I'm more surprised that a phone is subject to so many vulnerabilities. Yet again, it is a pretty sophisticated piece of software. Hence, thanks for fixing the stuff, Apple; better late security than no security.
According to the article, 50 of the bugs are bugs in Webkit (side note: which would mean these bugs are likely present in Android, as Google uses Webkit for their browser, too), so it appears that web browsing is the most sophisticated piece (understandably.)
That's very much not a troll. The goal isn't to prevent kids from browsing porn anywhere, the goal is to prevent them from doing so using an internet connection provided by government funds. A school gets additional government funding for technology, but only if it's taking measures to prevent kids from accessing inappropriate material while at school (a filter that meets certain requirements is one of those conditions). Similarly there wouldn't be much public outcry if a random 18-year-old student used a prostitute in Nevada (in one of the counties where it's legal); however if the school district bought him a prostitute there would rightly be some outrage.
Re:The iPhone and finally walk and chew gum!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
Has the lack of multi-tasking annoyed many iPhone users?
I've had my 3G for 2 years, but there have only been a handful of times when I would have liked multitasking, mostly for switching between a webpage and something else (like SMS). When I use my phone, I'm often playing a game that I want to focus on.
Outside of Skype and last.fm type things, has this been a big frustration for many iPhone owners?
I'll be glad to get the feature when I get a iPhone 4, but it hasn't been a deal breaker by any means.
The times I would have liked multitasking would have been easily satisfied by applications that resume where I left off upon exiting, which is something application programmers will STILL have to do with iOS 4.
"it's not like people that buy them are unaware of the limitations at time of purchase."
I am not so sure that is really true, at least if the sort of people I interact with IRL are any indication. They are certainly aware that there are limitations, and some even have a vague notion that those limitations are deliberately imposed by Apple, but very few people seem to be aware of the full extent of what Apple is doing. Most people seem to have either forgotten or completely missed the news about political cartoon apps being blocked, or the Ulysses app, or the apparently arbitrary nature of what Apple decides to reject. It is even worse with the iPad: people have become conditioned to having their cell phones restricted and sabotaged, but the idea that Apple would ever try to do such a thing to a tablet computer seems to be lost on the average consumer.
I'm not so sure you understand the general public. They don't care. They really don't. They've never once thought "I need to SSH into my box at home to...", or "If only this API were allowed". They read about the things they CAN do and go "cool!" and then they buy it. They hear about some artist that they don't care at all about being censored - and they don't care. They hear about some app they don't care about not being approved - and they don't care. They hear about some app they think would be cool not getting approved - and they're sad for 10 seconds, but they realize they didn't lose anything other than the possibility of an app, which may still become actual, and they move on to caring about things that actually affect their lives in a meaningful way - i.e. not a cell phone or tablet computer manufacturers policies.
I'm not interested in Netflix (or anything similar). There must be others like me. What will we do?
You'll start your own movie rental place specializing in old videos if you REALLY want them, and think others do. Otherwise you'll go without or give in and take one of the options provided to you like Netflix.
If you are extremely worried about this, just put your device into "airplane mode" before putting it to sleep. It won't try to talk to anything at all.
Won't that kill phone calls too? People might not get many phone calls at night, but the whole point of a phone is to alert people in cases of rare but important emergencies.
If you have a land line, you could turn on call forwarding first. I don't know anyone under 30 with one, but it is a possibility.
Oh, and please notice that only males do that, I've never seen a Jane Junior Doe.
This is due to the common practice of the female taking the males name upon marriage while males maintain their name. It would therefore be insinuating that she would never get married if she was a "Junior".
On a completely different subject, though: Why is it that when you travel to the US, you get asked questions like "Are you coming to the US to commit an act of terror?" Does anybody expect to hear anything other than "No" in answer? Is it simply a sort of idiotic bullying tactic - treating you like a fool by forcing you to answer silly questions that clearly nobody takes serious?
My understanding is that it's because the standard of proof required to deport you for lying on the entry form is considerably less than that required to convict you of any offence relating to planning a terrorist act.
Which is interesting in that if they can't prove/convict you of a terrorist act, can they really say that you lied on the entry form?
While a very valid point, there is nothing to stop someone from self-signing a cert. Of course, having something signed by a CA carries a lot more weight, but if I trust the site and the owner/author makes it clear as to why they self-signed and provided a means of ensuring some amount of trust, I would feel much better. And like I said, at least use a different username/combo for those kinds of sites than something you use in more secure situations.
This was a great suggestion until the major browsers added the "super scary warnings". I've had to walk so many people through exactly what to do in order to get past those. Especially the type of people that say I typed in my password ROSEBUD just like I always do and I got this message. Those errors are too scary for the average user, and require too many clicks.
In this particular parent's case, that is true...but you still presented jailbreaking as a viable option for anybody. Again, stop touting a mod as a feature.
If it's really just that simple, what's the point of the walled garden in the first place? And if your response is "well, just stick to the appstore if that's all you want", why would Apple force someone to hack their phone just to use applications from another source? Why not offer the walled garden for those that want/need it, and allow people to freely download from another source as they saw fit?
That is the question I would like answered: Why does Apple force people to stick with the appstore unless they modify the hardware? Why can't we have the walled garden and a key to the gate?
PS: don't respond with "just don't buy one". I haven't, for this very reason. Respond to the actual question posted above in italics, please.
It is a viable option for anybody. It is not a viable option for everybody. Stop touting something that's difficult as impossible.
The reason you can't have the key to the gate is piracy. Same reason you don't get the key to the gate on a console, you can only run games approved by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. You talk about consoles on your blog, so their gate doesn't seem to bother you - why does a gate being on a phone bother you so much? Is it because it's enough more like a computer that you just wish it was a computer?
How rich do you need to be in order to pay for your own national defence? If any other person is richer than you, they can attack you on superior terms.
That doesn't mean he'll be successful. It is perfectly possible that defenses are cheaper than offenses (i.e. to get an attack power of 9000 you may need to spend $9000, but to defend against an attack power of 9000 it may only cost $8000). Additionally, the simple addition of a group of people who will band together if any are attacked can thwart this to some degree (assuming everyone is honest and cooperates as planned).
Or even more likely they did a TCO study based on how much they were spending to support Windows machines versus OS X machines in the district and the Apple machines came out to be cheaper in the long run
Cheaper to whom?
That would be the tax payers. The school district would be footing the IT bill, and the school district is funded largely by property taxes.
Replying to myself, but I just remembered why this is probably should be illegal:
In other government endeavors, vendors bid for contracts. The organization (in this case the school) defines its requirements, and different vendors submit solutions that fill those requirements. The organization selects the vendor that can fill its needs at the most reasonable price.
The school obviously didn't do that, or even consider it. They externalized the purchase so it isn't absolutely a contract-requiring program, circumventing measures meant to save the government (and ultimately, taxpayers) money.
Or they did a bid for some software that they wanted and the cheapest bid was for some OS X software. Now they need computers to run the software and Apple has the cheapest bid for a computer than can run OS X software.
Or even more likely they did a TCO study based on how much they were spending to support Windows machines versus OS X machines in the district and the Apple machines came out to be cheaper in the long run (as if you read the article the school district itself is providing full IT support for all of the laptops - think about how many viruses several thousand horny teenage boys could inflict upon those machines on their quest for the female anatomy).
As long as developers stick with the "I only put ads in the free version" mentality, that's fine. But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there".
Then request that the developer release an ad free version that is priced accordingly. Losing a few "ad customers" will not hurt ad revenue all that much. It takes A LOT to even make a dollar from showing the ads.
A few cars pass me every minute, like 1 very 20 to 30 seconds.
All cars give me the feeling that they drive ore or less the same speed.
The speed limit is 60miles/h. I believe it is save to assume that those cars are all driving somewhere around 55 - 65 mph.
Now a car passes me that apparently is driving significantly faster. What would you guess? Would it not be save to assume it is driving around 75 - 80 mph?
You know what significantly in this case means? The human perception only realizes in single events that something is faster than the other one (single means they are not running side by side, but are observed individually) when the speed difference is at least 25%. 25% of 60mph is 15mph. Now if someone trained to estimate speeds that is something completely different even. It is absolutely not hard to estimate speeds if you have some reference points and some training/experience in it.
angel'o'sphere
I don't doubt some people can do it. I don't doubt that there are people that could pin point your speed to a tenth of a mile per hour from three clicks away.
What I do doubt is that the people given the authority to say whether or not someone was doing it with out any other evidence won't abuse that power.
Your position is utterly absurd - it seems to ignore the fact that people can 1) lie and 2) be mistaken.
A single person saying X should not be enough for a court to decide X with NO OTHER INFORMATION WHATSOEVER. It may not be hard to ascertain someone is going 20 mph over the speed limit, but it should not PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
You wouldn't believe conclusively in Aliens if a guy in Iowa said that he saw a UFO out in his field. You wouldn't believe Jesus Christ came to New York City if a random guy on the street said he saw him. A single person saying something doesn't constitute enough evidence to make a reliable judgment.
I don't understand how it's difficult to understand that "it appeared to me that you were speeding" is no different than "it appeared to me that you turned into a flaming dragon" or "it appeared to me like you have killed someone" or "it appeared to me that Jesus was reborn". Neither strikes me as something that could be the sole basis for a conviction, even if you're a trained expert in spotting when people turn into dragons or an expert it what it will be like when Jesus is reborn.
It's not analogous to condemning a person for "looking wrong". It's eyewitness testimony as evidence of a person's actions: "It looked like you were speeding" is analogous to "It looked like you stabbed that guy". Yes, eyewitness judgment can be wrong, but eyewitness judgment is not the same as "you look evil therefore you are guilty".
"You look like a murderer" is more analogous to "you look like a speeder". It is quite different from "it looked like you were speeding", and has nothing to do with the case being discussed here.
While the action is not an analog, its spirit is - that appearances are more important than facts, truths, and evidence.
It's doubtful that you could show an appropriate chain of evidence with the GPS. It's easily argued that you tampered with any such evidence.
Ticketing for illegal speeds is pretty easy, most people confess to it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"I was speeding."
"I saw you doing 80mph"
"Yes sir, that's about right. I'm sorry."
Voila, instant ticket for 80mph, and a confession to back it up.
I did the opposite. You never *KNOW* why the officer stops you. You may have been speeding. He may be pulling you over for a burned out taillight, or your vehicle may match a description of one seen at a crime scene, or it may even match the description of a vehicle from a missing persons case. Don't guess.
Amen to that. Any conversation with a police officer should start with you saying "Evening officer, what seems to be the trouble?" - don't offer anything up, ever.
Look, just because there are no missing people, no unaccounted for deaths, or any evidence of any shape or form doesn't mean you didn't commit murder. I mean, you LOOK like a murderer. A trained police officer can't be wrong...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more surprised that a phone is subject to so many vulnerabilities. Yet again, it is a pretty sophisticated piece of software. Hence, thanks for fixing the stuff, Apple; better late security than no security.
According to the article, 50 of the bugs are bugs in Webkit (side note: which would mean these bugs are likely present in Android, as Google uses Webkit for their browser, too), so it appears that web browsing is the most sophisticated piece (understandably.)
That's very much not a troll. The goal isn't to prevent kids from browsing porn anywhere, the goal is to prevent them from doing so using an internet connection provided by government funds. A school gets additional government funding for technology, but only if it's taking measures to prevent kids from accessing inappropriate material while at school (a filter that meets certain requirements is one of those conditions). Similarly there wouldn't be much public outcry if a random 18-year-old student used a prostitute in Nevada (in one of the counties where it's legal); however if the school district bought him a prostitute there would rightly be some outrage.
Has the lack of multi-tasking annoyed many iPhone users?
I've had my 3G for 2 years, but there have only been a handful of times when I would have liked multitasking, mostly for switching between a webpage and something else (like SMS). When I use my phone, I'm often playing a game that I want to focus on.
Outside of Skype and last.fm type things, has this been a big frustration for many iPhone owners?
I'll be glad to get the feature when I get a iPhone 4, but it hasn't been a deal breaker by any means.
The times I would have liked multitasking would have been easily satisfied by applications that resume where I left off upon exiting, which is something application programmers will STILL have to do with iOS 4.
Those silly Americans, always screwing things up. ;-)
In all seriousness, putting the month before the day is stupid. How did we get into that habit, anyway.
We started "abbreviating" it how we say it: month, day, year: June 21st, 2010 = 6/21/2010
People have problems with Slashdot reporting every time Steve Jobs farts.
I miss the old Slashdot, that actually used to have some relevant news :(
If you really don't care, then change your Slashdot settings to not show apple stories on the front page. Problem solved.
"it's not like people that buy them are unaware of the limitations at time of purchase." I am not so sure that is really true, at least if the sort of people I interact with IRL are any indication. They are certainly aware that there are limitations, and some even have a vague notion that those limitations are deliberately imposed by Apple, but very few people seem to be aware of the full extent of what Apple is doing. Most people seem to have either forgotten or completely missed the news about political cartoon apps being blocked, or the Ulysses app, or the apparently arbitrary nature of what Apple decides to reject. It is even worse with the iPad: people have become conditioned to having their cell phones restricted and sabotaged, but the idea that Apple would ever try to do such a thing to a tablet computer seems to be lost on the average consumer.
I'm not so sure you understand the general public. They don't care. They really don't. They've never once thought "I need to SSH into my box at home to...", or "If only this API were allowed". They read about the things they CAN do and go "cool!" and then they buy it. They hear about some artist that they don't care at all about being censored - and they don't care. They hear about some app they don't care about not being approved - and they don't care. They hear about some app they think would be cool not getting approved - and they're sad for 10 seconds, but they realize they didn't lose anything other than the possibility of an app, which may still become actual, and they move on to caring about things that actually affect their lives in a meaningful way - i.e. not a cell phone or tablet computer manufacturers policies.
I'm not interested in Netflix (or anything similar). There must be others like me. What will we do?
You'll start your own movie rental place specializing in old videos if you REALLY want them, and think others do. Otherwise you'll go without or give in and take one of the options provided to you like Netflix.
If you are extremely worried about this, just put your device into "airplane mode" before putting it to sleep. It won't try to talk to anything at all.
Won't that kill phone calls too? People might not get many phone calls at night, but the whole point of a phone is to alert people in cases of rare but important emergencies.
If you have a land line, you could turn on call forwarding first. I don't know anyone under 30 with one, but it is a possibility.
Interactive Goatse?
Finally, a use for 10 point multitouch!
Oh, and please notice that only males do that, I've never seen a Jane Junior Doe.
This is due to the common practice of the female taking the males name upon marriage while males maintain their name. It would therefore be insinuating that she would never get married if she was a "Junior".
On a completely different subject, though: Why is it that when you travel to the US, you get asked questions like "Are you coming to the US to commit an act of terror?" Does anybody expect to hear anything other than "No" in answer? Is it simply a sort of idiotic bullying tactic - treating you like a fool by forcing you to answer silly questions that clearly nobody takes serious?
My understanding is that it's because the standard of proof required to deport you for lying on the entry form is considerably less than that required to convict you of any offence relating to planning a terrorist act.
Which is interesting in that if they can't prove/convict you of a terrorist act, can they really say that you lied on the entry form?
While a very valid point, there is nothing to stop someone from self-signing a cert. Of course, having something signed by a CA carries a lot more weight, but if I trust the site and the owner/author makes it clear as to why they self-signed and provided a means of ensuring some amount of trust, I would feel much better. And like I said, at least use a different username/combo for those kinds of sites than something you use in more secure situations.
This was a great suggestion until the major browsers added the "super scary warnings". I've had to walk so many people through exactly what to do in order to get past those. Especially the type of people that say I typed in my password ROSEBUD just like I always do and I got this message. Those errors are too scary for the average user, and require too many clicks.
In this particular parent's case, that is true...but you still presented jailbreaking as a viable option for anybody. Again, stop touting a mod as a feature.
If it's really just that simple, what's the point of the walled garden in the first place? And if your response is "well, just stick to the appstore if that's all you want", why would Apple force someone to hack their phone just to use applications from another source? Why not offer the walled garden for those that want/need it, and allow people to freely download from another source as they saw fit?
That is the question I would like answered: Why does Apple force people to stick with the appstore unless they modify the hardware? Why can't we have the walled garden and a key to the gate?
PS: don't respond with "just don't buy one". I haven't, for this very reason. Respond to the actual question posted above in italics, please.
It is a viable option for anybody. It is not a viable option for everybody. Stop touting something that's difficult as impossible.
The reason you can't have the key to the gate is piracy. Same reason you don't get the key to the gate on a console, you can only run games approved by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. You talk about consoles on your blog, so their gate doesn't seem to bother you - why does a gate being on a phone bother you so much? Is it because it's enough more like a computer that you just wish it was a computer?
How rich do you need to be in order to pay for your own national defence? If any other person is richer than you, they can attack you on superior terms.
That doesn't mean he'll be successful. It is perfectly possible that defenses are cheaper than offenses (i.e. to get an attack power of 9000 you may need to spend $9000, but to defend against an attack power of 9000 it may only cost $8000). Additionally, the simple addition of a group of people who will band together if any are attacked can thwart this to some degree (assuming everyone is honest and cooperates as planned).
Apple already host a lot of stuff on a CDN, as do most companies. Doesn't really help for this sort of stuff though, getting form data, etc...
Indeed, it appears to fail for me when trying to get my AT&T information...
Did someone say Hackintosh?
They did, but then someone said something about a warranty and no one said anything again.
Or even more likely they did a TCO study based on how much they were spending to support Windows machines versus OS X machines in the district and the Apple machines came out to be cheaper in the long run
Cheaper to whom?
That would be the tax payers. The school district would be footing the IT bill, and the school district is funded largely by property taxes.
Replying to myself, but I just remembered why this is probably should be illegal: In other government endeavors, vendors bid for contracts. The organization (in this case the school) defines its requirements, and different vendors submit solutions that fill those requirements. The organization selects the vendor that can fill its needs at the most reasonable price. The school obviously didn't do that, or even consider it. They externalized the purchase so it isn't absolutely a contract-requiring program, circumventing measures meant to save the government (and ultimately, taxpayers) money.
Or they did a bid for some software that they wanted and the cheapest bid was for some OS X software. Now they need computers to run the software and Apple has the cheapest bid for a computer than can run OS X software.
Or even more likely they did a TCO study based on how much they were spending to support Windows machines versus OS X machines in the district and the Apple machines came out to be cheaper in the long run (as if you read the article the school district itself is providing full IT support for all of the laptops - think about how many viruses several thousand horny teenage boys could inflict upon those machines on their quest for the female anatomy).
As long as developers stick with the "I only put ads in the free version" mentality, that's fine. But, let's be honest, if a developer can get away with it, they'll put it in paid apps as well -- "well, it'd be MORE expensive if I didn't have the ad in there".
Then request that the developer release an ad free version that is priced accordingly. Losing a few "ad customers" will not hurt ad revenue all that much. It takes A LOT to even make a dollar from showing the ads.
So I'm sitting in my chair at the road.
A few cars pass me every minute, like 1 very 20 to 30 seconds.
All cars give me the feeling that they drive ore or less the same speed.
The speed limit is 60miles/h. I believe it is save to assume that those cars are all driving somewhere around 55 - 65 mph.
Now a car passes me that apparently is driving significantly faster. What would you guess? Would it not be save to assume it is driving around 75 - 80 mph?
You know what significantly in this case means? The human perception only realizes in single events that something is faster than the other one (single means they are not running side by side, but are observed individually) when the speed difference is at least 25%. 25% of 60mph is 15mph. Now if someone trained to estimate speeds that is something completely different even. It is absolutely not hard to estimate speeds if you have some reference points and some training/experience in it.
angel'o'sphere
I don't doubt some people can do it. I don't doubt that there are people that could pin point your speed to a tenth of a mile per hour from three clicks away.
What I do doubt is that the people given the authority to say whether or not someone was doing it with out any other evidence won't abuse that power.
Your position is utterly absurd - it seems to ignore the fact that people can 1) lie and 2) be mistaken.
A single person saying X should not be enough for a court to decide X with NO OTHER INFORMATION WHATSOEVER. It may not be hard to ascertain someone is going 20 mph over the speed limit, but it should not PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
You wouldn't believe conclusively in Aliens if a guy in Iowa said that he saw a UFO out in his field. You wouldn't believe Jesus Christ came to New York City if a random guy on the street said he saw him. A single person saying something doesn't constitute enough evidence to make a reliable judgment.
I don't understand how it's difficult to understand that "it appeared to me that you were speeding" is no different than "it appeared to me that you turned into a flaming dragon" or "it appeared to me like you have killed someone" or "it appeared to me that Jesus was reborn". Neither strikes me as something that could be the sole basis for a conviction, even if you're a trained expert in spotting when people turn into dragons or an expert it what it will be like when Jesus is reborn.
It's not analogous to condemning a person for "looking wrong". It's eyewitness testimony as evidence of a person's actions: "It looked like you were speeding" is analogous to "It looked like you stabbed that guy". Yes, eyewitness judgment can be wrong, but eyewitness judgment is not the same as "you look evil therefore you are guilty".
"You look like a murderer" is more analogous to "you look like a speeder". It is quite different from "it looked like you were speeding", and has nothing to do with the case being discussed here.
While the action is not an analog, its spirit is - that appearances are more important than facts, truths, and evidence.
It's doubtful that you could show an appropriate chain of evidence with the GPS. It's easily argued that you tampered with any such evidence.
Ticketing for illegal speeds is pretty easy, most people confess to it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" "I was speeding." "I saw you doing 80mph" "Yes sir, that's about right. I'm sorry."
Voila, instant ticket for 80mph, and a confession to back it up.
I did the opposite. You never *KNOW* why the officer stops you. You may have been speeding. He may be pulling you over for a burned out taillight, or your vehicle may match a description of one seen at a crime scene, or it may even match the description of a vehicle from a missing persons case. Don't guess.
Amen to that. Any conversation with a police officer should start with you saying "Evening officer, what seems to be the trouble?" - don't offer anything up, ever.
Look, just because there are no missing people, no unaccounted for deaths, or any evidence of any shape or form doesn't mean you didn't commit murder. I mean, you LOOK like a murderer. A trained police officer can't be wrong...