That seems a bit more user and developer friendly than trying to play guess-the-permission games with your apps by selectively turning them off and on again and watching where they crap out.
But, you know, fine... let me put it into a mode where I can say "yes, I'm wearing my big-boy pants, and I will take responsibility for this". Let it be an app that I install myself.
Give me the ability to do a big fat "reset all app perms back to where they were before I did this".
Don't leave me wondering what, exactly, this app needs a specific permission for. If the app wants to just ask for everything, we should be able to turn some of that off.
In fact, we should more or less be able to treat all apps like we don't necessarily trust them, and don't want them accessing our private data without a good explanation.
we're talking about clumps of matter with a density of a hundred billion tons per cc that would collide (likely passing straight through with catastrophe on both sides) with the earth at least once a year
Ummm... how would we know that, and why would we expect it? I'm not disputing you, because I have no idea WTF you're saying.
I'm saying you've just thrown out a rejection based on a conclusion I have no idea what it means or what supports it.
Can I play too? Dark matter takes on the form of cosmic, cross-dressing clowns, who play peekaboo behind stars, steal your last beer, and pee on your rosebushes.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but... Why do you need granular permissions to do that? You can already see what apps need what permissions, right?
I can see what they're asking for. I can't always see why they're asking for it.
I may be interested in the app, but I might want to say "you can do this stuff, but not that". I'd like to be able to go back and remove some permissions. In some cases, I'd like a better explanation of why you need a certain permission.
In short, I think the ability to selectively enable/disable permissions on an app... because there may be times when I briefly want it back on, but in general don't.
On my Android phone, when I get a voicemail, a little while later I get a text from my cell provider saying an app on my phone is trying to access the interwebs... even though I don't have a data plan, and leave wifi turned off most of the time. So, something in there feels entitled to access the internet when I get a voicemail... and I'd really love to be able to identify it, and either delete it, or disable that.
In other words, I don't necessarily trust apps, and want to have the control over what can do what when... while I'm using you, sure, maybe I need to give you access to the network. But while I'm not using you, if you try it access the network, I want to see an error.
Unfortunately, Google just lumped a lot of permissions in, and don't really do much to tell you why an app claims it needs something. Like that whole "this permission could cost you money, but we're not going to tell you anything more".
It's my device, give me control over it to make my own decisions about how and when apps can do stuff. But giving them blanket permissions without a proper explanation is terrible.
Let me find out for myself what happens when I disable them.
Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to root my device and risk destroying it.
As an Android developer, the thought of how this would impact the testing of my apps is troubling.
Well, look at it this way... I as a user really would prefer to control WTF apps on my devices are doing.
So, if I actually had granular permissions, and they broke your app... my problem is solved, because I'm going to uninstall your application on the assumption that it's either malicious, and doing stuff it shouldn't, or badly written, and doing stuff it shouldn't.
In either case, I win. Because one less badly written application is on my device.
The problem is, Google isn't going to give us this, because people might use it to block ads and other unwanted crap where Google makes its money from.
But your flashlight app? It doesn't need access to my contacts, my phone state, the state of the wireless connection, my storage, or pretty much anything else. If it can't survive me disabling those features, I don't want it installed.
So, if you wrote an app which just asked for every permission on the assumption you might eventually need it... I don't want your crappy application anyway.
So, basically... you're good enough, smart enough, and dog gone it, people like you, then?
You also have to be careful you don't start rewarding mediocrity just for the sake of it... because it's not necessarily good to just praise them for nothing.
Not everyone agreed with the self esteem movement where everything they did was awesome, even if it wasn't.
Because they didn't always understand that in the real world there's seldom a cookie for a half assed job.
Environmentally friendliness came in at only 11%. Note that the three most voted choices have direct advantages for the user, as opposed to Environmental Friendliness, which is primarily a societal benefit.
So, in other words, the smart home is a self-indulgent thing, then?
What would you look for in a smart home?
Privacy and freedom from external entities having analytics data about how I live in my home.
Pretty much the exact opposite of what the people pitching the smart home want. Google and Nest and all of these other companies want access to your data, not to make your life any better.
Sorry, but I don't trust the players enough to care about the game.
So, you'd prefer to have a government staffed by incompetent underpaid staff, so that it can prop up your ideological position that government should not have any staff, and demonstrate that governments do a bad job of things.
To reduce the risk, we have to tear down all statues of men who ever worked together with a gay man. That's how contagious it is.
Meanwhile, sitting around naked in a steam room, drinking vodka, and slapping yourself with birch leaves... totally nothing gay about that.
And, we might need to stop using computers, because I heard Alan Turing had caught the gay.
We also might need to cut out anything from the Greeks or the Romans as well... 'cause I heard they might have had it as well.
Can you still catch teh gay if you don't know they're gay? Or is it dependent on knowing this? Because I think much of congress/the Senate might have come in contact with this guy, and I'm pretty sure a few paiges have been fiddled with over the years.
And, anybody who has ever listened to Elton John. They've totally caught teh gay. So if you can find evidence Putin ever listened to Crocodile Rock, he's totally gay by now.
And, then you have to factor in Rock Hudson, Liberace, and who knows what else.
Then there's all of the pastors and politicians who have been caught reaching for a little sausage.
Right, you've gotta break some eggs if you want to see the big return on investment.
A few lives here and there aren't going to stop the quest for profits.
In fairness, I would say the guys who are flying these things know damned well what the risk is, and would fight tooth and nail for the opportunity to do it.
And I seriously doubt Branson would view any of these people as expendable assets.
Because I suspect he wants to fly on this as much as anybody else does.
It's sad, it sucks... but nobody is just looking at this as a cost of doing business. A very real possibility, yes. But I very much doubt anybody treats it as anything except a really terrible loss.
You might be thinking of Neil Armstrong's comments after the 'flying bedstead' crash.
That sounds plausible. Or Gemini 8. Or any number of things. He was a test pilot on some pretty extraordinary things, and pretty famous for being cool under pressure.
Neil Armstrong was someone who is entitled to a place of honor in the Big Brass Ones Club.
Chuck Norris would think twice about messing with Neil Armstrong.;-)
We gave up on zeppelins because of a few deaths.:)
And, yet, we still have airships which hang around sporting events.
So, no, we didn't completely give up on them. We just decided it wasn't good to be filling them with flammable gas, and painting it with flammable aluminum paint (or whatever it was).
Apparently, "anomaly" is a synonym for exploded into may tiny pieces.
Engineering and operating equipment at this level requires a certain level of being fairly clinical and detached about it, and not devolving into a screeching monkey while it's happening.
So "anomaly" being "outside of expected parameters", sure.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that inwardly you're not going "oh, crap, no".. but like first responders and medical people, while it's happening you need to keep it reined in.
I wish I could dredge up some examples, but I seem to remember seeing some things which some of the astronauts said in the middle of a crisis which made them sound like it was just a little thing, when the rest of us would all be screaming "we're all gonna die we're all gonna die".
I seem to recall one of them went through an explosion or a crash or something, and then joked about it being a bit of a rough ride or something. Even the other astronauts were all stunned by it, I just can't recall the specifics of it. Apparently he was back at his office the same day, and flying the next as if nothing happened.
Big Brass Ones are kind of required at this level.
This now applies to televisions as well -- an article in Salon discusses the author's new "smart" TV, which came with a 46-page privacy policy. Quoting: "It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect 'when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.' It records 'the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.' It ignores 'do-not-track' requests as a considered matter of policy. It also has a built-in camera -- with facial recognition."
Thereby affirming my belief that "Smart TVs" are a dumb idea which mostly is there to give advertising revenue and other information.
No, not interested, thanks anyway. It's a TV, and I will mostly use it as a dumb monitor... I'm not interested in the other crap you're putting in it.
Your just stupid if you didn't know this already since its regularly brought up as a shitty thing that android lacks.
So which are you then, an asshole, a douchebag, or just some useless sack of shit with a big mouth?
Yes, there are the settings which Apple has placed under there for what they list as privacy. But what there isn't is a "show be a given app, show me all the permissions for that app, and let me selectively disable them". Android doesn't have that either.
My problem, is I have no idea if there are other permissions Apple hasn't decided are privacy related or not. Like sending information to a 3rd party site when it's supposed to be a flashlight.
So, why don't you stop acting like a dick, and try acting like an adult instead of the childish idiot you seem to prefer?
I have both an Android device and iOS device sitting on the table in front of me... so maybe instead of you just being a loud mouth asshole, you give me the benefit of not assuming I'm being a troll? Something which I'm afraid I can't extend to you.
Slashdot Mirror
But, you know, fine ... let me put it into a mode where I can say "yes, I'm wearing my big-boy pants, and I will take responsibility for this". Let it be an app that I install myself.
Give me the ability to do a big fat "reset all app perms back to where they were before I did this".
Don't leave me wondering what, exactly, this app needs a specific permission for. If the app wants to just ask for everything, we should be able to turn some of that off.
In fact, we should more or less be able to treat all apps like we don't necessarily trust them, and don't want them accessing our private data without a good explanation.
Ummm ... how would we know that, and why would we expect it? I'm not disputing you, because I have no idea WTF you're saying.
I'm saying you've just thrown out a rejection based on a conclusion I have no idea what it means or what supports it.
Can I play too? Dark matter takes on the form of cosmic, cross-dressing clowns, who play peekaboo behind stars, steal your last beer, and pee on your rosebushes.
Outlook uncertain. Try again later.
Or it's exotic that this matter is so strange.
I'm afraid most of us can't really follow what physicists mean by 'exotic' or 'strange' any more.
Does it taste minty?
I can see what they're asking for. I can't always see why they're asking for it.
I may be interested in the app, but I might want to say "you can do this stuff, but not that". I'd like to be able to go back and remove some permissions. In some cases, I'd like a better explanation of why you need a certain permission.
In short, I think the ability to selectively enable/disable permissions on an app ... because there may be times when I briefly want it back on, but in general don't.
On my Android phone, when I get a voicemail, a little while later I get a text from my cell provider saying an app on my phone is trying to access the interwebs ... even though I don't have a data plan, and leave wifi turned off most of the time. So, something in there feels entitled to access the internet when I get a voicemail ... and I'd really love to be able to identify it, and either delete it, or disable that.
In other words, I don't necessarily trust apps, and want to have the control over what can do what when ... while I'm using you, sure, maybe I need to give you access to the network. But while I'm not using you, if you try it access the network, I want to see an error.
Unfortunately, Google just lumped a lot of permissions in, and don't really do much to tell you why an app claims it needs something. Like that whole "this permission could cost you money, but we're not going to tell you anything more".
It's my device, give me control over it to make my own decisions about how and when apps can do stuff. But giving them blanket permissions without a proper explanation is terrible.
Let me find out for myself what happens when I disable them.
Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to root my device and risk destroying it.
Tenet. Seriously, the word is tenet.
Well, look at it this way ... I as a user really would prefer to control WTF apps on my devices are doing.
So, if I actually had granular permissions, and they broke your app ... my problem is solved, because I'm going to uninstall your application on the assumption that it's either malicious, and doing stuff it shouldn't, or badly written, and doing stuff it shouldn't.
In either case, I win. Because one less badly written application is on my device.
The problem is, Google isn't going to give us this, because people might use it to block ads and other unwanted crap where Google makes its money from.
But your flashlight app? It doesn't need access to my contacts, my phone state, the state of the wireless connection, my storage, or pretty much anything else. If it can't survive me disabling those features, I don't want it installed.
So, if you wrote an app which just asked for every permission on the assumption you might eventually need it ... I don't want your crappy application anyway.
I see breaking your app as a win-win for me.
This will help me on my phone, which has an SD slot ... but it won't help me on my Nexus tablet, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't have an SD slot.
So, I guess I'm only partially impressed. :-P
So, basically ... you're good enough, smart enough, and dog gone it, people like you, then?
You also have to be careful you don't start rewarding mediocrity just for the sake of it ... because it's not necessarily good to just praise them for nothing.
Not everyone agreed with the self esteem movement where everything they did was awesome, even if it wasn't.
Because they didn't always understand that in the real world there's seldom a cookie for a half assed job.
So, in other words, the smart home is a self-indulgent thing, then?
Privacy and freedom from external entities having analytics data about how I live in my home.
Pretty much the exact opposite of what the people pitching the smart home want. Google and Nest and all of these other companies want access to your data, not to make your life any better.
Sorry, but I don't trust the players enough to care about the game.
So, you'd prefer to have a government staffed by incompetent underpaid staff, so that it can prop up your ideological position that government should not have any staff, and demonstrate that governments do a bad job of things.
Gotcha.
Why, because people who work for the government become slaves with no rights?
Like that makes any sense.
No, but Clinton definitely did not have sax with Monica Lewinsky. ;-)
She helped him change his reed, and wiped off end.
It was all a misunderstanding.
You know, you're still operating the damned car, and you're still responsible for where it goes.
If you drove your car off a cliff because your GPS told you to go straight off a cliff, you would have driven off a cliff sooner or later anyway.
Because apparently you don't think things through very well.
LOL ... don't worry, I'm sure that gays are very conscious of the taint.
Oh, you meant the other kind of taint ... ;-)
Meanwhile, sitting around naked in a steam room, drinking vodka, and slapping yourself with birch leaves ... totally nothing gay about that.
And, we might need to stop using computers, because I heard Alan Turing had caught the gay.
We also might need to cut out anything from the Greeks or the Romans as well ... 'cause I heard they might have had it as well.
Can you still catch teh gay if you don't know they're gay? Or is it dependent on knowing this? Because I think much of congress/the Senate might have come in contact with this guy, and I'm pretty sure a few paiges have been fiddled with over the years.
And, anybody who has ever listened to Elton John. They've totally caught teh gay. So if you can find evidence Putin ever listened to Crocodile Rock, he's totally gay by now.
And, then you have to factor in Rock Hudson, Liberace, and who knows what else.
Then there's all of the pastors and politicians who have been caught reaching for a little sausage.
My god, it's teh gays, all the way down!
It's secure, trust us ... and you'll also have to trust we won't abuse the access to your phone for our own purposes.
Yeah, sorry, no ... no interest in installing an app for something like this. Give me an old school key card.
Other than saying "ZOMG, teh smart phone opens teh hotel door" ... I really don't see the point. And I really don't see why we'd trust them.
What defunct are you talking about? ;-)
Maybe this isn't corporate espionage.
Maybe it's someone trying to see what is really in fracking liquids -- which they keep telling us are safe, but won't tell us what's in them.
They also tell us that fracking doesn't lead to groundwater pollution, but few people really actually believe them.
Frack u later.
In fairness, I would say the guys who are flying these things know damned well what the risk is, and would fight tooth and nail for the opportunity to do it.
And I seriously doubt Branson would view any of these people as expendable assets.
Because I suspect he wants to fly on this as much as anybody else does.
It's sad, it sucks ... but nobody is just looking at this as a cost of doing business. A very real possibility, yes. But I very much doubt anybody treats it as anything except a really terrible loss.
That sounds plausible. Or Gemini 8. Or any number of things. He was a test pilot on some pretty extraordinary things, and pretty famous for being cool under pressure.
Neil Armstrong was someone who is entitled to a place of honor in the Big Brass Ones Club.
Chuck Norris would think twice about messing with Neil Armstrong. ;-)
And, yet, we still have airships which hang around sporting events.
So, no, we didn't completely give up on them. We just decided it wasn't good to be filling them with flammable gas, and painting it with flammable aluminum paint (or whatever it was).
Engineering and operating equipment at this level requires a certain level of being fairly clinical and detached about it, and not devolving into a screeching monkey while it's happening.
So "anomaly" being "outside of expected parameters", sure.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that inwardly you're not going "oh, crap, no" .. but like first responders and medical people, while it's happening you need to keep it reined in.
I wish I could dredge up some examples, but I seem to remember seeing some things which some of the astronauts said in the middle of a crisis which made them sound like it was just a little thing, when the rest of us would all be screaming "we're all gonna die we're all gonna die".
I seem to recall one of them went through an explosion or a crash or something, and then joked about it being a bit of a rough ride or something. Even the other astronauts were all stunned by it, I just can't recall the specifics of it. Apparently he was back at his office the same day, and flying the next as if nothing happened.
Big Brass Ones are kind of required at this level.
Thereby affirming my belief that "Smart TVs" are a dumb idea which mostly is there to give advertising revenue and other information.
No, not interested, thanks anyway. It's a TV, and I will mostly use it as a dumb monitor ... I'm not interested in the other crap you're putting in it.
So which are you then, an asshole, a douchebag, or just some useless sack of shit with a big mouth?
Yes, there are the settings which Apple has placed under there for what they list as privacy. But what there isn't is a "show be a given app, show me all the permissions for that app, and let me selectively disable them". Android doesn't have that either.
My problem, is I have no idea if there are other permissions Apple hasn't decided are privacy related or not. Like sending information to a 3rd party site when it's supposed to be a flashlight.
So, why don't you stop acting like a dick, and try acting like an adult instead of the childish idiot you seem to prefer?
I have both an Android device and iOS device sitting on the table in front of me ... so maybe instead of you just being a loud mouth asshole, you give me the benefit of not assuming I'm being a troll? Something which I'm afraid I can't extend to you.