The whole Google scene is a security disaster by design. It beats me how a company with so many PhDs can be so cavalier with people's security and hostile to their privacy.
yeah, great point. let's go back to having all pages rendered on the server and sent as static documents back to the client. while we are at it, let's get rid of any system that runs code locally on your device... sandbox or not.
while we are at it, let's blame google for all operating systems and environments that do anything other than the above.
yep, sounds like you have a good grip on the solution alright.
But who is to say an attacker or misbehaving user doesn't later find a bug to turn it back on or circumvent the disablement?
you have to install a native binary to use chrome remote desktop. if an attacker can install arbitrary binaries on your device and twiddle arbitrary application settings, then you have bigger problems.
Lets face it more and more people are becoming sheep by letting companies say dictate what they like by constantly bombarding them with "suggestions".
welcome to the Real World, where people don't just give you billion dollar a year services for free. exercise your free will to either participate in the data collection + free service realm, or private + pay realm.
google ads are generally unobtrusive enough to not block me from doing what i want. sure, i still see them and they most likely have a subconscious effect. the same effect that radio, TV, billboard, and print ads have on me. the same affect advertising has had on people from the day someone thought of it.
If it were, then chromebooks wouldn't exist; they'd be Android devices which run Chrome for Android.
you don't understand chromebooks. they exist to provide a zero-maintenance cloud-only (mostly) device. android isn't that since it has local installs and "native" applications.
never in my life would i have expected a slashdotter to promote keeping *your money in mutual funds* and giving away all control over *your money* to a corporation. To basically give away that control simply because it's "too hard" to *store all your money under your matress* and keep track of *where it is buried in the yard*, smacks of going backwards.
sounds pretty stupid now doesn't it?
i'm not going backwards, i'm just in touch with reality. people like you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand with cloud storage. everything about you is already stored online. your medical records, your credit card history, your tax history, your financials, and so on. all under the control of corporations. but you think if you keep those pictures of your son's 5th birthday party, that no one gives a flying poop about, on a local disk instead of the cloud, you are somehow "under control"?
At $10 per gigabyte to upload and $10 per gigabyte to download over a cellular network in the United States, this safety has a substantial cost associated with it.
1. if you don't have access to broadband, this isn't for you 2. if you need to transfer a substantial portion of your total data each month, this isn't for you
Why install office when you can just access it from your work machine at home? My job gave me a full copy of Office, but I've never installed it because it's faster to just RDP in to work rather than clutter up my PC with 12GB of office crap just to be able to use Word and Excel three times a year.
1. because it's a bad idea to mix your work and personal documents? 2. because you have to spend time transferring the docs from work to your personal account 3. because if you lose your job, you won't be able to open any of your documents 4. because using a remote display introduces lag
if you use it 3x, you should just pick an online free solution (such as google docs).
In the end, it boils down to - are there things you do in public that you wouldn't otherwise if everyone in the world knew you personally did those things?
the world would be a better place if people behaved as though the world was watching them all the time.
action bar is not part of the support libraries. you can use ActionBarSherlock to fake an action bar on 2.x devices.
for a simple action bar, android 3.x+ translates the context menu to comparable action bar elements. however, if you want to do anything more complex with the action bar, you are stuck in compatibility hell with conditional blocks for different API levels.
regardless of % of devices running it, UI shift happened in 3.0. thats's where we got the action bar, holo theme, soft keys. contextual action bar, and so on. i wasn't saying anything political, just technical.
4.x is Jelly Bean
4.x is NOT jellybean. 4.1+ is jellybean. 4.0.x is ice cream sandwich.
Meanwhile your buddy, with a two or three year old Android phone has never seen an OS update unless they tore into the device to install it on their own...
if you are going to make obviously untrue claims, it pretty much discounts the rest of your post, which may (or may not) have contained some good points.
Their record for continuously pushing out security updates to devices that are a few years old is, on average, way ahead of everything but the Nexus Android phones though.
the nexus s was released in 2010, and is currently running android 4.1.2.
For the most part, the 2.x versions have most of the stuff people need, targeting a newer version should really only be done when you need to. There's no point in throwing out users if you don't have to.
this isn't really true. there are major UI shifts in 4.0 (actually 3.0) that mean writing dual code paths for a lot of things. action bars vs. options menu. contextual action bars vs. context menus. those are things that almost every app has to deal with. it's a major pain.
Talking about 4.0 is good and all, but 4.0 is two years old.
4.0 (well, actually 3.0) is where the major UI shift happened. you can easily code to 4.0.x APIs and target all 4.x devices. and by doing that, you target more users than if you targeted iOS 6.
the 33% of android users on android 4 (of the 75% of mobile users on android) is still greater than the 93% of iOS 6 users (of the 17% of mobile users on iOS)... by factor of 1.7x.
so android developers can code to android 4 and still target 1.7x more developers than iOS 6.
p.s., android 3 is where the big UI paradigm shift happened... so coding to android 4 (vs. android 4.1.x, or 4.2.x) is quite reasonable.
"... a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."
yep, that's exactly what i meant.
or evil
you don't know what it means when someone puts a word in quotes do you? here you go,
"... to acknowledge that you're abusing a word's meaning, or using it in a nonstandard way."
You equate them
i never equated them. do you know what the word "or" means?
you'll always win, but never be right
and you may think that when you run your mouth / keyboard for long enough and people walk away that you've outsmarted them, when in reality they just came to the (correct) conclusion that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
how about occam's razor? what's more likely... that corporations and the people that run them are inherently "evil" and that they scheme behind closed doors to harm the public... the same public that buys their products and earns them money?
or that corporations just do whatever they can, skirting the law, to make as much money as possible?
corporations don't work hard to harm anyone. they work hard to increase profits. the fact that people are getting hurt is in itself neither here nor there. it's important to understand the motivations. i.e., an individual might hurt people because they are a sociopath and need mental help. if a corporation harms people, the only way to counteract it is by enacting laws that make it financially disadvantageous to hurt people.
There's no requirement that Tivo patent it. If they didn't, nobody else could, as they'd be prior art. But they did. So I can fault them for their bad act, even if the system is also broken.
"tivo" is not a person or persons. stop expecting it to act as such. tivo is a corporation. the soul purpose of a corporation is to profit. that's all it does. a corporation continuously adjusts itself, to the best of its ability, to maximize profits.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole Google scene is a security disaster by design. It beats me how a company with so many PhDs can be so cavalier with people's security and hostile to their privacy.
yeah, great point. let's go back to having all pages rendered on the server and sent as static documents back to the client. while we are at it, let's get rid of any system that runs code locally on your device ... sandbox or not.
while we are at it, let's blame google for all operating systems and environments that do anything other than the above.
yep, sounds like you have a good grip on the solution alright.
But who is to say an attacker or misbehaving user doesn't later find a bug to turn it back on or circumvent the disablement?
you have to install a native binary to use chrome remote desktop. if an attacker can install arbitrary binaries on your device and twiddle arbitrary application settings, then you have bigger problems.
Lets face it more and more people are becoming sheep by letting companies say dictate what they like by constantly bombarding them with "suggestions".
welcome to the Real World, where people don't just give you billion dollar a year services for free. exercise your free will to either participate in the data collection + free service realm, or private + pay realm.
google ads are generally unobtrusive enough to not block me from doing what i want. sure, i still see them and they most likely have a subconscious effect. the same effect that radio, TV, billboard, and print ads have on me. the same affect advertising has had on people from the day someone thought of it.
If it were, then chromebooks wouldn't exist; they'd be Android devices which run Chrome for Android.
you don't understand chromebooks. they exist to provide a zero-maintenance cloud-only (mostly) device. android isn't that since it has local installs and "native" applications.
You can pull your money out of the mutual fund, and the big bad corporation doesn't have it anymore.
but they still have your personal data, don't they? they keep it forever and could just as easily share it with whoever they want.
never in my life would i have expected a slashdotter to promote keeping *your money in mutual funds* and giving away all control over *your money* to a corporation. To basically give away that control simply because it's "too hard" to *store all your money under your matress* and keep track of *where it is buried in the yard*, smacks of going backwards.
sounds pretty stupid now doesn't it?
i'm not going backwards, i'm just in touch with reality. people like you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand with cloud storage. everything about you is already stored online. your medical records, your credit card history, your tax history, your financials, and so on. all under the control of corporations. but you think if you keep those pictures of your son's 5th birthday party, that no one gives a flying poop about, on a local disk instead of the cloud, you are somehow "under control"?
Will you be bombarded with ads? Sure?
nope?
if you never visit a google site, you'll never see a google ad on your chromebook. they don't insert ads at the OS level.
Most users use the same minimum length easily guessable password for all of their online accounts, There is no way you can call that safer.
he meant safe in terms of losing the data, or not. not safe in terms of securing it.
At $10 per gigabyte to upload and $10 per gigabyte to download over a cellular network in the United States, this safety has a substantial cost associated with it.
1. if you don't have access to broadband, this isn't for you
2. if you need to transfer a substantial portion of your total data each month, this isn't for you
in other words, it's for almost everyone.
Price will be determined by demand
the end is near ...
if some douche stores pictures of his GFs ass on picasa and photobucket, then i hope he gets what he deserves.
Why install office when you can just access it from your work machine at home? My job gave me a full copy of Office, but I've never installed it because it's faster to just RDP in to work rather than clutter up my PC with 12GB of office crap just to be able to use Word and Excel three times a year.
1. because it's a bad idea to mix your work and personal documents?
2. because you have to spend time transferring the docs from work to your personal account
3. because if you lose your job, you won't be able to open any of your documents
4. because using a remote display introduces lag
if you use it 3x, you should just pick an online free solution (such as google docs).
In the end, it boils down to - are there things you do in public that you wouldn't otherwise if everyone in the world knew you personally did those things?
the world would be a better place if people behaved as though the world was watching them all the time.
action bar is not part of the support libraries. you can use ActionBarSherlock to fake an action bar on 2.x devices.
for a simple action bar, android 3.x+ translates the context menu to comparable action bar elements. however, if you want to do anything more complex with the action bar, you are stuck in compatibility hell with conditional blocks for different API levels.
0.1% of the market is on 3.2
regardless of % of devices running it, UI shift happened in 3.0. thats's where we got the action bar, holo theme, soft keys. contextual action bar, and so on. i wasn't saying anything political, just technical.
4.x is Jelly Bean
4.x is NOT jellybean. 4.1+ is jellybean. 4.0.x is ice cream sandwich.
oh you are right, no two or three year old android phone has EVER received a stock update.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Nexus#Smartphones
oops.
Meanwhile your buddy, with a two or three year old Android phone has never seen an OS update unless they tore into the device to install it on their own...
if you are going to make obviously untrue claims, it pretty much discounts the rest of your post, which may (or may not) have contained some good points.
Their record for continuously pushing out security updates to devices that are a few years old is, on average, way ahead of everything but the Nexus Android phones though.
the nexus s was released in 2010, and is currently running android 4.1.2.
For the most part, the 2.x versions have most of the stuff people need, targeting a newer version should really only be done when you need to. There's no point in throwing out users if you don't have to.
this isn't really true. there are major UI shifts in 4.0 (actually 3.0) that mean writing dual code paths for a lot of things. action bars vs. options menu. contextual action bars vs. context menus. those are things that almost every app has to deal with. it's a major pain.
Talking about 4.0 is good and all, but 4.0 is two years old.
4.0 (well, actually 3.0) is where the major UI shift happened. you can easily code to 4.0.x APIs and target all 4.x devices. and by doing that, you target more users than if you targeted iOS 6.
the 33% of android users on android 4 (of the 75% of mobile users on android) is still greater than the 93% of iOS 6 users (of the 17% of mobile users on iOS) ... by factor of 1.7x.
so android developers can code to android 4 and still target 1.7x more developers than iOS 6.
p.s., android 3 is where the big UI paradigm shift happened ... so coding to android 4 (vs. android 4.1.x, or 4.2.x) is quite reasonable.
You don't know the meaning of either sociopath
"... a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."
yep, that's exactly what i meant.
or evil
you don't know what it means when someone puts a word in quotes do you? here you go,
"... to acknowledge that you're abusing a word's meaning, or using it in a nonstandard way."
You equate them
i never equated them. do you know what the word "or" means?
you'll always win, but never be right
and you may think that when you run your mouth / keyboard for long enough and people walk away that you've outsmarted them, when in reality they just came to the (correct) conclusion that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
how about occam's razor? what's more likely ... that corporations and the people that run them are inherently "evil" and that they scheme behind closed doors to harm the public ... the same public that buys their products and earns them money?
or that corporations just do whatever they can, skirting the law, to make as much money as possible?
sheesh.
corporations don't work hard to harm anyone. they work hard to increase profits. the fact that people are getting hurt is in itself neither here nor there. it's important to understand the motivations. i.e., an individual might hurt people because they are a sociopath and need mental help. if a corporation harms people, the only way to counteract it is by enacting laws that make it financially disadvantageous to hurt people.
There's no requirement that Tivo patent it. If they didn't, nobody else could, as they'd be prior art. But they did. So I can fault them for their bad act, even if the system is also broken.
"tivo" is not a person or persons. stop expecting it to act as such. tivo is a corporation. the soul purpose of a corporation is to profit. that's all it does. a corporation continuously adjusts itself, to the best of its ability, to maximize profits.