That's rather like saying you have no reason to expect privacy because you rent an apartment instead of owning a house
No its not, not even a little. The home owner/apartment dweller is paying for services. Interestingly enough, landlords do have access to apartments, given notice.
The employee is getting paid for services, and most certainly part of the employement contract makes it clear that work equipment is works property to do with whatever it wants.
The post office is a special network, with special laws governing it. Its not a company its a government organization. FedEx and UPS are not bound by those rules except by volunteering to do so. Its a federal crime to screw with someones mail, its not to do it with fedex or ups.
Rental agreements are another special case as you are basically 'the owner' as long as you honor your contractual obligations. I assure you, the instant you don't pay your rent and get evicted, you've lost every bit of 'privacy' you had, and they'll be cops at your door to tell you just how much privacy you've lost as they physically remove you from the property so someone else can come in and go through your shit, throw away stuff, sell stuff, whatever.
You really are confused about the way the world actually works.
I could use company paper and company pens to write my letter, and mail it with a company stamp. I would be misusing company resources for personal business, but that doesn't give the company the right to read its contents.
Yes, actually it does. Sorry to disappoint but what you think and reality are not the same. You lost privacy when you said 'used company'.
doesn't give them the right to watch
Yes, actually it does, though they'd be short a staff really quick if they did it. There are companies that do, they've been to court, they've won. Precedent is not on your side.
ut can't violate the privacy that she has a reasonable expectation of.
True, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, only misguided ignorance and stupidity.
You don't have to work there if you don't like their rules, its rather simple.
These policies are rules made by busy bodies that feel a need to insert their nose into someone's business.
No, these policies are made by people finding it increasingly difficult to get rid of shitty employees without getting sued. Now days if an employee does something that clearly isn't acceptable, but isn't in some handbook, you get sued for firing them... so... they have to make so many rules to cover all the retarded 'little' things people do that can occasionally cause major problems.
Especially since the Constitution was really set up to protect the individuals right to privacy, that the government seems so willing to defer that right because a business is involved is very scary.
Thats retarded. The person has an easy way to keep their privacy, don't do it on the work PC. Do it at home, on your own time, away from their resources. What you're saying is that basically its the companies responsibility to keep things private... even if she walks in to the office and starts screaming about these private things at the top of her lungs. Okay, thats an obvious exaggeration, but the point remains, she gave up her privacy by using a shared non-private resource. The constitution is there to protect privacy, not stupidity. What she did was fucking stupid.
Does the company have a right to read her personal email? Not one bit.
Does the company have the right to do whatever it wants with its equipment and network? Beyond any shadow of a doubt, YES. Including reading emails left on the drive, be it in the browser cache or saved to files or in some email client. They can sniffer her web sessions to yahoo all day long when she's using their resources. If she wants to keep them out of it, she shouldn't be using their resources. Period.
Your rights end when they start effecting someone elses rights. Hers ended when she used equipment that wasn't hers.
Our company policy is simple: You can use your PC for anything that is non-disruptive to work, is not a violation of your employement contract specific (i.e. no selling secrets and all that standard stuff), and its not illegal. However, the computers and everything on them are company property and you have no privacy on them. You sign a document (more detailed of course) stating the rules and that you've been made aware of them, THEN you get a PC.
You don't have to sign the document. You also don't have to work for us. Its okay, we don't mind if you don't, there are plenty of people who aren't so retarded as to think someone else's equipment is their private playtoy.
This has become an issue once. We found after an employee was released and brought back their laptop that they had been making deals on the side and essentially prepping customers to be stolen when they left the company. After several weeks of telling the person to return their laptop they finally did, at which point we dissected it with a fine tooth comb, not actually looking for anything (we suspected nothing at the time) its simply standard procedure to try and find loose ends with customers so nothing gets left hanging. The employee had 'formatted' the drive, which of course we promptly recovered.
The judge didn't care about any of it or how it happened, all he cared was that we found the evidence on our equipment. To which we explained to him that yes we had, both on the laptop and on our own mail servers.
We were 'sued' because we saw documents relating to his divorce settlement. The judges response was something along the lines of 'you signed a document stating you were aware that company equipment can be monitored and is not considered private, why are we here exactly?'
and that was that...
If we had hacked into his yahoo account with no prior knowledge of it, we'd be wrong. But the instant the data hit our equipment or services we get full right to it.
Simple solution... DON'T USE COMPANY EQUIPMENT FOR PRIVATE MATTERS DUMB ASS.
Of course, these are the same morons that sue when their facebook photos get 'leaked to the web' because they were 'private'.
Uhm, CNN is about the best indicator of the stock market you can get. Watch CNN long enough and you can predict the markets in general trends, probably rarely will you get news soon enough to make money on any single companies stock.
Broadcast news controls people FAR more than they realize. The difference is, broadcast news sets the tone and people then act on it. Social media just makes those actions apparent in a new place. They were always apparent if you bothered to look.
Had the broadcast news channels not spent a year telling everyone how bad the economy was it wouldn't be bad. It really isn't bad if you have any sense of perspective at all. If you do think its bad I suggest you pick up a history book and start reading. Except for the elderly, most people today have no idea what 'bad' is. To them 'bad' is standing in the unemployment line, or rather, calling it in, as is done most places today.
Yes, just what we need, more idiots talking about how 'deep' his shows are. How great he is for 'addressing moral issues'.
I don't think I can take another Buffy. FireFly was fine right up till Serenity when it just turned into to much of 'moral' story than a space western.
Yes, 'the crowd' generally has a pretty good idea of what 'the crowd' is going to do.
If you ask me if I'm going to go see a movie or not than my answer is probably going to pretty accurately reflect what I'm actually going to do.
I'm not exactly sure why this is surprising? Marketers have been doing this for years. They announce products that haven't even hit the drawing board yet. If they get a good response in the form of inquires and other types of interest, they build the device. If they don't then it will just go away.
There's what, 3 or 4 iphone versions to deal with?
It should also be noted that if you're running an older iPhone with a current OS, the app will never know the difference unless it makes an effort to check. This is good and bad. Its good because the app will run and appear to work. Its bad in that if you don't have a GPS you may not ever realize how shitty the location is, and you might not realize that the compass returns north all the time... so you'll get unexpected behavior and probably not what you want, but the developer doesn't have to worry about it and can easily check to determine if the feature is supported. He doesn't have to check for the hardware, he just has to say 'hey, can I get GPS coordinates more accurate than a few kilometers?' Which... the phone is happy to tell you.
Basically its like it should be. You don't have to deal with hardware or know anything about it, you just have to talk to the OS and use the approved API which Apple enforces with an iron fist.
As you said, 'open' isn't always 'best', and I think that extends beyond the user perspective.
Another thought, since everyone is perfectly happy with Apple's app review process, why don't we bring that over too?
Seriously... you said that on slashdot? I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but wow... I'm shocked. I didn't think there was any sanity left out there.
They'll need to do a lot more than just that, but thats one thing they most certainly need to do.
What google WANTS to do is get people using android, get the carriers doing all the hard support work for it, and then throw in advertising so they can sit back and reap the benefits.
If you think Google intends to do this long term you're sadly confused. Its rather clear from the way they are handling it that they want to push as much work as possible off to everyone else.
They are cheaping out and not putting their full effort into it, and that makes it just like every other device out there so there really isn't a reason to buy it over any other phone... except you can almost rest assured that a future update is going to bring advertising into your phone. That doesn't mean to not use it, but its just something you should be expecting.
Welp, when you take a look at the rest of the world... what you're saying is 'a thousand times worse' seems to be doing about a million times better than the current implementation that Google has.
So yes, they really do need to either do it right or take the other route. Their current route doesn't have a pretty path in front of it unless frustration is something you find 'pretty'
Copying the AppStore in what respect? I do think its safer for the general public to have an Apple like model than anarchy.
But other than that specific point, the AppStore is kind of shitty. I never find apps I'm interested in on the AppStore, browsing it is just crappy and finding new apps that may be interesting to me is practically impossible without a third party.
The Apple AppStore is rather shitty from the usability perspective at this point imo, but its REALLY REALLY hard to argue with the numbers.
I think he's really just trying to say that anarchy isn't going to work and just about anything would be better than anarchy as far as the general public is concerned. Even at the cost of being ripped off more often than we already are.
GMail and Firefox are successful. Chrome is only doing well because you get nagged on the google search page if you aren't using it. Linux is only successful in the server market, and its fighting tooth and nail for that.
Linux is too fragmented to take over and actually set the standard rather than chasing it. Chrome will disappear into obscurity the instant Googles attention turns elsewhere.
You and I have different definitions of 'beta', but to me it seems that beta has no meaning to you... as you follow Google far too closely to tell the difference. Let me give you a hint: The OSS world doesn't really know what a release is. That includes Google. Its all more of a collection of nightly builds where occasionally they stop for a few days (maybe even weeks!) to fix bugs rather than implement new things halfassed.
The initial costs basically amount to negotiating a deal with the other carriers to piggy back on their towers initially.
I can think of at least 3 local independent companies that do just that, and they have prices lower than the main carriers across the board. They've had unlimited voice/data plans for years at $50/month. The main carriers still aren't there, though I do believe at least one of the local ones has jumped up to be in line with the ~$70/month voice plans of the major carriers.
There is no barrier to entry currently other than 'it takes work'
You mean like Gmail, Chrome, and a ton of other products that people use while in beta? Android's main strength is that it is open, cutting edge and changeable.
And with no charge to purchase or monthly service charges. People will put up with a lot more shit for free than when they pay. The for pay version of gmail is not bleeding edge constantly changing.
Don't want something -slightly- unstable? Get a BlackBerry and its outdated architecture. Want something that is going to be nearly the same from beginning to end? Get an iPhone, but don't expect stability.
Okay, now your fanboy shines through. Stability in my phone is #1. The fucking thing has to work. I've had an iPhone since a month after the initial release. I've not had a crash, a lockup or any other sort of issue except typing on the keyboard... after I dropped it and put a massive crack through the face... so its hard to get one particular letter to pickup that happens to straddle the line.
Either way, that aside, the fact that you're arguing that its exceptable for a phone to be unreliable blows me away. That is truely fucked up. Your argument for Android has turned into 'it sucks but not really much worse than anyone else!!!!'.
Android is doing the most things right at the moment. Windows Mobile is screwing customers by not offering software upgrades, Apple is screwing customers by not allowing them to use their apps, BlackBerry simply is a crappy environment to code for, and despite how much Palm wants WebOS to gain marketshare, it simply isn't happening.
Before my iPhone I had an HTC based WinMo phone for 2 or 3 years, never once did I give a flying fuck about a new version of Windows for it. They were out there and easy to get and install, most people don't upgrade JUST BECAUSE there is a new version. 99.999999999999% of the population isn't as retarded as most 'geeks' in this respect. All this does is makes it harder to target the device. Fragmentation isn't a good thing, regardless of what Linux fanboys think.
Yep, Apple requires you purchase through the AppStore that they control... and you think thats bad... except... everyone else in the world prefers it over any alternative. Look at the combined android device sales figures, compare them to... well anyone really. I was going to say Apple, but Android would be a lemon in this case so its not a fair comparison. Back to the point however, how is Apple 'screwing' customers? Because they require that the apps get some sort of oversight? Because they do at least some rudimentary checking to make sure the app isn't something bad and at least somewhat sane? You're arguement is that Android is better because you can get shittier apps because there is absolutely no oversight? Seriously? Really... how many apps can you think of that you would actually use that Apple has denied that you can get on your Android device... 1? 2? and... if you weren't a Geek what would that number be? 0? -2? This argument is based on an issue that is only an issue because you use it for a battle cry. No one REALLY gives a shit in the real world.
The only compelling reason to buy an Android device is the Google name. Its not special or unique in any other way, but there really aren't any unique phones out there, everyone copies everyone, its just a question of how refined and polished the end result is... in which case I REALLY don't think you want me to start going into details about Android now do you?
Now its clear that I'm an iPhone fan, no doubt there, not trying to hide it. I do however develop software that happens to run on the iPhone and BlackBerry. We've ported portions of it to Android, but unless something spectacular happens it'll never fi
this is like saying a nurse used an alcohol swab before plunging a needle into your arm, to avoid you contracting anything....
You clearly don't understand what fuzzy testing is.
Fuzzy testing and unit testing are only related in that they are tests.
Unit tests are well defined tests for known conditions.
Fuzzy tests, if done perfectly, would appear to be random and thrown entirely random data at the applicaiton in order to increase the chances of finding out what happens when the app gets something the developers never expected.
I don't know of anyone who does regular fuzzy testing. Everyone that matters does unit testing.
Going back to your nurse/needle analogy, a corrected version would be something like the nurse putting a needle of random length into a vial of a random medicine he/she pulled off the shelf into a random location on your body and injecting a random amount of the drug... just to see what happens and figure out if its safe to do that in the future.
I won't finish your thought as its pretty clear you don't have them all that often, but before you start blasting someone it might actually help if you had at least some idea about what you were discussing, you clearly do not.
No one fuzzy tests. Okay, so no one is obviously false, but the number of people who do fuzzy testing is unimaginably low. Go find me an OSS package that does fuzzy testing as part of their automated build process. IF you find one, $5 says its a tool for doing testing and not some other type of app.
Its only a great model for testing if you've exhausted the extensive list of known bugs that people hit every day under common circumstances.
Finding bugs in the file format is great and all, but fixing the bugs that users actually see every day is far more important and you can reset assured it will be released with a bucket load of very obvious bugs that should have been fixed rather than dicking around throwing random data at it.
I know there are potential security issues to deal with and those are important, but they still aren't as important as the users experience with the software and actually getting their own job done. Saying 'don't open word docs from someone else until this is fixed!' is a lot more practical than hearing that person say 'I'm not using Word, this retarded table layout bug is pissing me off, can we find something else to use instead of Word?'
I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just saying their priorities are wrong on a scale that is hardly imaginable.
As far as being realistic with a large rich application...
Citation Needed.
Given enough processors sitting around the size of the application or its feature set becomes of little concern. It may take longer but thats no excuse to not do it.
How do you figure it requires a rewrite? Unless its written in something other than C++... (I have no clue, haven't bothered to look, just can't imagine any game worth its salt not written in C)
You should realize by the date, the content in the summery and the fact that there hasn't been a real post on slashdot all day... that this is yet another April Fools joke.
Do you see anyone laughing in these posts? Do you not get the point yet? Do you even look at whats posted in comments? Is your plan to flood us with some much bullshit that we miss anything that might possibly be real?
Slashdot Mirror
No its not, not even a little. The home owner/apartment dweller is paying for services. Interestingly enough, landlords do have access to apartments, given notice.
The employee is getting paid for services, and most certainly part of the employement contract makes it clear that work equipment is works property to do with whatever it wants.
The post office is a special network, with special laws governing it. Its not a company its a government organization. FedEx and UPS are not bound by those rules except by volunteering to do so. Its a federal crime to screw with someones mail, its not to do it with fedex or ups.
Rental agreements are another special case as you are basically 'the owner' as long as you honor your contractual obligations. I assure you, the instant you don't pay your rent and get evicted, you've lost every bit of 'privacy' you had, and they'll be cops at your door to tell you just how much privacy you've lost as they physically remove you from the property so someone else can come in and go through your shit, throw away stuff, sell stuff, whatever.
You really are confused about the way the world actually works.
The policy isn't against the use, its simply a statement that what you do on your company issued laptop isn't private, regardless of what it is.
Translation: Bullshit
The only time that has ever held true is when a company has specifically said the conversation ARE private.
Yes, actually it does. Sorry to disappoint but what you think and reality are not the same. You lost privacy when you said 'used company'.
Yes, actually it does, though they'd be short a staff really quick if they did it. There are companies that do, they've been to court, they've won. Precedent is not on your side.
True, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, only misguided ignorance and stupidity.
You don't have to work there if you don't like their rules, its rather simple.
No, these policies are made by people finding it increasingly difficult to get rid of shitty employees without getting sued. Now days if an employee does something that clearly isn't acceptable, but isn't in some handbook, you get sued for firing them ... so ... they have to make so many rules to cover all the retarded 'little' things people do that can occasionally cause major problems.
Thats retarded. The person has an easy way to keep their privacy, don't do it on the work PC. Do it at home, on your own time, away from their resources. What you're saying is that basically its the companies responsibility to keep things private ... even if she walks in to the office and starts screaming about these private things at the top of her lungs. Okay, thats an obvious exaggeration, but the point remains, she gave up her privacy by using a shared non-private resource. The constitution is there to protect privacy, not stupidity. What she did was fucking stupid.
Does the company have a right to read her personal email? Not one bit.
Does the company have the right to do whatever it wants with its equipment and network? Beyond any shadow of a doubt, YES. Including reading emails left on the drive, be it in the browser cache or saved to files or in some email client. They can sniffer her web sessions to yahoo all day long when she's using their resources. If she wants to keep them out of it, she shouldn't be using their resources. Period.
Your rights end when they start effecting someone elses rights. Hers ended when she used equipment that wasn't hers.
Our company policy is simple: You can use your PC for anything that is non-disruptive to work, is not a violation of your employement contract specific (i.e. no selling secrets and all that standard stuff), and its not illegal. However, the computers and everything on them are company property and you have no privacy on them. You sign a document (more detailed of course) stating the rules and that you've been made aware of them, THEN you get a PC.
You don't have to sign the document. You also don't have to work for us. Its okay, we don't mind if you don't, there are plenty of people who aren't so retarded as to think someone else's equipment is their private playtoy.
This has become an issue once. We found after an employee was released and brought back their laptop that they had been making deals on the side and essentially prepping customers to be stolen when they left the company. After several weeks of telling the person to return their laptop they finally did, at which point we dissected it with a fine tooth comb, not actually looking for anything (we suspected nothing at the time) its simply standard procedure to try and find loose ends with customers so nothing gets left hanging. The employee had 'formatted' the drive, which of course we promptly recovered.
The judge didn't care about any of it or how it happened, all he cared was that we found the evidence on our equipment. To which we explained to him that yes we had, both on the laptop and on our own mail servers.
We were 'sued' because we saw documents relating to his divorce settlement. The judges response was something along the lines of 'you signed a document stating you were aware that company equipment can be monitored and is not considered private, why are we here exactly?'
and that was that ...
If we had hacked into his yahoo account with no prior knowledge of it, we'd be wrong. But the instant the data hit our equipment or services we get full right to it.
Simple solution ... DON'T USE COMPANY EQUIPMENT FOR PRIVATE MATTERS DUMB ASS.
Of course, these are the same morons that sue when their facebook photos get 'leaked to the web' because they were 'private'.
Uhm, CNN is about the best indicator of the stock market you can get. Watch CNN long enough and you can predict the markets in general trends, probably rarely will you get news soon enough to make money on any single companies stock.
Broadcast news controls people FAR more than they realize. The difference is, broadcast news sets the tone and people then act on it. Social media just makes those actions apparent in a new place. They were always apparent if you bothered to look.
Had the broadcast news channels not spent a year telling everyone how bad the economy was it wouldn't be bad. It really isn't bad if you have any sense of perspective at all. If you do think its bad I suggest you pick up a history book and start reading. Except for the elderly, most people today have no idea what 'bad' is. To them 'bad' is standing in the unemployment line, or rather, calling it in, as is done most places today.
Yes, just what we need, more idiots talking about how 'deep' his shows are. How great he is for 'addressing moral issues'.
I don't think I can take another Buffy. FireFly was fine right up till Serenity when it just turned into to much of 'moral' story than a space western.
Yes, 'the crowd' generally has a pretty good idea of what 'the crowd' is going to do.
If you ask me if I'm going to go see a movie or not than my answer is probably going to pretty accurately reflect what I'm actually going to do.
I'm not exactly sure why this is surprising? Marketers have been doing this for years. They announce products that haven't even hit the drawing board yet. If they get a good response in the form of inquires and other types of interest, they build the device. If they don't then it will just go away.
It should also be noted that if you're running an older iPhone with a current OS, the app will never know the difference unless it makes an effort to check. This is good and bad. Its good because the app will run and appear to work. Its bad in that if you don't have a GPS you may not ever realize how shitty the location is, and you might not realize that the compass returns north all the time ... so you'll get unexpected behavior and probably not what you want, but the developer doesn't have to worry about it and can easily check to determine if the feature is supported. He doesn't have to check for the hardware, he just has to say 'hey, can I get GPS coordinates more accurate than a few kilometers?' Which ... the phone is happy to tell you.
Basically its like it should be. You don't have to deal with hardware or know anything about it, you just have to talk to the OS and use the approved API which Apple enforces with an iron fist.
As you said, 'open' isn't always 'best', and I think that extends beyond the user perspective.
Seriously ... you said that on slashdot? I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but wow ... I'm shocked. I didn't think there was any sanity left out there.
They'll need to do a lot more than just that, but thats one thing they most certainly need to do.
What google WANTS to do is get people using android, get the carriers doing all the hard support work for it, and then throw in advertising so they can sit back and reap the benefits.
If you think Google intends to do this long term you're sadly confused. Its rather clear from the way they are handling it that they want to push as much work as possible off to everyone else.
They are cheaping out and not putting their full effort into it, and that makes it just like every other device out there so there really isn't a reason to buy it over any other phone ... except you can almost rest assured that a future update is going to bring advertising into your phone. That doesn't mean to not use it, but its just something you should be expecting.
Welp, when you take a look at the rest of the world ... what you're saying is 'a thousand times worse' seems to be doing about a million times better than the current implementation that Google has.
So yes, they really do need to either do it right or take the other route. Their current route doesn't have a pretty path in front of it unless frustration is something you find 'pretty'
Copying the AppStore in what respect? I do think its safer for the general public to have an Apple like model than anarchy.
But other than that specific point, the AppStore is kind of shitty. I never find apps I'm interested in on the AppStore, browsing it is just crappy and finding new apps that may be interesting to me is practically impossible without a third party.
The Apple AppStore is rather shitty from the usability perspective at this point imo, but its REALLY REALLY hard to argue with the numbers.
I think he's really just trying to say that anarchy isn't going to work and just about anything would be better than anarchy as far as the general public is concerned. Even at the cost of being ripped off more often than we already are.
Or ... you know ... just using a web browser ... you know you can view the apps from the Apple AppStore in a web browser ... RIGHT?
Far easier than installing iTunes JUST to browse them.
GMail and Firefox are successful. Chrome is only doing well because you get nagged on the google search page if you aren't using it. Linux is only successful in the server market, and its fighting tooth and nail for that.
Linux is too fragmented to take over and actually set the standard rather than chasing it. Chrome will disappear into obscurity the instant Googles attention turns elsewhere.
You and I have different definitions of 'beta', but to me it seems that beta has no meaning to you ... as you follow Google far too closely to tell the difference. Let me give you a hint: The OSS world doesn't really know what a release is. That includes Google. Its all more of a collection of nightly builds where occasionally they stop for a few days (maybe even weeks!) to fix bugs rather than implement new things halfassed.
No, not really.
The initial costs basically amount to negotiating a deal with the other carriers to piggy back on their towers initially.
I can think of at least 3 local independent companies that do just that, and they have prices lower than the main carriers across the board. They've had unlimited voice/data plans for years at $50/month. The main carriers still aren't there, though I do believe at least one of the local ones has jumped up to be in line with the ~$70/month voice plans of the major carriers.
There is no barrier to entry currently other than 'it takes work'
Citation needed.
My experience has been the exact opposite. They love them right up till the 'new' wears off.
And with no charge to purchase or monthly service charges. People will put up with a lot more shit for free than when they pay. The for pay version of gmail is not bleeding edge constantly changing.
Okay, now your fanboy shines through. Stability in my phone is #1. The fucking thing has to work. I've had an iPhone since a month after the initial release. I've not had a crash, a lockup or any other sort of issue except typing on the keyboard ... after I dropped it and put a massive crack through the face ... so its hard to get one particular letter to pickup that happens to straddle the line.
Either way, that aside, the fact that you're arguing that its exceptable for a phone to be unreliable blows me away. That is truely fucked up. Your argument for Android has turned into 'it sucks but not really much worse than anyone else!!!!'.
Before my iPhone I had an HTC based WinMo phone for 2 or 3 years, never once did I give a flying fuck about a new version of Windows for it. They were out there and easy to get and install, most people don't upgrade JUST BECAUSE there is a new version. 99.999999999999% of the population isn't as retarded as most 'geeks' in this respect. All this does is makes it harder to target the device. Fragmentation isn't a good thing, regardless of what Linux fanboys think.
Yep, Apple requires you purchase through the AppStore that they control ... and you think thats bad ... except ... everyone else in the world prefers it over any alternative. Look at the combined android device sales figures, compare them to ... well anyone really. I was going to say Apple, but Android would be a lemon in this case so its not a fair comparison. Back to the point however, how is Apple 'screwing' customers? Because they require that the apps get some sort of oversight? Because they do at least some rudimentary checking to make sure the app isn't something bad and at least somewhat sane? You're arguement is that Android is better because you can get shittier apps because there is absolutely no oversight? Seriously? Really ... how many apps can you think of that you would actually use that Apple has denied that you can get on your Android device ... 1? 2? and ... if you weren't a Geek what would that number be? 0? -2? This argument is based on an issue that is only an issue because you use it for a battle cry. No one REALLY gives a shit in the real world.
The only compelling reason to buy an Android device is the Google name. Its not special or unique in any other way, but there really aren't any unique phones out there, everyone copies everyone, its just a question of how refined and polished the end result is ... in which case I REALLY don't think you want me to start going into details about Android now do you?
Now its clear that I'm an iPhone fan, no doubt there, not trying to hide it. I do however develop software that happens to run on the iPhone and BlackBerry. We've ported portions of it to Android, but unless something spectacular happens it'll never fi
You clearly don't understand what fuzzy testing is.
Fuzzy testing and unit testing are only related in that they are tests.
Unit tests are well defined tests for known conditions.
Fuzzy tests, if done perfectly, would appear to be random and thrown entirely random data at the applicaiton in order to increase the chances of finding out what happens when the app gets something the developers never expected.
I don't know of anyone who does regular fuzzy testing. Everyone that matters does unit testing.
Going back to your nurse/needle analogy, a corrected version would be something like the nurse putting a needle of random length into a vial of a random medicine he/she pulled off the shelf into a random location on your body and injecting a random amount of the drug ... just to see what happens and figure out if its safe to do that in the future.
I won't finish your thought as its pretty clear you don't have them all that often, but before you start blasting someone it might actually help if you had at least some idea about what you were discussing, you clearly do not.
No one fuzzy tests. Okay, so no one is obviously false, but the number of people who do fuzzy testing is unimaginably low. Go find me an OSS package that does fuzzy testing as part of their automated build process. IF you find one, $5 says its a tool for doing testing and not some other type of app.
Yes, they called it the ALT key, and it was fixed in 2007 too.
Its only a great model for testing if you've exhausted the extensive list of known bugs that people hit every day under common circumstances.
Finding bugs in the file format is great and all, but fixing the bugs that users actually see every day is far more important and you can reset assured it will be released with a bucket load of very obvious bugs that should have been fixed rather than dicking around throwing random data at it.
I know there are potential security issues to deal with and those are important, but they still aren't as important as the users experience with the software and actually getting their own job done. Saying 'don't open word docs from someone else until this is fixed!' is a lot more practical than hearing that person say 'I'm not using Word, this retarded table layout bug is pissing me off, can we find something else to use instead of Word?'
I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just saying their priorities are wrong on a scale that is hardly imaginable.
As far as being realistic with a large rich application ...
Citation Needed.
Given enough processors sitting around the size of the application or its feature set becomes of little concern. It may take longer but thats no excuse to not do it.
How do you figure it requires a rewrite? Unless its written in something other than C++ ... (I have no clue, haven't bothered to look, just can't imagine any game worth its salt not written in C)
You should realize by the date, the content in the summery and the fact that there hasn't been a real post on slashdot all day ... that this is yet another April Fools joke.
posts they can make in one day?
I get cut off at some point for too much posting, why the fuck don't you bastards cut yourselves off for being retarded too?
Do you see anyone laughing in these posts? Do you not get the point yet? Do you even look at whats posted in comments? Is your plan to flood us with some much bullshit that we miss anything that might possibly be real?
It was old about 10 stores ago.