Android has the same fucking thing. Except that the user can make the choice to disable that restriction and install from any source if they'd prefer.
Then it's not the same thing. It's not protecting the system from the security vulnerability the GP mentioned: "the user doing something stupid, like downloading and installing a trojan then giving it elevated permissions."
And iOS apps aren't vetted for shit.
Sure they are. That's why iOS has a tiny fraction of the malware that Android does. But more significantly is that a single point of download means that as soon as any malware is identified, Apple can stop anyone else downloading it. Android has no such safeguard.
I can see the fact that iOS is more secure than Android annoys you. It's the difference between ideology and reality.
The major security flaw that has yet to be patched on any system is the user. When security experts talk about secure systems they are talking about gaining access without the user doing something stupid, like downloading and installing a trojan then giving it elevated permissions.
Only ones that are making excuses for ill-thought out security. If the security relies on users to be informed enough to answer questions they won't understand then that's a security design fault.
The iOS system of having a single point for download of apps, and having them vetted in advance is a far better security design.
ITV and Channel 4 are not funded by the license fee. They are private companies funded by advertising.
The license fee is a license fee. That's why it's called a license fee. None of it goes into the government's hands, it goes to the BBC. And the BBC is decidedly NOT the government.
Similarly, if you fish in many rivers, you may have to pay for a fishing license. Irrespective of whether you catch any fish or not. And that money doesn't go to the government either.
I don't know what the desperation is to decide whether or not it's a tax given that it's already got a category - a license fee. I suspect it's one of those American libertarian ideological things. That suspicion added to by people saying it not knowing that it's got nothing to do with ITV and Channel4.
Because it's not significant. The overwhelming majority that need a license need it because they are watching traditional TV. And those people can't be stopped via a login page....
Well, they could move to subscription TV with the digital TV broadcasting they do now. But it's not a route that either they, nor the British public want to go down.
the BBC doesn't want to get into the business of running a time server, nor trying to automatically determine which time zone any particular visitor to the site happens to be in (by, what, IP address tracing?).
I don't see that as being a problem. The BBC is paid for by British people, and is expected to give both local news and world-news with a British perspective. As by good fortune they are in the Greenwich meridian time zone, the could show a clock labelled GMT, with an additional clock showing British Summer Time when it's in use. Forget trying to match the user's local time.
The argument that it shouldn't show local computer time is valid, as some people do probably go to the BBC page as a reference time to set their clocks and watches. But that function is achieved just as well where-ever you are in the world from a GMT clock, as you only really need the minutes and seconds.
And it could always have a hyperlink on the clock to a page with all the important world times.
The tape would probably consist of me laughing about the accusation, then politely asking the officer what the result from the rape kit were.
Unfortunately such confidence can only be displayed by someone who never has sex with anybody. That's why you got modded insightful for it on Slashdot.
I don't think putting any faith in what a developer has to say about "why" the app needs the permissions is the way to go, from experience we know that good devs will tell the truth and malicious devs will tell the lie to resemble the truth.
I didn't suggest putting faith in it. But the alternative is not having any information on what the app needs the resource for. It's like you are guardian of a real world key safe. Do you want people who ask you for keys to tell you why they want it. Or to not be allowed to tell you anything - you just have to guess.
As to the user bing "bombarded" with resource requests, obviously if that happened it would be wrong. But it's something from your imagination, not a real problem. If a system did that, then somebody designed it badly - the granularity of the permissions in the OS, the app that tries to do everything at once without regard to bombarding the user with questions, or both.
I'd say the opposite. The Android "permissions at install" system is fundamentally broken. At the point of install you don't necessarily know the details of what an app does, nor why it might want to access certain resources. The right way to do it is to ask at the time the app first asks for a resource. That way you have context. You know what you asked the app to do, or the app can explain why it wants the permission.
Of course whatever way permissions are granted, there also needs to be a way to withdraw them from apps as well.
With the Apple deal, it is simply not possible for anyone to beat Apple on the price the consumer pays. Not 'difficult' or 'painful' to beat Apple, impossible.
Only because *IF* the book is sold at a lower price at another retailer, Apple is allowed to lower their price to match. Nothing wrong with that, it's standard practice. Anything other would be denying Apple the right to compete.
Yes, but not for charging. If you are paranoid you can buy or make a USB cable that is only for charging (data lines disconnected) and your charger will still operate normally and at full speed. If you make such a cable for your iOS device it will only charge at low speed.
You can repeat that as often as you like, it's still wrong. For fast charging, all you needs is a 4 resistors connected in the right way to the data pins at the USB end. No data connection is needed to the iOS device.
Amazon, as a part of their business, allows other retailers to compete with them ON THE SAME PAGE.
It's hardly competing if it's part of the Amazon business model, performed under Amazon's terms and conditions, and contributes to Amazon's bottom line.
You might as well say Apple allows developers to compete with them ON THE SAME PAGE by letting them into the Apple App Store. Though of course in THAT case you're more aware of the conditions than you are in the Amazon case.
It was either buy books at wholesale, setup a division to manage prices and take a loss like Amazon, or collude to change how the market was structured. Guess which one they picked.
They picked neither of those. What they did was extend the existing model of selling songs, apps and movies to ebooks. The absolutely most obvious way they would start selling a new category of products, given it's success. No collusion required.
If you can't see what's bad about having one retailer decide the minimum selling price for every other retailer in the market
From your own description of the agency model, no retailer decides the price. Publishers do.
It's common for people attacking Apple to stray from the facts. But It seems your zeal to put the blame on Apple exceeded your ability to keep to your own description of the facts. That's rare.
The data pins are needed, but they don't need to be connected to the iPhone end. They just need certain resistors attaching from those pins to +5 and gnd.
Animojo is spreading fud to the contrary elsewhere in comments to this story, but it's not true.
He doesn't need to. He's decided that Apple is evil, and he's thought of something that an evil company could do. Therefore, apple does it. No evidence required.
This is just nonsense. USB spec limits the power available for charging. Lots of manufacturers have handshaking going on so that when their products are used with their own chargers, they abandon the spec limits and use this own limits. There's no other way of doing it whilst staying within the USB spec. It's got fuck all to do with drm and everything to do with making sure the charge rate is safe.
Maybe. The article says they haven't revealed the method yet.
However, here's the answer for people who ask why Apple should patch up exploits used for jailbreaks. There are scenarios where they could be exploited by people other than the owners.
And pretty much all smartphones going back 15 years could be exploited by them. You don't even need a tiny board, if the cables are disappearing into a kiosk, you could have a full blown pc in there.
So this is demonstrating absolutely nothing new. News would be that it was actually happening in the wild.
Slashdot Mirror
I reserve discussion for people who have the decency to stand by their words, and not hide behind AC posting.
Android has the same fucking thing. Except that the user can make the choice to disable that restriction and install from any source if they'd prefer.
Then it's not the same thing. It's not protecting the system from the security vulnerability the GP mentioned: "the user doing something stupid, like downloading and installing a trojan then giving it elevated permissions."
And iOS apps aren't vetted for shit.
Sure they are. That's why iOS has a tiny fraction of the malware that Android does. But more significantly is that a single point of download means that as soon as any malware is identified, Apple can stop anyone else downloading it. Android has no such safeguard.
I can see the fact that iOS is more secure than Android annoys you. It's the difference between ideology and reality.
The major security flaw that has yet to be patched on any system is the user. When security experts talk about secure systems they are talking about gaining access without the user doing something stupid, like downloading and installing a trojan then giving it elevated permissions.
Only ones that are making excuses for ill-thought out security. If the security relies on users to be informed enough to answer questions they won't understand then that's a security design fault.
The iOS system of having a single point for download of apps, and having them vetted in advance is a far better security design.
And yet the malware numbers clearly show that Android is less secure than iOS.
What percentage of ACs are Google employees making excuses?
ITV and Channel 4 are not funded by the license fee. They are private companies funded by advertising.
The license fee is a license fee. That's why it's called a license fee. None of it goes into the government's hands, it goes to the BBC. And the BBC is decidedly NOT the government.
Similarly, if you fish in many rivers, you may have to pay for a fishing license. Irrespective of whether you catch any fish or not. And that money doesn't go to the government either.
I don't know what the desperation is to decide whether or not it's a tax given that it's already got a category - a license fee. I suspect it's one of those American libertarian ideological things. That suspicion added to by people saying it not knowing that it's got nothing to do with ITV and Channel4.
Because it's not significant. The overwhelming majority that need a license need it because they are watching traditional TV. And those people can't be stopped via a login page....
Well, they could move to subscription TV with the digital TV broadcasting they do now. But it's not a route that either they, nor the British public want to go down.
the BBC doesn't want to get into the business of running a time server, nor trying to automatically determine which time zone any particular visitor to the site happens to be in (by, what, IP address tracing?).
I don't see that as being a problem. The BBC is paid for by British people, and is expected to give both local news and world-news with a British perspective. As by good fortune they are in the Greenwich meridian time zone, the could show a clock labelled GMT, with an additional clock showing British Summer Time when it's in use. Forget trying to match the user's local time.
The argument that it shouldn't show local computer time is valid, as some people do probably go to the BBC page as a reference time to set their clocks and watches. But that function is achieved just as well where-ever you are in the world from a GMT clock, as you only really need the minutes and seconds.
And it could always have a hyperlink on the clock to a page with all the important world times.
The tape would probably consist of me laughing about the accusation, then politely asking the officer what the result from the rape kit were.
Unfortunately such confidence can only be displayed by someone who never has sex with anybody. That's why you got modded insightful for it on Slashdot.
I don't think putting any faith in what a developer has to say about "why" the app needs the permissions is the way to go, from experience we know that good devs will tell the truth and malicious devs will tell the lie to resemble the truth.
I didn't suggest putting faith in it. But the alternative is not having any information on what the app needs the resource for. It's like you are guardian of a real world key safe. Do you want people who ask you for keys to tell you why they want it. Or to not be allowed to tell you anything - you just have to guess.
As to the user bing "bombarded" with resource requests, obviously if that happened it would be wrong. But it's something from your imagination, not a real problem. If a system did that, then somebody designed it badly - the granularity of the permissions in the OS, the app that tries to do everything at once without regard to bombarding the user with questions, or both.
I'd say the opposite. The Android "permissions at install" system is fundamentally broken. At the point of install you don't necessarily know the details of what an app does, nor why it might want to access certain resources. The right way to do it is to ask at the time the app first asks for a resource. That way you have context. You know what you asked the app to do, or the app can explain why it wants the permission.
Of course whatever way permissions are granted, there also needs to be a way to withdraw them from apps as well.
Windows monopoly? What is this, the 2000s?
Only Apple had implemented USB fast charging 4 years before the standard you are referring to came out.
With the Apple deal, it is simply not possible for anyone to beat Apple on the price the consumer pays. Not 'difficult' or 'painful' to beat Apple, impossible.
Only because *IF* the book is sold at a lower price at another retailer, Apple is allowed to lower their price to match. Nothing wrong with that, it's standard practice. Anything other would be denying Apple the right to compete.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jobs-encouraged-apple-to-work-with-publishers-on-ebook-price-hike-court-hears-8642931.html
And under the deal with Apple, the publisher can not set a lower retail price for any other retailer than they do for Apple.
It's actually the other way around. If the publisher sets the price lower at another retailer, Apple is allowed to match that price.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jobs-encouraged-apple-to-work-with-publishers-on-ebook-price-hike-court-hears-8642931.html
Try reading the USB Battery Charging Specification.
... of 2007. Apple's more configurable set of charging states dates back to when the iPod could be charged from USB - 2003.
There was no standard for fast charging when Apple designed it.
Yes, but not for charging. If you are paranoid you can buy or make a USB cable that is only for charging (data lines disconnected) and your charger will still operate normally and at full speed. If you make such a cable for your iOS device it will only charge at low speed.
You can repeat that as often as you like, it's still wrong. For fast charging, all you needs is a 4 resistors connected in the right way to the data pins at the USB end. No data connection is needed to the iOS device.
http://www.epanorama.net/blog/2010/08/18/apple-charger-secrets/
It's got fuck all to do with DRM, you are severely misinformed, or more likely just imagining how it might work rather than looking it up.
Amazon, as a part of their business, allows other retailers to compete with them ON THE SAME PAGE.
It's hardly competing if it's part of the Amazon business model, performed under Amazon's terms and conditions, and contributes to Amazon's bottom line.
You might as well say Apple allows developers to compete with them ON THE SAME PAGE by letting them into the Apple App Store. Though of course in THAT case you're more aware of the conditions than you are in the Amazon case.
It was either buy books at wholesale, setup a division to manage prices and take a loss like Amazon, or collude to change how the market was structured. Guess which one they picked.
They picked neither of those. What they did was extend the existing model of selling songs, apps and movies to ebooks. The absolutely most obvious way they would start selling a new category of products, given it's success. No collusion required.
You do grasp that there was a clause that specifically prohibited publishers from selling ebooks at prices that were lower than on iTunes?
And of course only Amazon and Walmart are allowed to do that.
If the Great Satan Apple does the same, they're EVIL!
Or can you provide a link to your previous condemnations of other companies that have lowest price guarantees in their contracts?
If you can't see what's bad about having one retailer decide the minimum selling price for every other retailer in the market
From your own description of the agency model, no retailer decides the price. Publishers do.
It's common for people attacking Apple to stray from the facts. But It seems your zeal to put the blame on Apple exceeded your ability to keep to your own description of the facts. That's rare.
The data pins are needed, but they don't need to be connected to the iPhone end. They just need certain resistors attaching from those pins to +5 and gnd.
Animojo is spreading fud to the contrary elsewhere in comments to this story, but it's not true.
He doesn't need to. He's decided that Apple is evil, and he's thought of something that an evil company could do. Therefore, apple does it. No evidence required.
This is just nonsense. USB spec limits the power available for charging. Lots of manufacturers have handshaking going on so that when their products are used with their own chargers, they abandon the spec limits and use this own limits. There's no other way of doing it whilst staying within the USB spec. It's got fuck all to do with drm and everything to do with making sure the charge rate is safe.
Maybe. The article says they haven't revealed the method yet.
However, here's the answer for people who ask why Apple should patch up exploits used for jailbreaks. There are scenarios where they could be exploited by people other than the owners.
And pretty much all smartphones going back 15 years could be exploited by them. You don't even need a tiny board, if the cables are disappearing into a kiosk, you could have a full blown pc in there.
So this is demonstrating absolutely nothing new. News would be that it was actually happening in the wild.