Actually so far I've had way better quality devices, and software, ones that can do things no apple device can do. I have built in USB and HDMI ports on my tablet, with no dongles needed, I had dual high quality cameras before any of the apple devices did, I have removable micro-sd cards, I have the ability to use real widgets on my home screen. So far I have found an almost un-ending number of benefits to my choice of devices, and I have never, not once, seen a single downside.
As for Malware, there's malware for both PCs and Mac, and yet people still use both those platforms for some reason... oh yeah, versatility!
NOBODY tells me what software I'm allowed to run. I bought and paid for the device, I will use it as *I* see fit. not how some drone in some faceless corporation thinks I should.
I will not buy any device masquarading as a general purpose computer unless I can install anything I want on it.
well said. Just to add to this. I will never, under any circumstances, accept a device that pretends to be a general purpose computer, on which I do not have full control over what apps I load. This means that at the moment I use only android or linux based phones and tablets, and only ones with root access. I have nothing against apple hardware... well... not overly anyway, they're usually a step or 2 behind the competition in capability, at higher prices, and are rarely intuitive, but they make reasonable mid-range hardware if you are willing to pay top tier pricing. But I will never buy any of their products until they start allowing the customer to be the one in control of the device.
No, because if the app store pulls it you have to go specifically to the vendor's site and download the app from them, something trivial to do for an app you want, but highly unlikely for an app you don't.
And nobody is evading the law, no legal order forced apple to pull this app, and no legal decision has yet found this app to be in violation of any law. Apple chose to pull this out of their own personal malice/cowardice.
I will never accept any general computing device that I am not allowed to load the apps of my choice on to. I am the one who decides what I really want. not some faceless company with their own best interests at heart instead of mine.
there are many people incapable of speaking without computers, many of them are not even able to do sign language for one reason or other. (often various disorders affecting speech also affect fine motor skills). These people are completely dependent on technology to communicate to the outside world. advocating that they shouldn't use their only practical means of communication is ridiculous.
You should stop using a computer, because it doesn't really allow you to communicate, the only thing it does is transmit various characters depicted by strange symbols on a keyboard, basically it's just a fancy typewriter.
Would you also deny stephen hawking his computer because it doesn't "really" allow him to communicate? maybe he should learn sign language too?
Except that a jailbreak wouldn't help address the concerns expressed in the article. they already have the app, so loading it isn't the problem at this point. The problem is how to ensure that it doesn't get broken with future iOS upgrades. and jailbreaks are FREQUENTLY broken by iOS updates with no guarantee that another jailbreak method will come along.
A better long term solution would be to move to a platform where the official market place does not have a monopoly on software distribution, and to move to an open source solution. That way regardless of any one parties wishes, you are still safe.
The problem is this IS the undercut, this $300 app replaces multi-thousand dollar custom hardware, and the makers of that hardware are pissed they're loosing their cash cow. And once again we see what patents are truly good at, stifling progress and innovation in the name of protecting outdated business methods.
When someone is unable to communicate at all, you advocate a method that allows them to only communicate with select people (those who know sign language) rather than the option she has now which allows her to communicate with a much larger group of people (those who know English)
Sign language is great... if the receiving party knows it too, which works great with parents, but substantially limits the ability to talk to other people who don't know sing language.
Additionally, some disorders are more than just speech, but affect fine motor skills as well, they make signing very difficult, but can often still use a speech computer or app imitating the same.
It would only have been the same if the DEVELOPER pulled it (which they did not) the app store pulling it on android would have made no difference to people's ability to get, update, or upgrade the app. On Android only a developer can make it impossible to get their own software. Nobody can go after a middleman and stop the whole chain like they do on Apple. (and in this case the developer has not pulled the app, nor does it seem they have any intention to before the patent suit is settled)
Except that android does not have the same problem because there are multiple app stores, and you don't even need to use any of them to load apps, you can still side-load on every android device. Android can not block you from getting a specific app if the developer wants you to be able to get it. the most they can do is remove it from one of many app stores.
Actually this is much different. because it wasn't the author that pulled the app, it was apple who blocked it. While the author can pull the app on any platform, the app store can only effectively block it on apple. On android as long as the author wants to deploy it, there is nobody who can stop them. And the author in this case doesn't seem interested in stopping distribution before the patent claim is settled, so if this were on Android this simply could not happen (sure it could vanish from the play store, but the developer could still host it on their own website and people could still use it)
But the manufacturer of the app didn't pull it. the app store did. With iOS that is sufficient to kill the app. On Android, as long as the manufacturer still wants to distribute it, nobody else can stop them because people can get it from the manufacturer themselves.
The manufacturer is unlikely to pull their app before the patent dispute has been settled. Whereas Apple has frequently decided to pull apps on a whim.
You say that Android ICS does not support IPv6... and yet my Android phone has a setting on the APN for IPv4 or IPv6... seems an odd setting for a device that doesn't support IPv6... (of course I know that neither my home network, nor my carrier support IPv6, so there hasn't exactly been an opportunity to try.)
Seems like the article is blaming end users for not wanting to adopt IPv6, which is ludicrous when you realize that in my country there isn't a single ISP selling IPv6 access. (and in most of the rest of the world the situation isn't that far ahead of us, sure some places have some IPv6 access, but it's hardly ubiquitous)
As for support, well my desktop has a toredo tunnel for IPv6 (though rarely used because the tunnel is slower than the direct IPv4 connection, it still provides access to any IPv6 specific things I want) my server is located in a country, and with an ISP that does support IPv6, so that one is already taken care of, my android devices, well I haven't had much luck with them yet, but then again, my home router doesn't support it yet either (though I have considered trying to remedy that... might be interesting to move my home network to IPv6)
Address based blocklists aren't going to vanish, only change. When your ISP gives you an address, they'll actually be giving you a subnet, so blocklists will do the same, block small subnets instead of individual addresses. (of course that's only if the person you're trying to block is very persistent, because just like now, they're likely to stay on the same IP they were originally given.
No, enterprise security features require a firewall. Currently NAT devices incorporate firewalls, but the NAT part isn't needed for the security part to work.
Based on the referenced chart, I read it more as "we don't have a clue, but we wanted a pretty chart anyway" I mean seriously, the first half of the chart is an estimate, and the last 3rd gives 3 completely different options where we could decrease our population by a billion people, or increase it by 3 or 9 billion (or presumably anywhere in between) If you don't have a clue, say so. but that chart is useless.
Good luck with that, there are very few smart phones left with slide/flip out keyboards, and fewer by the day. I have tried to type on touch screens, and yes, I can do some typing if I absolutely have to, but never at the speed or accuracy that I can do on a slide out keyboard. Maybe this invention will fix that (though really, a better solution would be to not abandon the physical keyboards in the first place!)
-- Sent from my Motorola XT860 with slide out keyboard
That is certainly one way of looking at it, but I think it's actually more that the whole purpose has changed. Early malware was written by people with pure malicious intent, these were practical jokes written either to hurt the victim, or to prove how great the writer's programming skills were. Modern malware is written for profit and power. Modern viruses are designed to amass an army of computing power and bandwidth. After it is there it is used in many different ways. The most common 2 however are spreading spam for profit (hard to block the sending host when there are a million of them spread around the world) and attacking large organizations. Only with the power of a large botnet can you have enough bandwidth at your disposal to effectively knock a large website off the internet (and once again, hard to block the originator when there are a million of them spread accorss the globe). You are no longer distributing the virus to your victim, instead you distribute the virus to millions of other people and then use their computers to attach your true victim.
Not exactly consistent. what qualifies as an "instance"? Gimp believes that each image you load, and each toolbox should each be their own instance. Firefox believes that web browsing in general is an "instance". they are opposite ends of a spectrum to be sure, but it's hard to say where along that continuum the right balance is. Personally I love tabs. They keep my browser under control. For example if I'm building a web page I may have 15-20 browser tabs open with various different references/image sources/etc in them, and a separate editor window open to edit the new page. with individual windows the editor window gets lost in the sea of other windows and alt-tab functionality is barely useful. with tabs they are all contained so I can have only 3 or 4 applications open, but each application can have sub categories within it.
I see it no different from advocating that your hard drive should have no more than one layer of directories. it would be a mess, but with subdirectories you can find things quite easily.
Funny, I tried chrome and gave up because of speed issues... went back to firefox.
Now to be fair, with just on or two tabs open they both seem pretty equal and I can't tell which is faster. But once you start opening a lot of tabs (and I often open a lot of tabs) the sandboxing that chrome does per tab seems to really eat in to the resources available on the computer.
Honestly I'm not picky, I'll use whatever browser works, I'm happy to try chrome again if they've improved the handling of large numbers of tabs.
Odd... I guess I'm doubly glad I have the Acer. All USB hard drives, flash drives, and micro SD cards I've tried with it have been immediately accessible from ES file Explorer. Another win for the USB port being on the tablet itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually so far I've had way better quality devices, and software, ones that can do things no apple device can do. I have built in USB and HDMI ports on my tablet, with no dongles needed, I had dual high quality cameras before any of the apple devices did, I have removable micro-sd cards, I have the ability to use real widgets on my home screen. So far I have found an almost un-ending number of benefits to my choice of devices, and I have never, not once, seen a single downside.
As for Malware, there's malware for both PCs and Mac, and yet people still use both those platforms for some reason... oh yeah, versatility!
NOBODY tells me what software I'm allowed to run. I bought and paid for the device, I will use it as *I* see fit. not how some drone in some faceless corporation thinks I should.
I will not buy any device masquarading as a general purpose computer unless I can install anything I want on it.
well said.
Just to add to this. I will never, under any circumstances, accept a device that pretends to be a general purpose computer, on which I do not have full control over what apps I load. This means that at the moment I use only android or linux based phones and tablets, and only ones with root access.
I have nothing against apple hardware... well... not overly anyway, they're usually a step or 2 behind the competition in capability, at higher prices, and are rarely intuitive, but they make reasonable mid-range hardware if you are willing to pay top tier pricing. But I will never buy any of their products until they start allowing the customer to be the one in control of the device.
No, because if the app store pulls it you have to go specifically to the vendor's site and download the app from them, something trivial to do for an app you want, but highly unlikely for an app you don't.
And nobody is evading the law, no legal order forced apple to pull this app, and no legal decision has yet found this app to be in violation of any law. Apple chose to pull this out of their own personal malice/cowardice.
I will never accept any general computing device that I am not allowed to load the apps of my choice on to. I am the one who decides what I really want. not some faceless company with their own best interests at heart instead of mine.
there are many people incapable of speaking without computers, many of them are not even able to do sign language for one reason or other. (often various disorders affecting speech also affect fine motor skills). These people are completely dependent on technology to communicate to the outside world. advocating that they shouldn't use their only practical means of communication is ridiculous.
You should stop using a computer, because it doesn't really allow you to communicate, the only thing it does is transmit various characters depicted by strange symbols on a keyboard, basically it's just a fancy typewriter.
Would you also deny stephen hawking his computer because it doesn't "really" allow him to communicate? maybe he should learn sign language too?
she is in no way breaking any law.
The programmers MAY be in violation of patent law, but that has yet to be proven in a court of law.
Except that a jailbreak wouldn't help address the concerns expressed in the article.
they already have the app, so loading it isn't the problem at this point. The problem is how to ensure that it doesn't get broken with future iOS upgrades. and jailbreaks are FREQUENTLY broken by iOS updates with no guarantee that another jailbreak method will come along.
A better long term solution would be to move to a platform where the official market place does not have a monopoly on software distribution, and to move to an open source solution. That way regardless of any one parties wishes, you are still safe.
The problem is this IS the undercut, this $300 app replaces multi-thousand dollar custom hardware, and the makers of that hardware are pissed they're loosing their cash cow.
And once again we see what patents are truly good at, stifling progress and innovation in the name of protecting outdated business methods.
When someone is unable to communicate at all, you advocate a method that allows them to only communicate with select people (those who know sign language) rather than the option she has now which allows her to communicate with a much larger group of people (those who know English)
Why limit her?
Sign language is great... if the receiving party knows it too, which works great with parents, but substantially limits the ability to talk to other people who don't know sing language.
Additionally, some disorders are more than just speech, but affect fine motor skills as well, they make signing very difficult, but can often still use a speech computer or app imitating the same.
It would only have been the same if the DEVELOPER pulled it (which they did not) the app store pulling it on android would have made no difference to people's ability to get, update, or upgrade the app. On Android only a developer can make it impossible to get their own software. Nobody can go after a middleman and stop the whole chain like they do on Apple. (and in this case the developer has not pulled the app, nor does it seem they have any intention to before the patent suit is settled)
Except that android does not have the same problem because there are multiple app stores, and you don't even need to use any of them to load apps, you can still side-load on every android device.
Android can not block you from getting a specific app if the developer wants you to be able to get it. the most they can do is remove it from one of many app stores.
Actually this is much different. because it wasn't the author that pulled the app, it was apple who blocked it. While the author can pull the app on any platform, the app store can only effectively block it on apple. On android as long as the author wants to deploy it, there is nobody who can stop them. And the author in this case doesn't seem interested in stopping distribution before the patent claim is settled, so if this were on Android this simply could not happen (sure it could vanish from the play store, but the developer could still host it on their own website and people could still use it)
But the manufacturer of the app didn't pull it. the app store did. With iOS that is sufficient to kill the app. On Android, as long as the manufacturer still wants to distribute it, nobody else can stop them because people can get it from the manufacturer themselves.
The manufacturer is unlikely to pull their app before the patent dispute has been settled. Whereas Apple has frequently decided to pull apps on a whim.
You say that Android ICS does not support IPv6... and yet my Android phone has a setting on the APN for IPv4 or IPv6... seems an odd setting for a device that doesn't support IPv6... (of course I know that neither my home network, nor my carrier support IPv6, so there hasn't exactly been an opportunity to try.)
Seems like the article is blaming end users for not wanting to adopt IPv6, which is ludicrous when you realize that in my country there isn't a single ISP selling IPv6 access. (and in most of the rest of the world the situation isn't that far ahead of us, sure some places have some IPv6 access, but it's hardly ubiquitous)
As for support, well my desktop has a toredo tunnel for IPv6 (though rarely used because the tunnel is slower than the direct IPv4 connection, it still provides access to any IPv6 specific things I want) my server is located in a country, and with an ISP that does support IPv6, so that one is already taken care of, my android devices, well I haven't had much luck with them yet, but then again, my home router doesn't support it yet either (though I have considered trying to remedy that... might be interesting to move my home network to IPv6)
Address based blocklists aren't going to vanish, only change.
When your ISP gives you an address, they'll actually be giving you a subnet, so blocklists will do the same, block small subnets instead of individual addresses. (of course that's only if the person you're trying to block is very persistent, because just like now, they're likely to stay on the same IP they were originally given.
No, enterprise security features require a firewall. Currently NAT devices incorporate firewalls, but the NAT part isn't needed for the security part to work.
Based on the referenced chart, I read it more as "we don't have a clue, but we wanted a pretty chart anyway"
I mean seriously, the first half of the chart is an estimate, and the last 3rd gives 3 completely different options where we could decrease our population by a billion people, or increase it by 3 or 9 billion (or presumably anywhere in between)
If you don't have a clue, say so. but that chart is useless.
Good luck with that, there are very few smart phones left with slide/flip out keyboards, and fewer by the day.
I have tried to type on touch screens, and yes, I can do some typing if I absolutely have to, but never at the speed or accuracy that I can do on a slide out keyboard.
Maybe this invention will fix that (though really, a better solution would be to not abandon the physical keyboards in the first place!)
--
Sent from my Motorola XT860 with slide out keyboard
That is certainly one way of looking at it, but I think it's actually more that the whole purpose has changed. Early malware was written by people with pure malicious intent, these were practical jokes written either to hurt the victim, or to prove how great the writer's programming skills were. Modern malware is written for profit and power. Modern viruses are designed to amass an army of computing power and bandwidth. After it is there it is used in many different ways. The most common 2 however are spreading spam for profit (hard to block the sending host when there are a million of them spread around the world) and attacking large organizations. Only with the power of a large botnet can you have enough bandwidth at your disposal to effectively knock a large website off the internet (and once again, hard to block the originator when there are a million of them spread accorss the globe). You are no longer distributing the virus to your victim, instead you distribute the virus to millions of other people and then use their computers to attach your true victim.
Not exactly consistent. what qualifies as an "instance"? Gimp believes that each image you load, and each toolbox should each be their own instance. Firefox believes that web browsing in general is an "instance". they are opposite ends of a spectrum to be sure, but it's hard to say where along that continuum the right balance is. Personally I love tabs. They keep my browser under control.
For example if I'm building a web page I may have 15-20 browser tabs open with various different references/image sources/etc in them, and a separate editor window open to edit the new page. with individual windows the editor window gets lost in the sea of other windows and alt-tab functionality is barely useful. with tabs they are all contained so I can have only 3 or 4 applications open, but each application can have sub categories within it.
I see it no different from advocating that your hard drive should have no more than one layer of directories. it would be a mess, but with subdirectories you can find things quite easily.
you can disable it. just set a different home page.
Funny, I tried chrome and gave up because of speed issues... went back to firefox.
Now to be fair, with just on or two tabs open they both seem pretty equal and I can't tell which is faster. But once you start opening a lot of tabs (and I often open a lot of tabs) the sandboxing that chrome does per tab seems to really eat in to the resources available on the computer.
Honestly I'm not picky, I'll use whatever browser works, I'm happy to try chrome again if they've improved the handling of large numbers of tabs.
End of the week? but FF27 was due by then! how dare they push back those major releases!
Odd... I guess I'm doubly glad I have the Acer. All USB hard drives, flash drives, and micro SD cards I've tried with it have been immediately accessible from ES file Explorer. Another win for the USB port being on the tablet itself.