastrophic events, but otherwise let each person decide how to spend their own money on their own regular health care.
This leads to people avoiding preventive care, which drives up costs in the long run. There are already dozens of health care models around the world that deliver better outcomes for a fraction of the cost that the U.S. pays. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
even though the overhead of dealing with 'insurance' companies can easily equal 50% of the bill.
And yet you advocate sticking with a system that involves private insurance.
Why would you look at the "top ten threats" when you can actually look up the statistics a cited?
Because "top tens" reflect what desktops are actually being affected by at any time. If you have a source of statistics that says something else, please share them. Telling me to "find them" is a total cop out.
Initially. One of the later variants targeted UPnP and several other services.
[citation please]
That's because you fail at copy and paste. It's Qbox, not Obox
I searched for `Qbox`. I also searched for `qbox worm`. Nothing. You have a habit of making claims that cannot be verified.
Sandboxing != user account permissions. User accounts do not use the same mechanism as ACLs
Instead of putting words in my mouth, how about addressing what I said? I never said services in Windows were sandboxed. I said they were restricted via ACLs.
Yet surely you agree that, all other things being equal, a user running on a limited user account is more secure than a user running as root.
Not really. When a user runs as a limited user, the machine and other users on the same machine are more secure.
Some kind of MAC framework is the next step in security. Microsoft's UAC is a baby step in the right direction, and things like App Armor and SELinux for Linux are starting to be implemented by default, but we have a long way to go. For the most part users still share all of their priviledge with the applications they run, which is a big problem.
My point was that the policy of Windows systems to automatically set up the user with an administrator account substantially contributes to Windows's craptastic security reputation.
Yeah. Microsoft has always bowed down to the god of backward compatibility, but I really don't think Microsoft's reputation would be any different today, even if they shipped Windows XP with limited users by default. Because of UAC, most malware is now privilege aware and is content to stay inside users' profiles, not even attempting to take over the machine. The only thing that has changed is that malware infections are easier to clean up now, because they can't install root kits at will.
Actually, automated worms generally target services and they account for the majority of malware infections.
Absolutely false. Go look up the top ten malware threats at any AV site, at any time. You will find that almost none of them targets services. Most of them are trojans that work via social engineering.
Your search foo is weak. UPnP is one of the most exploited of services. Not just code red but Conficker, Qbox
Are you kidding me? You are one to talk about search-foo
* Code Red targeted IIS. * Conflicker was a class of worms. One did target the a server service vulnerability. Another targeted weak passworded shares and another propagated through usb sticks and the "autorun" feature. None of them targeted the UPnP service. * Obox - never heard of it - Google turns up nothing.
First you're conflating user account permissions with access control.
No, I'm wasn't. Via ACLs, the local service account in Windows has access to almost nothing.
In addition to running in a restricted user space, on OS X, ZeroConf is further sandboxed by a mandatory access control architecture
Thanks, and yes, I knew what MAC is. I just didn't know if OSX made use of it, though given the bullshit you said about code red and conflicker above, I don't know if I should believe you.
I feel like your level of understanding must be so poor I'm just wasting my time.
Malware that targets services is rare. Malware typically targets users and applications - in that order. Services certainly can be targeted when the opportunity arises, but those opportunities don't come very often, especially in the last several years after debacles like code red hit us and Windows started shipping with the firewall turned on by default.
The one service you mention as an example, UPnP, has had maybe three vulnerabilities in the last decade (two are listed on secunia, but they only go back to 2003; I know there was one in 2001).
You claim that UPnP is not adequately sandboxed, but give no reason why. Checking services, I see that UPnP runs as the local service account. This local service has no special rights on the system and can't even read user files. How is that not sandboxed enough and what does OSX do to further sandbox it's services?
As for this...
On Windows more are exposed by default, they're easier to exploit, and they are usually proprietary; all of which leads to less security regardless of market share.
The first claim is downright wrong and the last two are completely unqualified. How are they easier to exploit. How does being proprietary lead to less security?
As for services being more exposed by default, since XPSP2, the firewall has come on by default, meaning precisely zero services were exposed by default. Despite that, millions of Windows users continued to get infected to this day.
And another thing about UPnp. It is not a proprietary Microsoft technology. It is a standard which was developed by hardware vendors. Microsoft just supports it. You calling it proprietary is like calling TCP/IP proprietary because Microsoft's TCP/IP implementation is proprietary.
On a related note, an amusing quip about OS X and UPnP from the.taoofmac.com..
"Of course, Apple seem to keep wanting to do their own thing, and their own thing only, so there is no native UPnP support in Mac OS X"
Due to the vast and never ending list of problems and software defects that plague the dominating platform (i.e., microsoft windows) since it's inception and continue to affect it up to this day, the world has been conditioned to think that having a base system with so many profoundly serious defects is somehow acceptable.
So what are the architectural differences in OSX or Linux that would protect everyone from malware if they were the dominant platforms?
Yet, what Microsoft forced us to believe it is the right way of handling this thing is let that security hole stay wide open.
I'll be sure and remember it. I'll also keep in mind that drawing a conclusion regarding complex topics based on one data point is not a good way to find the truth of the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.opera.com/mobile/download/versions/
Unless your WinMo phone has very little RAM (less than 50MB free on bootup), you should be a be able to run Opera Mobile. They offer it for free now on their site.
Does it matter if the parent might be wrong?
Every phone I've ever owned, from cheap-o flip phones, to multiple Blackberries, to multiple HTC/WinMo phones, has been able to accurately tell me the quality of my signal, in real time via the "bar" type display. Based on that I would surmise that programmatically translating raw signal into "bars" has long been a solved problem.
So....
a) Apple programmers can't even build a bike shed.
b) Apple programmers have been intentionally obfuscating signal strength from iPhone users.
Prior to updating the phone to iOS 4.0, I could put the phone into engineering mode and the db level was correct, in regards to db level to bars displayed.
+1
I would bet that the particular code in iOS4 that translates db level into bars was probably originally written for the first iPhone OS and hasn't changed one iota since.
I wonder if the people handling the class action against Apple can subpoena their source code and catch them in this obvious lie.
You never know. We might run out of street corners here.
Unless you redefine what a depression means, the great depression did not last for 15 years.
Starting in 1933, the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace than it has ever grown. The only break in growth from 1933 to the recession after WWII was in 1937, right after FDR instituted spending cuts (I'm sure that was just an anomaly, right?). Unemployment did remain high, but it was so incredibly high in 1930, that it inevitably took many years to fully recover. At no other time in our nations history has employment been so low, so to say that employment didn't recover fast enough cannot be qualified by comparing it to another time. When unemployment is at 25%, expecting it to return to normal levels in a couple of years is simply not realistic.
After WWII, the U.S. government continued to practice Keynesian economics all the way through the 1970s. During that time, the WWII debt was steadily paid down and there were no major financial crises. By the time Reagan entered office, the remaining WWII federal debt was very small - virtually nothing compared to the debt we have now. Reagan, showing his complete lack of understanding regarding economics campaigned on the danger of our "growing" debt, not understanding that while nominally, it was growing slightly every year, as a percentage of GDP it was actually shrinking.
What Reagan started practicing in 1980 was *NOT* Keynesian economics by any stretch of the imagination, and it sure as hell wasn't Austrian economics either. The only stint of Keynesian economic policy we've had since 1980 has been the Clinton years.
In fact that's why the Depression of 1921 only lasted a year - the government cut spending/taxes and it freed-up money to be invested (at the corporate level) and spent (at the consumer level).
Meanwhile, back in realityland...
The "depression" of 1921 was due to WWI ending and the resulting transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy. There was also a short, and very deep recession immediately after the second world war. As for spending, it was cut was because the government wasn't fighting a war anymore.
I have this "problem" in online forums where I'll write a huge long post, reread it, decide it's crap, and delete it and not post anything.
Glad I'm not the only one that does this from time to time. A few times, I've typed out a long response to something only go back and realize that my entire reply was based on something I misread.
*facepalm*
Sure, keep true insurance around for catastrophic events, but otherwise let each person decide how to spend their own money on their own regular health care.
This leads to people avoiding preventive care, which drives up costs in the long run. There are already dozens of health care models around the world that deliver better outcomes for a fraction of the cost that the U.S. pays. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
even though the overhead of dealing with 'insurance' companies can easily equal 50% of the bill.
And yet you advocate sticking with a system that involves private insurance.
Wow you really got ambushed for that post.
The blind hatred for anything Microsoft here runs deep.
Try my ROM for the Touch Pro 2! :)
Many, including myself, consider the death penalty to be state-sponsored murder.
Why would you look at the "top ten threats" when you can actually look up the statistics a cited?
Because "top tens" reflect what desktops are actually being affected by at any time. If you have a source of statistics that says something else, please share them. Telling me to "find them" is a total cop out.
Initially. One of the later variants targeted UPnP and several other services.
[citation please]
That's because you fail at copy and paste. It's Qbox, not Obox
I searched for `Qbox`. I also searched for `qbox worm`. Nothing. You have a habit of making claims that cannot be verified.
Sandboxing != user account permissions. User accounts do not use the same mechanism as ACLs
Instead of putting words in my mouth, how about addressing what I said? I never said services in Windows were sandboxed. I said they were restricted via ACLs.
Enjoy your unchangeable and unfounded beliefs
Fuck you too.
Yet surely you agree that, all other things being equal, a user running on a limited user account is more secure than a user running as root.
Not really. When a user runs as a limited user, the machine and other users on the same machine are more secure.
Some kind of MAC framework is the next step in security. Microsoft's UAC is a baby step in the right direction, and things like App Armor and SELinux for Linux are starting to be implemented by default, but we have a long way to go. For the most part users still share all of their priviledge with the applications they run, which is a big problem.
My point was that the policy of Windows systems to automatically set up the user with an administrator account substantially contributes to Windows's craptastic security reputation.
Yeah. Microsoft has always bowed down to the god of backward compatibility, but I really don't think Microsoft's reputation would be any different today, even if they shipped Windows XP with limited users by default. Because of UAC, most malware is now privilege aware and is content to stay inside users' profiles, not even attempting to take over the machine. The only thing that has changed is that malware infections are easier to clean up now, because they can't install root kits at will.
Actually, automated worms generally target services and they account for the majority of malware infections.
Absolutely false. Go look up the top ten malware threats at any AV site, at any time. You will find that almost none of them targets services. Most of them are trojans that work via social engineering.
Your search foo is weak. UPnP is one of the most exploited of services. Not just code red but Conficker, Qbox
Are you kidding me? You are one to talk about search-foo
* Code Red targeted IIS.
* Conflicker was a class of worms. One did target the a server service vulnerability. Another targeted weak passworded shares and another propagated through usb sticks and the "autorun" feature. None of them targeted the UPnP service.
* Obox - never heard of it - Google turns up nothing.
First you're conflating user account permissions with access control.
No, I'm wasn't. Via ACLs, the local service account in Windows has access to almost nothing.
In addition to running in a restricted user space, on OS X, ZeroConf is further sandboxed by a mandatory access control architecture
Thanks, and yes, I knew what MAC is. I just didn't know if OSX made use of it, though given the bullshit you said about code red and conflicker above, I don't know if I should believe you.
I feel like your level of understanding must be so poor I'm just wasting my time.
Believe me, the feeling is mutual.
An unfortunate implementation choice, but admin rights are not a prerequisite to infection.
Malware that targets services is rare. Malware typically targets users and applications - in that order. Services certainly can be targeted when the opportunity arises, but those opportunities don't come very often, especially in the last several years after debacles like code red hit us and Windows started shipping with the firewall turned on by default.
The one service you mention as an example, UPnP, has had maybe three vulnerabilities in the last decade (two are listed on secunia, but they only go back to 2003; I know there was one in 2001).
You claim that UPnP is not adequately sandboxed, but give no reason why. Checking services, I see that UPnP runs as the local service account. This local service has no special rights on the system and can't even read user files. How is that not sandboxed enough and what does OSX do to further sandbox it's services?
As for this...
On Windows more are exposed by default, they're easier to exploit, and they are usually proprietary; all of which leads to less security regardless of market share.
The first claim is downright wrong and the last two are completely unqualified. How are they easier to exploit. How does being proprietary lead to less security?
As for services being more exposed by default, since XPSP2, the firewall has come on by default, meaning precisely zero services were exposed by default. Despite that, millions of Windows users continued to get infected to this day.
And another thing about UPnp. It is not a proprietary Microsoft technology. It is a standard which was developed by hardware vendors. Microsoft just supports it. You calling it proprietary is like calling TCP/IP proprietary because Microsoft's TCP/IP implementation is proprietary.
On a related note, an amusing quip about OS X and UPnP from the.taoofmac.com..
"Of course, Apple seem to keep wanting to do their own thing, and their own thing only, so there is no native UPnP support in Mac OS X"
they're based on OS/2
Also wrong.
The Windows NT line of OSs are not in any way based on DOS.
Due to the vast and never ending list of problems and software defects that plague the dominating platform (i.e., microsoft windows) since it's inception and continue to affect it up to this day, the world has been conditioned to think that having a base system with so many profoundly serious defects is somehow acceptable.
So what are the architectural differences in OSX or Linux that would protect everyone from malware if they were the dominant platforms?
Yet, what Microsoft forced us to believe it is the right way of handling this thing is let that security hole stay wide open.
What the hell are you talking about?
trojan != virus
Nobody cares.
The virus/trojan/worm debate is like the hacker/cracker debate. Nobody outside of a small circle of pedant techies with an agenda give a shit.
To the general public (the people who Apple commercials target), the term virus is an all-encompassing term for malware.
Yup., My Mom bought a Lenovoalso a few years back and it has this and she bought my son a Lenovo netbook which also does this.
The article is pure slashvertisement.
Morons like you give open source a bad name.
I'll be sure and remember it. I'll also keep in mind that drawing a conclusion regarding complex topics based on one data point is not a good way to find the truth of the matter.
That's because, for the time being, they can only go over WiFi.
Somewhere I have heard this before
In a dream my memory has stored
As a defence I'm neutered and spayed
What the hell am I trying to say?
--Kurt Cobain, On a Plain
I call shenanigans. I copied and pasted your question and it told me 'no'.