Do you encrypt the data, or does Apple? At least with Android/Dropbox, GP has the option to encrypt prior to uploading. Leaving security in the hands of a third party, for-profit venture is never a best practice.
Have you or the GP written your own encryption software? Almost certainly, no. (And if you did it'd have poor security). Are you qualified to code review encryption software? Almost certainly, no.
And the idea that it's better to trust some unknown open source programmer than an identifiable blue chip company is ridiculous.
Seriously, that's a bit of a dicking, don't you think? [iCloud's 5GB free level] Selling you a 32GB device with "free online storage" that won't even cover 20% of the space available, then charging yet another fee to backup the rest of your shit?
It's an optional service. The service you mention, Dropbox, will charge you a subscription when you go over 2GB.
Personally I make use of both services within the free level. DropBox for sharing a few docments with others, iCloud for sharing certain data between my iPad and Macbook. Backup I do by plugging into iTunes on my Macbook. And it gets further backed up from my laptop onto a Time Machine external disk. All automatic, apart from the action of connecting the cable every once in a while. Which I do to change it anyway.
OTA backup is a minor convenience over a cable backup. Pay for it if you want it. Don't if you don't want it.
one of my biggest annoyances with iOS is that Apple's keyboard does not change the state of letters on-screen when the shift key has been pressed.
Does a physical keyboard do that? No. So it's a bogus requirement. It's a giveaway that you're just listing points of difference between Android and iOS, rather than anything that's actually a deficiency of iOS.
I can honestly say it's never once crossed my mind that a keyboard should do such a thing. It adds nothing. It's a gimmick.
a) It isn't actually open source in the same way as Android
Thankfully not.
b) I should trust you and Apple on this, even though the device MUST be activated through Apple and the only way to get apps on it is via the App Store or paying Apple for a developer/corporate account?
As a long time Apple user and developer I know that that Apple work to protect users privacy far more than any other OS system does. The app store restrictions, and the sandboxing means that every year it becomes harder and harder for software to do something malicious or thoughtless that threatens the users privacy. And Apple's own software respects user privacy too. But this isn't simply a matter of trust. People run packet sniffers on iOS devices all the time. I do sometimes when I'm developing network apps. We know that Apple do what they say they do.
On Android you have little protection. If you tickle your itch by building and installing AOSP and putting it on your phone, you then have no access to the somewhat vetted Google Play store, and are at the mercy of all the Android Malware that exists out there.
If on the other hand you stick with official Android builds, well the entire reason for Android is to spy on you and advertise to you.
Either way you're in a far worse position on Android than you are on iOS.
You can't develop on Linux or Windows. And yes it costs $99 per year to be able to test apps on a device and distribute them. And they can only be distributed widely via the Apple App Store. And yet still Apple has literally hundreds of thousands of developers with apps on the app store.
The truth is that those are only barriers to entry to people who are not serious about developing on iOS. They are not significant barriers to any serious developer.
Why would Apple want to lower the already modest barriers to entry, to allow bunch of casual tinkerers to flood the store (or worse still the internet) with crap and malware?
For example, why would they want to encourage people who don't realise that a native app *IS* significantly better then a "webapp with modern CSS".
The problem is the gimmicky scenes inserted in movies to show off the 3D effect. When watching in 2D those scenes are still there. And you get the alienating effect of realising the point of the scene is a special effect that you're not seeing.
ALL OSES, be they Windows, Linux, or OSX are frankly some of the most complex software platforms EVER created by man, and since man is fallible there WILL be bugs and if there are enough users to make it worth the trouble it WILL be exploited.
Which is why you have to consider the means by which software gets on the system. There are many, many computer platforms that have never had malware. Take an industrial controller - what's the mechanism by which malware can get on the device in the first place? Most of them aren't even connected to the internet.
they honestly didn't need to bother, people will happily infect their phones and tablets without a thought in the world. I swear its the damnedest thing, its like the SECOND you put it on another medium?
That's why the iOS single curated app store is a good idea. Ordinary users are just not computer security aware to protect themselves. Better than they can only access from a source that only has pre-approved software, and where any software that is subsequently found to be malware can be removed once and for all.
Unlike the industrial controller, a smartphone can't be decoupled from the internet. So creating a system when apps can only come from a single source is the next best thing.
So you can only get infected if you side load apks from sketchy sources. Play store users are safe.
How is this any different if you side load apps on iOS devices?
[assuming iOS had the same vulnerability...]
"Sideloading" from other stores is standard feature of Android. It's not with iOS. Thus this can hit ordinary users with standard Android phones. But not ordinary users with standard iOS.
The step to iOS Jailbreaking is far more of a jump, and an awareness that it breaks security protection than changing a preferences option in Android.
Furthermore, lets assume that in each case, the vulnerability is fixed with the next minor version of the OS. On iOS, the majority of users will be on the new invulnerable OS within a week of it's release day. With Android, the average user is on a 3 year old OS version, so on average they won't get the fix for another 3 years.
Basically there is no comparison. iOS users are massively more secure than Android users.
There is no reason to compromise with someone who insists on talking/texting/gaming in a theatre. There is a reason to compromise with people who need to be in contact while on call.
There is no fundamental difference between the two. Only one of he degree of their selfishness and rudeness. Every single one thinks that what they do is OK and justified, but there are some OTHER people that do something that is unacceptable.
The on-call thing is a red herring. People doing on-call jobs are not normally on call 24/7/365. If they are, they have bigger problems than a lack of cinema - they have an abusive employer. But if they are on such an arrangement then that is their CHOICE. And part of that choice to to only go places where mobile phones are acceptable. The theatre is not one of them.
You are behaving exactly as the typical yob in a cinema. You won't accept your fault, and you'll just keep on justifying yourself. You confuse having the last word with being right.
Fat binaries are for one thing: Having a single executable file that runs on several platforms. So e.g. in an Appstore you just go to the thing you want and download it and it runs on your platform without knowing which kind of processor etc. you have on that platform (motorola 68k, power pc, intel or arm).
Exactly. Which is one of the costs of changing CPU architecture. It's exactly what happened with the Mac changes of architecture. It's undeniable that that is the case.
I'm not afraid being underinformed as I work in such areas since 35 years...
Then you're underinformed in the English language.
We are not talking about fat binaries or interpreters/emulators. If I compile a C file for an intel pc running linux, it just runs... no magic involved.
That might be what you're taking about, but if so it has nothing to do with what the person you replied to wrote. And I see now that he's already informed you of that fact.
The prospect of Apple changing processors has an awful lot to do with complications like fat binaries or interpreters/emulators.
But bottom line most of the code of your OS you simply recompile and thats it.
I'm afraid you are grossly underinformed on the topic.
Note in the photos how much sun hits the dirt (i.e. not on panels within the 140 acre plant).
Thanks to the magic of Pythagoras, there may be more than 140 acres of panel surface in the 140 acre plant, and still be light that spills on the ground. And it may be at a more advantageous angle to the sun at the same time.
Again, everyone does not think like you which is why I try to find a compromise.
Of course not everyone thinks like me. That's the point of the story. The theatres are full of rude and selfish people. That's no reason to compromise with them.
If you're under any delusion that most people agree with you, then read all the messages under the story.
That only means the source can be the same (or at least have a few differences, dealt with by #ifdefs). But the fact that the executable binaries are incompatible does make for all sorts of things that matter. Fat binaries. Incompatibilities. Emulators. Using byte-code systems rather than native. All sorts of things. It's doable - Apple's done it twice on the Mac. But its certainly not without issues. It certainly does matter.
Android manages to exist on multiple CPUs. But then it's also one of the most fragmented systems there is, with developers deciding not to develop for it as a result. So that's no advert.
Fragmentation is an Android feature. There's no compelling reason to change to any other chip, so why would Apple do it?
Over the 30 years of the Mac they've changed architecture twice. But only when the old architecture was dying. ARM is the most popular mobile CPU architecture in the world. There's no reason to change iOS devices away from it. Even if other architectures were more attractive (and they're not).
but they're still quite inefficient (commercial units now have ~20% efficiency, only recently has research broken the 30% limit).
So what? The sun can be considered to be an infinite resource with regard to organic existence on earth. And it can't be turned off. If the solar cells aren't there, 100% is wasted rather than 80%.
So for solar farms, other things can easily become more important than simple efficiency per unit area. An electricity utility might want to run a solar power tower. A computer company, probably not.
Very simple. It takes far more energy (as in burned coal and oil) to make the PV cells, the panels, the frames, the wiring, and the charge controllers than the panel will EVER gain back in its usable lifetime.
The silliest premise is that some blogger knows more about the issues with different chip fabs than Apple does. For that blogger to say Apple made a mistake, before we've seen any results from the deal? Stupid. Simply click bait.
There is a huge difference between people having cellular phone conversations/texting and people leaving a theatre to take a call. By lumping both together you show lack of empathy.
Now your defensiveness is making you say silly things. This is not constructive.
Probably far less than the number of times that you have been caught short.
What a silly thing to say. First of all you have no idea how many times it's happened to me. And secondly it's just as likely to happen to you as me. Your phone calls are on top of the chance that you might get caught short.
Being overly controlling of those around you can move you to that darker shade of gray, just as easily as making noise.
My thoughts on rude people around me have no effect on the rude people around me. Unfortunately.
Notice they say "in the lobby". Shortly after "turn off your cell phones or other devices during the show." This is not ambiguous. You're OK with calls in the lobby, you must have you phone switched off during the show.
does not say to turn off your cellular phone;
They choose to make their distinction elsewhere. But then they are a cinema that serves meals during the show, so they have different standards to most theatres.
Is it against "civil standards in a theatre" to go out of the theatre for a few minutes and then return? People do it all the time to go to the restroom. Whether it is nature's call or a buzzing phone makes no difference to me.
The number of times it happens makes a difference. One hopes that most people try to avoid needing the toilet during a show. But nature cannot be switched off and sometimes people are caught short. It does disturb other people, but a the odd person having to do that cannot be avoided. It's not deliberate.
If people are going out to deal with incoming calls and messages then it happens far more often, and people are disturbed more often. And this time it's by CHOICE of the rude people that do it. Rather than trying to avoid it, they've taken action to make it happen.
That you can't see the difference just indicates that you are lacking empathy, as I mentioned before.
It seems that your desire for a completly undisturbed theatre experience override other people's desires. It seems that you think you are more important than other people.
Bullshit. At the end of that line of reasoning is saying victims of robbery are being selfish for complaining about it. This is about singular people disturbing hundreds of people's enjoyment, usually against the conditions by which they bought a ticket. It's about civil standards, not what I personally want.
Just stop arguing the toss with me, and consider your behaviour. You're not always right. Sometimes you do things without thinking them through. And this is one of those cases.
Many of us can tell you *exactly* what issues we have with Apple and iOS, but none of them come down to the "ur dumb" arguments that seem to be your forte.
That's exactly what your arguments consist of. And you've just done it again.
I've been with parents who have got phone calls and texts from their babysitters. And I can't remember it once being important enough for the parents to leave the social event. So your assurance that it's only "an issue, or an emergency" carries no water for me.
Maybe you have a babysitter that won't get in touch with less important things. But plenty of others have babysitters that will. And having the phone on means that any other call or txt, from people other than the babysitter will also disturb the theatre.
Then beyond parents there are plenty of others who think they have a special need to be contactable in emergencies.
No. None of you have a NEED. You have a WANT to both be able to get calls and sit in a theatre. And if you're as empathic as you claim, you should realise that's a choice. A choice to put yourself (and your kids) above the rest of the audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you encrypt the data, or does Apple?
At least with Android/Dropbox, GP has the option to encrypt prior to uploading. Leaving security in the hands of a third party, for-profit venture is never a best practice.
Have you or the GP written your own encryption software? Almost certainly, no. (And if you did it'd have poor security). Are you qualified to code review encryption software? Almost certainly, no.
And the idea that it's better to trust some unknown open source programmer than an identifiable blue chip company is ridiculous.
Seriously, that's a bit of a dicking, don't you think? [iCloud's 5GB free level] Selling you a 32GB device with "free online storage" that won't even cover 20% of the space available, then charging yet another fee to backup the rest of your shit?
It's an optional service. The service you mention, Dropbox, will charge you a subscription when you go over 2GB.
Personally I make use of both services within the free level. DropBox for sharing a few docments with others, iCloud for sharing certain data between my iPad and Macbook. Backup I do by plugging into iTunes on my Macbook. And it gets further backed up from my laptop onto a Time Machine external disk. All automatic, apart from the action of connecting the cable every once in a while. Which I do to change it anyway.
OTA backup is a minor convenience over a cable backup. Pay for it if you want it. Don't if you don't want it.
one of my biggest annoyances with iOS is that Apple's keyboard does not change the state of letters on-screen when the shift key has been pressed.
Does a physical keyboard do that? No. So it's a bogus requirement. It's a giveaway that you're just listing points of difference between Android and iOS, rather than anything that's actually a deficiency of iOS.
I can honestly say it's never once crossed my mind that a keyboard should do such a thing. It adds nothing. It's a gimmick.
a) It isn't actually open source in the same way as Android
Thankfully not.
b) I should trust you and Apple on this, even though the device MUST be activated through Apple and the only way to get apps on it is via the App Store or paying Apple for a developer/corporate account?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
As a long time Apple user and developer I know that that Apple work to protect users privacy far more than any other OS system does. The app store restrictions, and the sandboxing means that every year it becomes harder and harder for software to do something malicious or thoughtless that threatens the users privacy. And Apple's own software respects user privacy too. But this isn't simply a matter of trust. People run packet sniffers on iOS devices all the time. I do sometimes when I'm developing network apps. We know that Apple do what they say they do.
On Android you have little protection. If you tickle your itch by building and installing AOSP and putting it on your phone, you then have no access to the somewhat vetted Google Play store, and are at the mercy of all the Android Malware that exists out there.
If on the other hand you stick with official Android builds, well the entire reason for Android is to spy on you and advertise to you.
Either way you're in a far worse position on Android than you are on iOS.
You can't develop on Linux or Windows. And yes it costs $99 per year to be able to test apps on a device and distribute them. And they can only be distributed widely via the Apple App Store. And yet still Apple has literally hundreds of thousands of developers with apps on the app store.
The truth is that those are only barriers to entry to people who are not serious about developing on iOS. They are not significant barriers to any serious developer.
Why would Apple want to lower the already modest barriers to entry, to allow bunch of casual tinkerers to flood the store (or worse still the internet) with crap and malware?
For example, why would they want to encourage people who don't realise that a native app *IS* significantly better then a "webapp with modern CSS".
The problem is the gimmicky scenes inserted in movies to show off the 3D effect. When watching in 2D those scenes are still there. And you get the alienating effect of realising the point of the scene is a special effect that you're not seeing.
Well, if ou want to talk about costs, the question is who pays it. More likely the customer with "disk space" than Apple with "development costs".
Both. Plus the third party app developer too. That's why it's undesirable.
You kow, it is not insulting to call me underinformed in the english language. As I'm not a native speaker ... obviously I am underinformed.
I'm simply pointing out that you are creating an argument based on a post you obviously misunderstood.
ALL OSES, be they Windows, Linux, or OSX are frankly some of the most complex software platforms EVER created by man, and since man is fallible there WILL be bugs and if there are enough users to make it worth the trouble it WILL be exploited.
Which is why you have to consider the means by which software gets on the system. There are many, many computer platforms that have never had malware. Take an industrial controller - what's the mechanism by which malware can get on the device in the first place? Most of them aren't even connected to the internet.
they honestly didn't need to bother, people will happily infect their phones and tablets without a thought in the world. I swear its the damnedest thing, its like the SECOND you put it on another medium?
That's why the iOS single curated app store is a good idea. Ordinary users are just not computer security aware to protect themselves. Better than they can only access from a source that only has pre-approved software, and where any software that is subsequently found to be malware can be removed once and for all.
Unlike the industrial controller, a smartphone can't be decoupled from the internet. So creating a system when apps can only come from a single source is the next best thing.
So you can only get infected if you side load apks from sketchy sources. Play store users are safe.
How is this any different if you side load apps on iOS devices?
[assuming iOS had the same vulnerability...]
"Sideloading" from other stores is standard feature of Android. It's not with iOS. Thus this can hit ordinary users with standard Android phones. But not ordinary users with standard iOS.
The step to iOS Jailbreaking is far more of a jump, and an awareness that it breaks security protection than changing a preferences option in Android.
Furthermore, lets assume that in each case, the vulnerability is fixed with the next minor version of the OS. On iOS, the majority of users will be on the new invulnerable OS within a week of it's release day. With Android, the average user is on a 3 year old OS version, so on average they won't get the fix for another 3 years.
Basically there is no comparison. iOS users are massively more secure than Android users.
There is no reason to compromise with someone who insists on talking/texting/gaming in a theatre. There is a reason to compromise with people who need to be in contact while on call.
There is no fundamental difference between the two. Only one of he degree of their selfishness and rudeness. Every single one thinks that what they do is OK and justified, but there are some OTHER people that do something that is unacceptable.
The on-call thing is a red herring. People doing on-call jobs are not normally on call 24/7/365. If they are, they have bigger problems than a lack of cinema - they have an abusive employer. But if they are on such an arrangement then that is their CHOICE. And part of that choice to to only go places where mobile phones are acceptable. The theatre is not one of them.
You are behaving exactly as the typical yob in a cinema. You won't accept your fault, and you'll just keep on justifying yourself. You confuse having the last word with being right.
Have the last word. You're still in the wrong.
Fat binaries are for one thing:
Having a single executable file that runs on several platforms. So e.g. in an Appstore you just go to the thing you want and download it and it runs on your platform without knowing which kind of processor etc. you have on that platform (motorola 68k, power pc, intel or arm).
Exactly. Which is one of the costs of changing CPU architecture. It's exactly what happened with the Mac changes of architecture. It's undeniable that that is the case.
I'm not afraid being underinformed as I work in such areas since 35 years ...
Then you're underinformed in the English language.
We are not talking about fat binaries or interpreters/emulators. ... no magic involved.
If I compile a C file for an intel pc running linux, it just runs
That might be what you're taking about, but if so it has nothing to do with what the person you replied to wrote. And I see now that he's already informed you of that fact.
The prospect of Apple changing processors has an awful lot to do with complications like fat binaries or interpreters/emulators.
But bottom line most of the code of your OS you simply recompile and thats it.
I'm afraid you are grossly underinformed on the topic.
Note in the photos how much sun hits the dirt (i.e. not on panels within the 140 acre plant).
Thanks to the magic of Pythagoras, there may be more than 140 acres of panel surface in the 140 acre plant, and still be light that spills on the ground. And it may be at a more advantageous angle to the sun at the same time.
Again, everyone does not think like you which is why I try to find a compromise.
Of course not everyone thinks like me. That's the point of the story. The theatres are full of rude and selfish people. That's no reason to compromise with them.
If you're under any delusion that most people agree with you, then read all the messages under the story.
That only means the source can be the same (or at least have a few differences, dealt with by #ifdefs). But the fact that the executable binaries are incompatible does make for all sorts of things that matter. Fat binaries. Incompatibilities. Emulators. Using byte-code systems rather than native. All sorts of things. It's doable - Apple's done it twice on the Mac. But its certainly not without issues. It certainly does matter.
Android manages to exist on multiple CPUs. But then it's also one of the most fragmented systems there is, with developers deciding not to develop for it as a result. So that's no advert.
Fragmentation is an Android feature. There's no compelling reason to change to any other chip, so why would Apple do it?
Over the 30 years of the Mac they've changed architecture twice. But only when the old architecture was dying. ARM is the most popular mobile CPU architecture in the world. There's no reason to change iOS devices away from it. Even if other architectures were more attractive (and they're not).
but they're still quite inefficient (commercial units now have ~20% efficiency, only recently has research broken the 30% limit).
So what? The sun can be considered to be an infinite resource with regard to organic existence on earth. And it can't be turned off. If the solar cells aren't there, 100% is wasted rather than 80%.
So for solar farms, other things can easily become more important than simple efficiency per unit area. An electricity utility might want to run a solar power tower. A computer company, probably not.
Very simple. It takes far more energy (as in burned coal and oil) to make the PV cells, the panels, the frames, the wiring, and the charge controllers than the panel will EVER gain back in its usable lifetime.
An AC spouting FUD. Who would have thunk it.
The silliest premise is that some blogger knows more about the issues with different chip fabs than Apple does. For that blogger to say Apple made a mistake, before we've seen any results from the deal? Stupid. Simply click bait.
There is a huge difference between people having cellular phone conversations/texting and people leaving a theatre to take a call. By lumping both together you show lack of empathy.
Now your defensiveness is making you say silly things. This is not constructive.
Probably far less than the number of times that you have been caught short.
What a silly thing to say. First of all you have no idea how many times it's happened to me. And secondly it's just as likely to happen to you as me. Your phone calls are on top of the chance that you might get caught short.
Being overly controlling of those around you can move you to that darker shade of gray, just as easily as making noise.
My thoughts on rude people around me have no effect on the rude people around me. Unfortunately.
Notice they say "answer a call".
Notice they say "in the lobby". Shortly after "turn off your cell phones or other devices during the show." This is not ambiguous. You're OK with calls in the lobby, you must have you phone switched off during the show.
does not say to turn off your cellular phone;
They choose to make their distinction elsewhere. But then they are a cinema that serves meals during the show, so they have different standards to most theatres.
Is it against "civil standards in a theatre" to go out of the theatre for a few minutes and then return? People do it all the time to go to the restroom. Whether it is nature's call or a buzzing phone makes no difference to me.
The number of times it happens makes a difference. One hopes that most people try to avoid needing the toilet during a show. But nature cannot be switched off and sometimes people are caught short. It does disturb other people, but a the odd person having to do that cannot be avoided. It's not deliberate.
If people are going out to deal with incoming calls and messages then it happens far more often, and people are disturbed more often. And this time it's by CHOICE of the rude people that do it. Rather than trying to avoid it, they've taken action to make it happen.
That you can't see the difference just indicates that you are lacking empathy, as I mentioned before.
It seems that your desire for a completly undisturbed theatre experience override other people's desires. It seems that you think you are more important than other people.
Bullshit. At the end of that line of reasoning is saying victims of robbery are being selfish for complaining about it. This is about singular people disturbing hundreds of people's enjoyment, usually against the conditions by which they bought a ticket. It's about civil standards, not what I personally want.
Just stop arguing the toss with me, and consider your behaviour. You're not always right. Sometimes you do things without thinking them through. And this is one of those cases.
It was rhetorical.
We can't run the world on what you anticipate some government agency might feel.
Being able to shield oneself and one's property from EMF of any and all descriptions should be a right, if it isn't one already.
Many of us can tell you *exactly* what issues we have with Apple and iOS, but none of them come down to the "ur dumb" arguments that seem to be your forte.
That's exactly what your arguments consist of. And you've just done it again.
I've been with parents who have got phone calls and texts from their babysitters. And I can't remember it once being important enough for the parents to leave the social event. So your assurance that it's only "an issue, or an emergency" carries no water for me.
Maybe you have a babysitter that won't get in touch with less important things. But plenty of others have babysitters that will. And having the phone on means that any other call or txt, from people other than the babysitter will also disturb the theatre.
Then beyond parents there are plenty of others who think they have a special need to be contactable in emergencies.
No. None of you have a NEED. You have a WANT to both be able to get calls and sit in a theatre. And if you're as empathic as you claim, you should realise that's a choice. A choice to put yourself (and your kids) above the rest of the audience.