It's a false meme to start with. Citation is from the Heritage Foundation, which might as well be the softer branch of the John Birch Society. It's a way to pronounce additional fear, embarrass the Obama Administration farther than it already is, and anchor more false paranoia.
Summary: bad question, designed to be politically subversive to the current administration with propagandized memes.
You'll be far richer if you *don't* tell Paypal about those undocumented, database leaks with direct links to your private banker in Grand Cayman. So STFU.
I do take personal responsibility for privacy. And there are many hapless users out there that trust *US* to make the right choices for them. I trust the makers of my car's tires to use the right design and compound so that my tires don't blow out on the way to work.
But IT has allowed this assault on user dignity. That's you and me, the people that put this stuff together. Their expectation should be above the tawdry exposure of their privacy to the whimsy of their employer's incompetent IT staff. It's not right, not how the Internet was designed, not how resources should be monitored. Your inability to trust anyone these days is misplaced. The circumstances that have lead you to believe this are your own, but they are sad to me, the observer. We owe humanity their dignity and their basic human rights. If you roll over, you erode it by the displacement of your presence, like the death from a thousand cuts.
This very post, and all of the clicks behind it, are just kerosene to pour on the flames. Carreon isn't a twit, he's getting lots of free stuff from the crowds that go Fight! Fight! Fight! in the lunchrooms of their high schools, where their maturation process stopped.
Bravery? Douchebaggery? This is the Internet, where World==Dog. He's manipulated you, and a jillion others into clicking over truly stupid stuff. His lawyer==PR manager. Just by foisting/hoisting the argument, look at all the ostensible do-gooders he got to be sucker-baited into mess. Add in a little bit of testosterone, and you can almost smell the napalm.
The post deals with the fact that https, considered secure and private, are in fact in the cited configuration, an open book. If you use a website for personal use, you have zero expectation of privacy of information that the employer can see or filter.
Your bank balance, your insurance information, what you bought with paypal, it's all revealed. Essentially, they see you through your clothes using a metaphor. They really don't have that right. It's sleazy, like putting a camera in the washroom or company showers.
Sure, you can decide not to use the company restroom. Or its showers. You can decide not to work there. But which of the two is reasonable? I posit that neither is. You have an expectation of privacy. Https and ssl/tls sites ought to be either be white/blacklisted or the user allowed the courtesy and modesty of privacy. To not do so, IMHO, is both inhumane and immoral.
And as I didn't sign up for the services and don't use them, I'm supposed to feel somehow protected.
But not only do I have to use Ghostery or a similar script killer, but I can't really use google and a wide variety of services.
Those that choose to be tracked and thrown into the hadoop mosh pit get what they deserve. It's not a quid pro quo. It's you let them do you for free, or you get money (or consideration for it) or you simply flip the bird and walk away. So I walk away.
When OEMs finally sell more than two tablets total, it benefits them. Right now, there are lots of gen1 and gen2 tablets being liquidated. Most of those had Android on them. OEMs need to sell, like anyone else, and at least they believe that adding RT, just like Windows whatever before RT, will make them money.
Let's discuss, for a moment, just how Microsoft's restrictions are. Oh, go ask HP about Windows Vista. Rinse, repeat. The very phrase "Microsoft restrictions" is an oxymoron.
I know this seems like reverse logic, but Microsoft having its own branded tablet then licensing it to OEMs is a good idea. First, there's a reference model, and someone BIG to compete with on price, added features, etc. It's a bit of a market creation tool to give Microsoft more reach with RT.
This begs the question: do I think it will work? No. Added Office or no, Microsoft is a battleship that made money by following and is now a battleship so jinormous that it takes three years to turn so it can fire its admittedly huge guns. It will, however, push Apple and Google forward towards adding value because they know just how large the shells that Microsoft fires can be. Everybody wins. Lots of powder burns.
As you say: 80K.... and look inside the categories. I have swallowed nothing; I'm going on my experience, and those of pros in the field whose job it is to know the industry and rate it.
Fanboi-ism isn't an endearing trait. Apology for coming really late to market then blowing it away with something that equals it and does one better might be a good start. Like many others, I'm disappointed that Microsoft tried again, and again, and failed, and failed. It's not a market where you get turf by being good until Version 5.0. Doesn't work that way when others dictate the rules of the space.
The source of my citations were reviews from professional reviewers, rather than bloggers, as cited initially. My first hand experience is only two days worth of look-see on a borrowed phone. I would tend to agree with the reviewers.
You may do so. You may be citing your own anecdotal contribution. Others have had mixed criticism regarding the UI. If it's good for you, great. The citations regarding web compatibility issues are as I state upthread, small but often showstoppers. Evidence said that it was a JS implementation difference. I'm sorry I can't cite the details. In terms of Nokia, it was the Windows 7.5OS cited as comparably more battery-consuming, phone to phone, especially when quiescent. Some have said that updates have reduced the power drain, anecdotally. As regards a search choice, you can call them the same, but much research says that they are vastly different, and with a very lopsided statistical use pattern, favoring Google. WRT the Google App, I personally wouldn't use it.
Google bought Moto, and I believe they'll live to regret it. Moto is much more than their phones. So is Nokia. Microsoft is unlikely to buy Nokia unless Nokia slides so much further that it's a buy you can't walk away from. Then, Microsoft-- whose hardware purchases have been not ultimately profitable for them-- will have the same mistake Google has made, and will shed the pieces of Nokia it doesn't need, until the marketplace changes once again and something else is new that they should have been working on for the last eight years. Instead, they were out cashing their options and running up the price of housing in Seattle.
The reviews and analysis I've read say: UI is definitely simple, and lacks depth and manipulation capabilities. I wish I could cite the sources. My own limited experience (two days with one) says: shrug. The website problems have been small, admittedly, but there is a growing problem with developers testing only iOS, and that leads to other QC problems, especially with JS.
Google's search is legendary. So is their vacuum cleaner of your personal life.
There is criticism that says that the UI is very easy to understand, but lacks depth of understandable user object manipulation capability, where iOS is very good at this. It's very pretty, but its subtleties are lost on developers, so far. Inconsistencies, like those that initially plagued Android, also seem to dog WM 7.5.
But you damn with faint praise at their marketplace. It's got basically a tiny, almost microscopic fraction of the marketplaces supported by Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. You're bordering on fanboi-ism here. In terms of the Focus vs Galaxy, touch responsiveness, I haven't seen data-- please cite a URL.
I've got three HTCs that you can use for target practice. They were pre-Android and they all stank....working wonderfully for a while then the touchpads died ugly, unrecoverable deaths. I have one remaining G1, the first GooglePhone from T-Mobile. It couldn't be upgraded without CyanogenMod, and doing that disabled the WiFi-- battery sucker that it was. Now it's good for random tests, and SIM-changing needs. Dreck, all four. But then my Motorola is now on the death watch list. Does anyone make a phone that works for years without problems?
Probably some, but not all. The premise of the post is cloying. Not all of the reviews have been positive at all. The OS has any number of deficiencies, as noted by a number of professional (rather than blogging) reviewers:
1) Not very well-designed user interface; often primitive when compared to iOS and Android Honeycomb, even BBOS
2) Highly unevolved app market place; much perceived incompatibility with applications on mobile websites
3) Potentially shorter battery life
4) Fewer free apps
5) Uses Bing rather than Google (or Apple) services; Bing is seen as inferior, right or wrong (I'm neutral)
Some of it's irrational perception, some of it's that Microsoft responded to iOS and Android very slowly; it's taken a seeming lifetime (for the computerbiz) for them to even bring them to market. Worse, they're also seen tied to Nokia's phones, which while very nice phones, aren't popular in the smartphone arena because of Nokia's steadfast support of dying OS platforms. So the post itself isn't very astute and draws a conclusion that trolls responses, IMHO.
Seen another way: Like all artillery system designers, you study the target, understand the medium thru which the the shell must transverse, and get the payload to the target.
To think that Symantec and AVG and Kaspersky et al are omnipotent is silly. At some point, each of these companies has to avoid false positives because they get the worst PR possible when they make mistakes. There are millions of legitimate apps out there, no matter how well or poorly written. It's a matter of getting to the correct controller, seeding it with destructive code, and making sure the code survives long enough to deliver the damaging payload that's necessary. Certainly the explanation is vastly more simple than the deed, but it's the deed that was successful. Does one generate malware detection that traps such a thing: Maybe-- but you don't give it to anyone because no civilians have centrifuges that are used to make weapons grade material.
Not true. The APNS push certificate, while solid from a chain of authorities perspective, has as a competitor, ActiveSync API (yes, you can get it for Android) that is also the crux of control for Windows Mobile 7/7.5 phones.
The APNS MDM certs are good yet Apple also now supports ActiveSync. It's up to MDM software, yours, cloud, or carrier-based, to do the job.
If you need to limit user download access, do it. Be brave. But eventually, you'll need to clamp down more tightly than users like. If you supply the phone, you're likely in the US to have the authority to dictate the rules. If not, then user and organizational data is in jeopardy unless common ground can be found.
That's what peer review is for, to vet the reasoning process and therefore, the crux of the domain of the output and its veracity. My experience is that people that are trained in long hand-drawn proofs are more comfortable with that process, while those comfy with the limitations of various processors, languages, FPUs and modes of expression will use those.
There is no reason to believe, as the research is scant at best, that Google even respects a robots.txt file. They are a vacuum hose attached to an analytic engine, easily metaphorized to Steven King's Langoliers.
Our experiences differ vastly. I've restored them. I can tell you that in certain areas, Ford did indeed uprate the car. Might have been more reliable. And it wasn't Jaguar-- it was an empty brand. Ford then stole several Jaguar design features (look at the Mercury Sable for a starter).
Jaguar owners look at people that changed the drive trains with distain. Their cars, the ones with the 350s and T400s, were called "lumps". I didn't have to tune or adjust valves (??) on the 3.8 and 4.2s that I owned. The engines were much tighter than what you describe. Sorry you got a ringer.
I've owned too many cars. I'll agree that the differential causes rapid torque rise offsets that translate to unmanageability. Turning off the auto-adjustments seems to make little difference, although you might try it to see if you like the control better.
I've been wondering about chipping it, and changing the table in several places. I'm tempted. But it's one more project in an endless list of projects, including a 70 VW Wesfailia (pun intended) and a couple of motorcycles. For now, I have only impulse needs to put my foot into it, and then, only under certain conditions does the mismatch bother me. I strong grip on the steering wheel compensates now that I know where it goes wampus.
Now you know at least one Mini owner that's not mad.
The Mini is only owned by BMW as a brand. Most are made in Oxford, of French, German, even US parts. The profit originally went to BMW. The rest went to the local dealer, and it's British only in the majority of its assembly labor.
Most Mini owners I know, in the US where I live, have mostly very good things to say about them. There are various minor complaints, but overall satisfaction in my anecdotal sampling say they're happy. So am I.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a false meme to start with. Citation is from the Heritage Foundation, which might as well be the softer branch of the John Birch Society. It's a way to pronounce additional fear, embarrass the Obama Administration farther than it already is, and anchor more false paranoia.
Summary: bad question, designed to be politically subversive to the current administration with propagandized memes.
You'll be far richer if you *don't* tell Paypal about those undocumented, database leaks with direct links to your private banker in Grand Cayman. So STFU.
I do take personal responsibility for privacy. And there are many hapless users out there that trust *US* to make the right choices for them. I trust the makers of my car's tires to use the right design and compound so that my tires don't blow out on the way to work.
But IT has allowed this assault on user dignity. That's you and me, the people that put this stuff together. Their expectation should be above the tawdry exposure of their privacy to the whimsy of their employer's incompetent IT staff. It's not right, not how the Internet was designed, not how resources should be monitored. Your inability to trust anyone these days is misplaced. The circumstances that have lead you to believe this are your own, but they are sad to me, the observer. We owe humanity their dignity and their basic human rights. If you roll over, you erode it by the displacement of your presence, like the death from a thousand cuts.
This very post, and all of the clicks behind it, are just kerosene to pour on the flames. Carreon isn't a twit, he's getting lots of free stuff from the crowds that go Fight! Fight! Fight! in the lunchrooms of their high schools, where their maturation process stopped.
Bravery? Douchebaggery? This is the Internet, where World==Dog. He's manipulated you, and a jillion others into clicking over truly stupid stuff. His lawyer==PR manager. Just by foisting/hoisting the argument, look at all the ostensible do-gooders he got to be sucker-baited into mess. Add in a little bit of testosterone, and you can almost smell the napalm.
...readily admit their own mistakes.
Here's another glass of Kool-Aid, kid. You're doing great.
Military intelligence? Government help? Microsoft Restrictions?
They publish and they publish, but their specs are often worthless in the face of major movement.
I'm not sure it's as simple as you state.
The post deals with the fact that https, considered secure and private, are in fact in the cited configuration, an open book. If you use a website for personal use, you have zero expectation of privacy of information that the employer can see or filter.
Your bank balance, your insurance information, what you bought with paypal, it's all revealed. Essentially, they see you through your clothes using a metaphor. They really don't have that right. It's sleazy, like putting a camera in the washroom or company showers.
Sure, you can decide not to use the company restroom. Or its showers. You can decide not to work there. But which of the two is reasonable? I posit that neither is. You have an expectation of privacy. Https and ssl/tls sites ought to be either be white/blacklisted or the user allowed the courtesy and modesty of privacy. To not do so, IMHO, is both inhumane and immoral.
And as I didn't sign up for the services and don't use them, I'm supposed to feel somehow protected.
But not only do I have to use Ghostery or a similar script killer, but I can't really use google and a wide variety of services.
Those that choose to be tracked and thrown into the hadoop mosh pit get what they deserve. It's not a quid pro quo. It's you let them do you for free, or you get money (or consideration for it) or you simply flip the bird and walk away. So I walk away.
When OEMs finally sell more than two tablets total, it benefits them. Right now, there are lots of gen1 and gen2 tablets being liquidated. Most of those had Android on them. OEMs need to sell, like anyone else, and at least they believe that adding RT, just like Windows whatever before RT, will make them money.
Let's discuss, for a moment, just how Microsoft's restrictions are. Oh, go ask HP about Windows Vista. Rinse, repeat. The very phrase "Microsoft restrictions" is an oxymoron.
I know this seems like reverse logic, but Microsoft having its own branded tablet then licensing it to OEMs is a good idea. First, there's a reference model, and someone BIG to compete with on price, added features, etc. It's a bit of a market creation tool to give Microsoft more reach with RT.
This begs the question: do I think it will work? No. Added Office or no, Microsoft is a battleship that made money by following and is now a battleship so jinormous that it takes three years to turn so it can fire its admittedly huge guns. It will, however, push Apple and Google forward towards adding value because they know just how large the shells that Microsoft fires can be. Everybody wins. Lots of powder burns.
As you say: 80K.... and look inside the categories. I have swallowed nothing; I'm going on my experience, and those of pros in the field whose job it is to know the industry and rate it.
Fanboi-ism isn't an endearing trait. Apology for coming really late to market then blowing it away with something that equals it and does one better might be a good start. Like many others, I'm disappointed that Microsoft tried again, and again, and failed, and failed. It's not a market where you get turf by being good until Version 5.0. Doesn't work that way when others dictate the rules of the space.
The source of my citations were reviews from professional reviewers, rather than bloggers, as cited initially. My first hand experience is only two days worth of look-see on a borrowed phone. I would tend to agree with the reviewers.
You may do so. You may be citing your own anecdotal contribution. Others have had mixed criticism regarding the UI. If it's good for you, great. The citations regarding web compatibility issues are as I state upthread, small but often showstoppers. Evidence said that it was a JS implementation difference. I'm sorry I can't cite the details. In terms of Nokia, it was the Windows 7.5OS cited as comparably more battery-consuming, phone to phone, especially when quiescent. Some have said that updates have reduced the power drain, anecdotally. As regards a search choice, you can call them the same, but much research says that they are vastly different, and with a very lopsided statistical use pattern, favoring Google. WRT the Google App, I personally wouldn't use it.
Google bought Moto, and I believe they'll live to regret it. Moto is much more than their phones. So is Nokia. Microsoft is unlikely to buy Nokia unless Nokia slides so much further that it's a buy you can't walk away from. Then, Microsoft-- whose hardware purchases have been not ultimately profitable for them-- will have the same mistake Google has made, and will shed the pieces of Nokia it doesn't need, until the marketplace changes once again and something else is new that they should have been working on for the last eight years. Instead, they were out cashing their options and running up the price of housing in Seattle.
The reviews and analysis I've read say: UI is definitely simple, and lacks depth and manipulation capabilities. I wish I could cite the sources. My own limited experience (two days with one) says: shrug. The website problems have been small, admittedly, but there is a growing problem with developers testing only iOS, and that leads to other QC problems, especially with JS.
Google's search is legendary. So is their vacuum cleaner of your personal life.
There is criticism that says that the UI is very easy to understand, but lacks depth of understandable user object manipulation capability, where iOS is very good at this. It's very pretty, but its subtleties are lost on developers, so far. Inconsistencies, like those that initially plagued Android, also seem to dog WM 7.5.
But you damn with faint praise at their marketplace. It's got basically a tiny, almost microscopic fraction of the marketplaces supported by Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. You're bordering on fanboi-ism here. In terms of the Focus vs Galaxy, touch responsiveness, I haven't seen data-- please cite a URL.
I've got three HTCs that you can use for target practice. They were pre-Android and they all stank... .working wonderfully for a while then the touchpads died ugly, unrecoverable deaths. I have one remaining G1, the first GooglePhone from T-Mobile. It couldn't be upgraded without CyanogenMod, and doing that disabled the WiFi-- battery sucker that it was. Now it's good for random tests, and SIM-changing needs. Dreck, all four. But then my Motorola is now on the death watch list. Does anyone make a phone that works for years without problems?
Probably some, but not all. The premise of the post is cloying. Not all of the reviews have been positive at all. The OS has any number of deficiencies, as noted by a number of professional (rather than blogging) reviewers:
1) Not very well-designed user interface; often primitive when compared to iOS and Android Honeycomb, even BBOS
2) Highly unevolved app market place; much perceived incompatibility with applications on mobile websites
3) Potentially shorter battery life
4) Fewer free apps
5) Uses Bing rather than Google (or Apple) services; Bing is seen as inferior, right or wrong (I'm neutral)
Some of it's irrational perception, some of it's that Microsoft responded to iOS and Android very slowly; it's taken a seeming lifetime (for the computerbiz) for them to even bring them to market. Worse, they're also seen tied to Nokia's phones, which while very nice phones, aren't popular in the smartphone arena because of Nokia's steadfast support of dying OS platforms. So the post itself isn't very astute and draws a conclusion that trolls responses, IMHO.
Seen another way: Like all artillery system designers, you study the target, understand the medium thru which the the shell must transverse, and get the payload to the target.
To think that Symantec and AVG and Kaspersky et al are omnipotent is silly. At some point, each of these companies has to avoid false positives because they get the worst PR possible when they make mistakes. There are millions of legitimate apps out there, no matter how well or poorly written. It's a matter of getting to the correct controller, seeding it with destructive code, and making sure the code survives long enough to deliver the damaging payload that's necessary. Certainly the explanation is vastly more simple than the deed, but it's the deed that was successful. Does one generate malware detection that traps such a thing: Maybe-- but you don't give it to anyone because no civilians have centrifuges that are used to make weapons grade material.
Not true. The APNS push certificate, while solid from a chain of authorities perspective, has as a competitor, ActiveSync API (yes, you can get it for Android) that is also the crux of control for Windows Mobile 7/7.5 phones.
The APNS MDM certs are good yet Apple also now supports ActiveSync. It's up to MDM software, yours, cloud, or carrier-based, to do the job.
If you need to limit user download access, do it. Be brave. But eventually, you'll need to clamp down more tightly than users like. If you supply the phone, you're likely in the US to have the authority to dictate the rules. If not, then user and organizational data is in jeopardy unless common ground can be found.
That's what peer review is for, to vet the reasoning process and therefore, the crux of the domain of the output and its veracity. My experience is that people that are trained in long hand-drawn proofs are more comfortable with that process, while those comfy with the limitations of various processors, languages, FPUs and modes of expression will use those.
Tools: mind first, medium second.
There is no reason to believe, as the research is scant at best, that Google even respects a robots.txt file. They are a vacuum hose attached to an analytic engine, easily metaphorized to Steven King's Langoliers.
Our experiences differ vastly. I've restored them. I can tell you that in certain areas, Ford did indeed uprate the car. Might have been more reliable. And it wasn't Jaguar-- it was an empty brand. Ford then stole several Jaguar design features (look at the Mercury Sable for a starter).
Jaguar owners look at people that changed the drive trains with distain. Their cars, the ones with the 350s and T400s, were called "lumps". I didn't have to tune or adjust valves (??) on the 3.8 and 4.2s that I owned. The engines were much tighter than what you describe. Sorry you got a ringer.
I've owned too many cars. I'll agree that the differential causes rapid torque rise offsets that translate to unmanageability. Turning off the auto-adjustments seems to make little difference, although you might try it to see if you like the control better.
I've been wondering about chipping it, and changing the table in several places. I'm tempted. But it's one more project in an endless list of projects, including a 70 VW Wesfailia (pun intended) and a couple of motorcycles. For now, I have only impulse needs to put my foot into it, and then, only under certain conditions does the mismatch bother me. I strong grip on the steering wheel compensates now that I know where it goes wampus.
Now you know at least one Mini owner that's not mad.
The Mini is only owned by BMW as a brand. Most are made in Oxford, of French, German, even US parts. The profit originally went to BMW. The rest went to the local dealer, and it's British only in the majority of its assembly labor.
Most Mini owners I know, in the US where I live, have mostly very good things to say about them. There are various minor complaints, but overall satisfaction in my anecdotal sampling say they're happy. So am I.