I can see how it would be irritating, but how is it a privacy or security problem? Doesn't it just mean that your account gets sent a lot of crap you don't care about?
> They are not all slack-jawed, mouth breathing rednecks...
Unfortunately, some atheists are.
>...from the hinterlands.
Most doofuses, whether christian fanatic or anti-christian troll, are from the city (as are most people). Most of us country dwellers are as rational and reasonable as any other human being (i.e., not very). Dismissing all country people as ignorant hicks is 19th century bigotry.
You know, despite being an atheist i'm finding these frequent and gratuitous anti-christian trolls tedious. They are not funny, they are not relevant, they are not informative, and they are not original. They are all crap.
And that's why it has to be moved to a retirement orbit. The fuel will run out soon and left where it was it would wander off into some unpredictable and perhaps inconvenient orbit, possibly cluttering up the L2 region and making it hard to use it for anything else. This way it's in a known, out-of-the-way orbit.
Cars are subject to heavy government regulation that forces manufacturers to produce either millions of identical cars or a few million dollar cars. Do you want that to happen to phones?
It isn't "stimulating debate" they find offensive. It's pointless, irrational ranting. How many times do you need to be told "[Glen Beck | Obama] is a turd" even if you agree?
If they've done this "right" the "failsafe" firmware is in masked ROM at the lowest possible level (preferably on the cpu chip) and always executes first. It contains public keys which it uses to make sure that the loadable firmware is properly signed. It can't be upgraded but it is also very simple code that doesn't do much. You can then upgrade to your heart's content, as long as what you install is signed by one of the manufacturer's secret keys.
Crappy analogy. Locked in a cage you are not free to do anything. Sold a phone that doesn't do quite what you'd like leaves you free to do anything else, including throwing it away or hacking it.
You *chose* to buy the damn phone. If you now find that it doesn't do what you want (but does do as the vendor promised) throw it in the trash. If it doesn't do what the vendor promised demand your money back. "Rights" != "Entitlements"
What "rights"? You have no particular right to own one of their phones configured for your convenience and at your preferred price. If you don't like what's on the market build your own.
To prevent me from owning my own hardware is intrinsically evil.
If you buy it you own it, complete with this feature and the legal right to bypass it if you can figure out how.
If your claim was true they would offer a simple, press Z on the hardware keyboard while you boot to not have the OS replaced or something.
Why would they do that? They don't care about you. You are not the target market. They know they are likely to lose your business. There aren't enough of you to make it worth their while to do as you suggest.
> Why should anyone accept and further abusive practices like this?
You don't. You don't have to buy it. Most people, however, have no desire to "hack" their phones and would be pleased to learn that they are protected against anyone else doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook has nothing to do with having real friends.
I can see how it would be irritating, but how is it a privacy or security problem? Doesn't it just mean that your account gets sent a lot of crap you don't care about?
I think a better analogy is snipping an unsightly hair out of your nose.
> They are not all slack-jawed, mouth breathing rednecks...
Unfortunately, some atheists are.
> ...from the hinterlands.
Most doofuses, whether christian fanatic or anti-christian troll, are from the city (as are most people). Most of us country dwellers are as rational and reasonable as any other human being (i.e., not very). Dismissing all country people as ignorant hicks is 19th century bigotry.
You know, despite being an atheist i'm finding these frequent and gratuitous anti-christian trolls tedious. They are not funny, they are not relevant, they are not informative, and they are not original. They are all crap.
And that's why it has to be moved to a retirement orbit. The fuel will run out soon and left where it was it would wander off into some unpredictable and perhaps inconvenient orbit, possibly cluttering up the L2 region and making it hard to use it for anything else. This way it's in a known, out-of-the-way orbit.
URLs are not words.
Hyphenating a URL makes no sense. Ones containing this character should be invalid.
Maybe it fools Symantic's spam filters.
Mod parent up. Why in the hell is such a character allowed in URLs at all?
> I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'
Her head isn't covered and her arms are bare. The bottle is also quite offensive to conservative moslems as it implies alcohol.
Rather stupid to register a domain of any value in a country as loony as Libya, though.
Yeah, we'd better hurry. Another billion years and it will be almost gone.
Cars are subject to heavy government regulation that forces manufacturers to produce either millions of identical cars or a few million dollar cars. Do you want that to happen to phones?
...between patents and innovation.
It isn't "stimulating debate" they find offensive. It's pointless, irrational ranting. How many times do you need to be told "[Glen Beck | Obama] is a turd" even if you agree?
By the hardware manufacturer, of course. This has nothing to do with Google.
Because you agreed to it.
If they've done this "right" the "failsafe" firmware is in masked ROM at the lowest possible level (preferably on the cpu chip) and always executes first. It contains public keys which it uses to make sure that the loadable firmware is properly signed. It can't be upgraded but it is also very simple code that doesn't do much. You can then upgrade to your heart's content, as long as what you install is signed by one of the manufacturer's secret keys.
Still a dumb idea, though.
Oh, I agree that it is a stupid feature.
Crappy analogy. Locked in a cage you are not free to do anything. Sold a phone that doesn't do quite what you'd like leaves you free to do anything else, including throwing it away or hacking it.
You *chose* to buy the damn phone. If you now find that it doesn't do what you want (but does do as the vendor promised) throw it in the trash. If it doesn't do what the vendor promised demand your money back. "Rights" != "Entitlements"
What "rights"? You have no particular right to own one of their phones configured for your convenience and at your preferred price. If you don't like what's on the market build your own.
If you buy it you own it, complete with this feature and the legal right to bypass it if you can figure out how.
Why would they do that? They don't care about you. You are not the target market. They know they are likely to lose your business. There aren't enough of you to make it worth their while to do as you suggest.
> Why should anyone accept and further abusive practices like this?
You don't. You don't have to buy it. Most people, however, have no desire to "hack" their phones and would be pleased to learn that they are protected against anyone else doing it.
Or not bother, as long as it isn't a remote hack. They don't actually care what you do to your phone.