That is like Ford refusing to recall cars with bad airbags because they are more than a year old.
No it's not. One can result in death. The other results in annoyance.
YOU to pay for their mistake.
I'm confused. Isn't that how warranties work? They pay for manufacturer defects within the given time period, and not outside of the time period. I can't think of any faulty product I've owned where the manufacturer has gone outside of the warranty.
In fact, my 2011 Honda Civic just had it's transmission how bad at 95k miles. It's $4.4k to replace, one year out of warranty. Honda isn't paying.
I would like to understand from Tim Cook why he feels privacy rights need to protected even in the case of terror investigation (I agree they do) but access to information and a free and independent press does not require protection?
Don't complicate this. Tim Cook, and all of Apple's board, and their shareholders, maximize profits. Dropping access to the largest growing market for Apple products is obviously not an option.
When it comes to San Bernardino, they made a choice, based on profits. Decrypting phones for the authorities would be bad for business. Have a few cops swear off iPhones vs. the general populace understanding that anything on their iPhones can be turned over to the authorities without their permission at any time.
Apple is making Gab jump through flaming hoops to get their mobile app published.
Yes, and they can do that, because it's their app store and they make the rules. Apple isn't a democratic society with a constitution and bill of rights. Don't be confused. If you don't like how they operate, you choice is to vote with your wallet and buy non-Apple product alternatives.
The problem of course is that our spoiled society is unwillingly to actually do anything that deprives them of some product or service they desire, regardless of how much they disagree w/ the actions of the company behind it.
They do a great deal of harm in general, and as a search engine, they are the largest driving force behind mediocrity in our society
Free and fast access to information is by far the most important advancement of the last century. Maybe you aren't old enough, but I remember when if you wanted to know about some things, at best you'd have to hoof it to the library but in many cases the information just wasn't available anywhere that was accessible.
Because while we suck, we don't suck as bad as almost anywhere else
There are certainly other places that are more together, but "almost anywhere else" is a ridiculous statement.
If a country does evil, by law or custom, and further, makes you complicit in that evil, then you don't have to do business there (and you shouldn't, obviously.)
You are profoundly confused about the nature of a corporation. Corporations don't see evil, good, moral, amoral, etc. They see money. Everything they do is aimed at getting more of it. To do otherwise would warrant removal of the corporation's board. This is why we have (or should have) laws to keep corporations in check. They'll never do the "right" or "moral" thing on their own unless it happens, by chance, to line up with path that makes them more money.
Whilst Apple and Apple fans love to portray themselves/the company as doing the right thing
No one with half a brain thinks that. Apple is a corporation. They exist to make money. All of their actions are taken with the interest of making more money. Pretty clear that retaining access to what is probably the market with the largest growth potential over the next 5 years is fairly important. Doing anything other than what the Chinese govt is asking would be grounds for firing the entire existing Apple board.
If you are thinking that corporations have values, morals, personalities, etc. you ought to check yourself.
If you make an offer on a house, enter escrow, then learn the house has termites (the owner knew it and didn't disclose) the offer becomes, more or less, meaningless. Depending on the state you live in and the contingencies you wrote into the offer.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure buying a house and buying a corporation have different legal terms. But nice analogy anyhow.
Fuck you bud. People still work there, some with no choice due to visas. Go to hell.
Okay then, f*** the millions of people that had their identity exposed by Yahoo's lame security practices. Right?
If it's cheaper to have lax security and let breaches happen, companies will do that. The only way they'll stop is when it it's cheaper to have good security. The *only* thing a corporation understands is money.
The problem, in my opinion, is when the carrier gets involved with updates. They are a 3rd party inserting themselves into your relationship with the manufacturer of the device you purchased for no reason other than their own benefit.
You are correct in my experience. I had the pleasure of working for a company that made Android phones (one of the smaller ones). For every carrier they had unique builds with different software that needed to be QA'd separately.
Of course, carriers get to demand that (unless you are Apple I guess). If you don't comply, they just go with a different vendor that'll abide by their rules. By "go with", I mean advertise those phones and sell them in their stores and give discounts on them and offer payments plans.
Which is why the manufacturer shouldn't be in charge, or even allowed, to provide the updates. It should come from Google directly.
How would that work? Thousands of unique devices with arbitrary hardware and drivers. Google is going to manage unique Android dists for all of those devices including testing? People that suggest this type of thing have a profound misunderstand about the nature of Android. It's not Windows or anything close to it where it runs on well-defined and standardized hardware. Every device is different in ways that only the manufacturer, SoC vendor, and other hardware providers can code to.
The only way something like this could work is if Google specified a very narrow range of supported hardware configs. And if they did that, guess what? The hardware manufacturers would bow out of Android (or would have never bought into it to begin with). What's the point? They can't compete on the software, and now, they couldn't compete on the hardware either. I take it back. Even if they specified a narrow range of hardware configs, they'd still have to test all of those devices. Absolutely impractical.
P.S., if you really think updates should come from Google, but a Pixel or Nexus phone. Support that model. Don't go out and buy a Samsung and then cry about it. Vote with your wallet.
It's infinitely better than nothing though, isn't it?
You see how this works? I don't have to prove that mobile OSes are insecure, you have to prove that they are. This isn't how reasoning works. You don't start a conversation with someone and say, "cats are hyper intelligent, prove me wrong!". You start by providing proof or reasoning that supports your claim. I learned "because I said so" isn't a valid reason when I was around 4 years old.
You can tick-tock until you turn blue in the face, it is all the same to me.
I'm sure I'll get bored in short order, don't worry. In the mean time, I'm enjoying the fact that your infinite wisdom is being recorded forever in the annals of/.
If you want people to take you seriously, it's fairly common practice to provide facts to back up your claims. Not only did you fail to do that, you didn't even make any arguments to back up your logic. I think you'll find that when interacting with the Humans, it is common to do so.
how easily they can be compromised by apps
They can't be compromised by "apps" any easier than an app running on any computer. In fact, less so since mobile apps run in a sandbox (iOS and Android) and the OS doesn't allow root access (or the equivalent thereof) at all.
The only way I'd ever use a smartphone, regardless of how powerful it's processor was, how much RAM it had, and how much storage it had, as a general-purpose computer, is if I could install any OS and software I wanted to on it.
You can do that with any Android phone w/ an unlockable bootloader, which turns out to be many.
I have my doubts. Like I've said before, I have a drawer full of various ARM devices that all turned out to be less useful in real life than they looked on paper. The main problem is that there is just no standard for ARM socs. Each one requires a custom kernel and distribution. They don't have common hardware trees, and most importantly they lack a common, open boot loader.
^^^ This.
Folks that can't understand why it's such an effort for their carrier to update the Android OS on their device, or why they can't just compile AOSP and flash it onto their phones should read this.
Dude, you're using "number of stories" as a metric to compare the security of desktop linux (or other desktop OSes) to mobile OSes?
Dude, "number of stories" is great compared to your metric which was this one, single/. FUD article. I'm waiting for the evidence, in some form or another, to back up your claims that the OSes running on smart TVs is inherently less secure than say, a Linux desktop OS. Base it on any data you have, other than this one, single/. article. Tick tock...
Generally speaking such OSes are based on Linux to begin with, except they are much more locked down (e.g., not possible to get root without an exploit or install software except from curated sources).
It's just not worth it to me. Pay, pay, pay, that's the world we're more and more living in, and I don't care for it much.
I know. Paying for things. What a bother. You've always had to PAY PAY PAY for music. Unless you are one of those people that decided that paying for music is not fair? Something something ARTISTS, something something RIAA, something something ROBBERY.
I pay $14.95 / month for my entire family (up to 5 people) to stream (and skip) unlimited songs from any device from what seems like to me an unlimited catalog. That's not so bad when I consider in my 20s I was paying that much or more for a single album.
A full X11 stack running on Android is a good idea but only if the environment is unlocked in exactly the opposite way to how Android currently locks down the environment. You need to be able to add/remove desktop software to your phone for the concept to work.
Why? Like, if I install the Google Docs app from the Google Play store, that's not good enough?
when current market PC's could beat the "next gen" consoles right out of the gate and for $300-400 -- the same price that those consoles were selling for
Links? Make sure it's off the shelf and can support 60FPS 1080p gaming on current AAA titles like a console.
Shocking. You mean that most political systems are a gray area between extreme ideologies?
Those countries are WELL over the line of what would make your typical US citizen grab their constitutionally guaranteed fire arms and barricade the doors and windows.
Slashdot Mirror
That is like Ford refusing to recall cars with bad airbags because they are more than a year old.
No it's not. One can result in death. The other results in annoyance.
YOU to pay for their mistake.
I'm confused. Isn't that how warranties work? They pay for manufacturer defects within the given time period, and not outside of the time period. I can't think of any faulty product I've owned where the manufacturer has gone outside of the warranty.
In fact, my 2011 Honda Civic just had it's transmission how bad at 95k miles. It's $4.4k to replace, one year out of warranty. Honda isn't paying.
Bitcoin crossed above the $1,000 mark for the first time since 2013, but it has now tumbled below that level.
I just checked and it's $965. Last time I checked (which was a few months ago) it was ~$600.
I would like to understand from Tim Cook why he feels privacy rights need to protected even in the case of terror investigation (I agree they do) but access to information and a free and independent press does not require protection?
Don't complicate this. Tim Cook, and all of Apple's board, and their shareholders, maximize profits. Dropping access to the largest growing market for Apple products is obviously not an option.
When it comes to San Bernardino, they made a choice, based on profits. Decrypting phones for the authorities would be bad for business. Have a few cops swear off iPhones vs. the general populace understanding that anything on their iPhones can be turned over to the authorities without their permission at any time.
Apple is making Gab jump through flaming hoops to get their mobile app published.
Yes, and they can do that, because it's their app store and they make the rules. Apple isn't a democratic society with a constitution and bill of rights. Don't be confused. If you don't like how they operate, you choice is to vote with your wallet and buy non-Apple product alternatives.
The problem of course is that our spoiled society is unwillingly to actually do anything that deprives them of some product or service they desire, regardless of how much they disagree w/ the actions of the company behind it.
They do a great deal of harm in general, and as a search engine, they are the largest driving force behind mediocrity in our society
Free and fast access to information is by far the most important advancement of the last century. Maybe you aren't old enough, but I remember when if you wanted to know about some things, at best you'd have to hoof it to the library but in many cases the information just wasn't available anywhere that was accessible.
Because while we suck, we don't suck as bad as almost anywhere else
There are certainly other places that are more together, but "almost anywhere else" is a ridiculous statement.
If a country does evil, by law or custom, and further, makes you complicit in that evil, then you don't have to do business there (and you shouldn't, obviously.)
You are profoundly confused about the nature of a corporation. Corporations don't see evil, good, moral, amoral, etc. They see money. Everything they do is aimed at getting more of it. To do otherwise would warrant removal of the corporation's board. This is why we have (or should have) laws to keep corporations in check. They'll never do the "right" or "moral" thing on their own unless it happens, by chance, to line up with path that makes them more money.
Whilst Apple and Apple fans love to portray themselves/the company as doing the right thing
No one with half a brain thinks that. Apple is a corporation. They exist to make money. All of their actions are taken with the interest of making more money. Pretty clear that retaining access to what is probably the market with the largest growth potential over the next 5 years is fairly important. Doing anything other than what the Chinese govt is asking would be grounds for firing the entire existing Apple board.
If you are thinking that corporations have values, morals, personalities, etc. you ought to check yourself.
If you make an offer on a house, enter escrow, then learn the house has termites (the owner knew it and didn't disclose) the offer becomes, more or less, meaningless. Depending on the state you live in and the contingencies you wrote into the offer.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure buying a house and buying a corporation have different legal terms. But nice analogy anyhow.
Fuck you bud. People still work there, some with no choice due to visas. Go to hell.
Okay then, f*** the millions of people that had their identity exposed by Yahoo's lame security practices. Right?
If it's cheaper to have lax security and let breaches happen, companies will do that. The only way they'll stop is when it it's cheaper to have good security. The *only* thing a corporation understands is money.
The problem, in my opinion, is when the carrier gets involved with updates. They are a 3rd party inserting themselves into your relationship with the manufacturer of the device you purchased for no reason other than their own benefit.
You are correct in my experience. I had the pleasure of working for a company that made Android phones (one of the smaller ones). For every carrier they had unique builds with different software that needed to be QA'd separately.
Of course, carriers get to demand that (unless you are Apple I guess). If you don't comply, they just go with a different vendor that'll abide by their rules. By "go with", I mean advertise those phones and sell them in their stores and give discounts on them and offer payments plans.
Which is why the manufacturer shouldn't be in charge, or even allowed, to provide the updates. It should come from Google directly.
How would that work? Thousands of unique devices with arbitrary hardware and drivers. Google is going to manage unique Android dists for all of those devices including testing? People that suggest this type of thing have a profound misunderstand about the nature of Android. It's not Windows or anything close to it where it runs on well-defined and standardized hardware. Every device is different in ways that only the manufacturer, SoC vendor, and other hardware providers can code to.
The only way something like this could work is if Google specified a very narrow range of supported hardware configs. And if they did that, guess what? The hardware manufacturers would bow out of Android (or would have never bought into it to begin with). What's the point? They can't compete on the software, and now, they couldn't compete on the hardware either. I take it back. Even if they specified a narrow range of hardware configs, they'd still have to test all of those devices. Absolutely impractical.
P.S., if you really think updates should come from Google, but a Pixel or Nexus phone. Support that model. Don't go out and buy a Samsung and then cry about it. Vote with your wallet.
A personal anecdote isn't even a metric, so no.
It's infinitely better than nothing though, isn't it?
You see how this works? I don't have to prove that mobile OSes are insecure, you have to prove that they are. This isn't how reasoning works. You don't start a conversation with someone and say, "cats are hyper intelligent, prove me wrong!". You start by providing proof or reasoning that supports your claim. I learned "because I said so" isn't a valid reason when I was around 4 years old.
You can tick-tock until you turn blue in the face, it is all the same to me.
I'm sure I'll get bored in short order, don't worry. In the mean time, I'm enjoying the fact that your infinite wisdom is being recorded forever in the annals of /.
you can scoff at me and ridicule me all you want
I'd be happy to.
If you want 'proof'
If you want people to take you seriously, it's fairly common practice to provide facts to back up your claims. Not only did you fail to do that, you didn't even make any arguments to back up your logic. I think you'll find that when interacting with the Humans, it is common to do so.
how easily they can be compromised by apps
They can't be compromised by "apps" any easier than an app running on any computer. In fact, less so since mobile apps run in a sandbox (iOS and Android) and the OS doesn't allow root access (or the equivalent thereof) at all.
The only way I'd ever use a smartphone, regardless of how powerful it's processor was, how much RAM it had, and how much storage it had, as a general-purpose computer, is if I could install any OS and software I wanted to on it.
You can do that with any Android phone w/ an unlockable bootloader, which turns out to be many.
I have my doubts. Like I've said before, I have a drawer full of various ARM devices that all turned out to be less useful in real life than they looked on paper. The main problem is that there is just no standard for ARM socs. Each one requires a custom kernel and distribution. They don't have common hardware trees, and most importantly they lack a common, open boot loader.
^^^ This.
Folks that can't understand why it's such an effort for their carrier to update the Android OS on their device, or why they can't just compile AOSP and flash it onto their phones should read this.
Dude, you're using "number of stories" as a metric to compare the security of desktop linux (or other desktop OSes) to mobile OSes?
Dude, "number of stories" is great compared to your metric which was this one, single /. FUD article. I'm waiting for the evidence, in some form or another, to back up your claims that the OSes running on smart TVs is inherently less secure than say, a Linux desktop OS. Base it on any data you have, other than this one, single /. article. Tick tock ...
Generally speaking such OSes are based on Linux to begin with, except they are much more locked down (e.g., not possible to get root without an exploit or install software except from curated sources).
It's just not worth it to me. Pay, pay, pay, that's the world we're more and more living in, and I don't care for it much.
I know. Paying for things. What a bother. You've always had to PAY PAY PAY for music. Unless you are one of those people that decided that paying for music is not fair? Something something ARTISTS, something something RIAA, something something ROBBERY.
I pay $14.95 / month for my entire family (up to 5 people) to stream (and skip) unlimited songs from any device from what seems like to me an unlimited catalog. That's not so bad when I consider in my 20s I was paying that much or more for a single album.
You cannot compare and contrast the tax and benefit structure of such nations with that of the US without some serious hand waving.
And by the same token, you cannot claim socialism doesn't work without some serious hand waving (of which you are generously partaking above).
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash...
Yes, let's have a link war. It'll prove everything, honest.
For mousing, just use the iPhone (or a Bluetooth track-pad).
I've tried Apple trackpads w/ iOS and it doesn't (didn't) work. Maybe I did something wrong.
Otherwise your 'computer' has essentially zero security -- because it's a smartphone.
We aren't fooled by the bold and italics. People are going to expect some facts that back up your claim.
A full X11 stack running on Android is a good idea but only if the environment is unlocked in exactly the opposite way to how Android currently locks down the environment. You need to be able to add/remove desktop software to your phone for the concept to work.
Why? Like, if I install the Google Docs app from the Google Play store, that's not good enough?
Great! Now when my phone is dropped, lost, stolen or explodes (we are talking about Samsung), I don't just lose my phone but also my PC.
I guess you are anti-laptop as well, because those can be lost or stolen just as easily.
when current market PC's could beat the "next gen" consoles right out of the gate and for $300-400 -- the same price that those consoles were selling for
Links? Make sure it's off the shelf and can support 60FPS 1080p gaming on current AAA titles like a console.
I define socialism as a political system that scares the bugeesus out of the typical American voter.
I see capitalist welfare states.
Yes, exactly the definition of socialism pasted onto any US politician that is in favor of any sort of welfare.
Shocking. You mean that most political systems are a gray area between extreme ideologies?
Those countries are WELL over the line of what would make your typical US citizen grab their constitutionally guaranteed fire arms and barricade the doors and windows.