There is no solution, but I look forward to seeing what functionality my iPad and my wife's iPhone lose as a result of whatever they propose as a "solution" in the next iOS update.
I fail to see how that is relevant here; we're not talking about PCs, but I'll bite anyway.
You do, of course, have to wait for your OS vendor (Microsoft) to patch your Windows PC, just the same as I have to wait for My phone's OS vendor (Google) to patch my Nexus device, or an iPhone user has to wait for their phone's OS vendor (Apple) to patch their iPhone. The difference here is that Google pushes those patches faster than Microsoft or Apple.
to further my point, though, since we're talking about phones: replace your PC with a Windows phone. Does your argument still hold up? Almost.
The companies that make your Windows Phone handset—or even the chips inside them—also frequently provide us updated firmware that they’ve written, tested, and want us to include.
The implication being that, if updated firmware isn't provided, your phone doesn't get an update. Yes, updates all come directly from Microsoft, but they can only be released with the cooperation of the phone manufacturer. Also, although the updates come directly from Microsoft, they still require carrier review and approval before being released.
We work closely with our carrier partners, and encourage them to test our software as swiftly as possible. But it’s still their network, and the reality is that some carriers require more time than others. By the way, this carrier testing is a common industry practice that all of our competitors must also undergo. No exceptions.
Add to that, some (I'd say most) updates are hardware-specific, just as in the iPhone and Android world, and we get this:
One important point worth highlighting: Our update technology allows us to precisely target which phones receive an update. Since some updates are hardware-specific, we don’t send every update to every device.
So, why not just bundle all the drivers and firmware and features and crap into a single image and let the devices use just what they need from all of that? Storage. We're talking about devices that don't have much of it. The solution is to tailor system images to devices, including only the drivers, firmware, and apps that are appropriate for each device. And the carriers have the final say in what is allowed on their networks.
Not the guy you were replying to, but I'll answer #5 anyway. It means any developer can slip malware past an Apple App Store review by making it wait a month or so before activating.
Blame your phone manufacturer and carrier for your lack of update. I have a Nexus device and had the stagefright update the next day, direct from Google. Same for the password field update (which didn't affect me as I use a pattern lock). Apple has never released a patch that fast for iOS.
Yes, it was. The counterfeit XCode the affected developers are using is dropping additional code into their projects. Think about that, seriously. That means the code is in their app (even if they can't see it). Again, think about that. Do you see how this indicates that, perhaps, a developer might be able to slip their own malware code into an app? This is only the first *detected* instance of this, because fewer people have been looking. It's probably safe to hold your breath until the next one.
Why didn't Samsung counter with "Neither can Android, so it's just as different as Windows CE; not infringing." Boom goes the dynamite. Either Android isn't infringing because it's different in the same way as the would-be prior art, or Android would be infringing, if there weren't prior art.
Swipe is a verb, one definition of which reads "an act or instance of moving one's finger across a touchscreen to activate a function". Swype is a noun used to name a keyboard app. Please, please, please start using these correctly; you're making my brain hurt and it's too early in the day for that to be happening already.
I know this quite well, as I use the MS Office suite of applications on my iPad. But, the question that was asked was, with context, "Keynote is $10 on the App Store. Is that close enough?" If Keynote can edit PowerPoint presentations, the answer to that question is "yes"; if not, it is "no".
Yup and unsolicited transmissions over mediums which incur a transmission cost for the recipient are illegal in the US, thanks to fax spammers. The loophole used by internet advertisers is that your browser, acting on your behalf, did solicit the content. The loophole used by we end users is that we can stop our browsers from doing so; and not requesting content will never be illegal.
Did they seriously compare not making a "legitimate" copy of their ad to making an illicit copy of a movie, as though they were the same thing?
Whenever I encounter someone who gets truly offended at the use of a gender-specific term, I start using a word I coined for just that scenario around them: hesheit. I usually get to say it once or twice before being asked what it is that I'm saying; shortly thereafter, "he" and "she" suddenly become acceptable again. Once, I had someone inquire as to why "he" came first in my coined term, insinuating that it was still sexist, so I pronounced the four possible permutations of the term not starting with "he" (sheheit, sheithe, itheshe, itshehe) and she replied with the remaining permutation (heitshe) before agreeing that I had, indeed, chosen correctly before requesting that I resume my use of "he" and "she".
It's amazing how quickly people stop being offended by stupid shit as soon as you show them that the obvious alternatives are all much more offensive. And yes, "hesheit" is offensive; it's offensive to the tongue of the person saying it (though much less so than the other permutations), offensive to the person hearing it and, with a bit of imagination, can even be heard as other, more offensive, phrases. Once that's been considered, referring to an unidentified (to you) individual who the person you're speaking to happens to know is a woman as "he" becomes acceptable.
I never said they were. Your post, while technically correct, does not make the post I was replying to any less incorrect or off-topic. The difference between a login screen that also serves as a lock screen and a lock screen that only serves as a lock screen is that the user is logged in regardless of whether they have unlocked the screen at any point; any start-up apps designated to run as their user have been started and will already be waiting for them when they unlock the device. It is a subtle but important distinction as, with a login screen, those apps would not start until the user logged in.
Since the focus of this article is the Android lock screen and the closest direct comparison is the iOS lock screen, which is also not a login screen, it makes no sense to discuss login screens.
I've seen both on both sides of the fence. One of my Apple-loving friends is hostile toward my Android phone despite never having used one as a primary device, while my Apple-loving wife switched to Android for a little over a year before going back to the iPhone; she doesn't dislike Android, she just wanted to go back to using the apps she had already gotten used to (and paid for) on iOS. Meanwhile, I only ever hear my Android-using friends and colleagues poke fun at Apple users in a joking manner; most of us are also Apple users, just not when it comes to our phones. Personally, that means an iPad (original), iPad Air, Apple TV, iPod Classic, iPod Nano, and two MacBook Pros; for my best friend that means two MacBook Pros, an iPad Air, and an iPod Touch; almost every one of my friends and colleagues has at least one Apple device that they use regularly, though, for most, that device is not their phone.
Poking fun at a group of people of which you are a member is not a form of hostility. Grow up.
And that also assumes that the convenience-minded users of these devices use the less convenient (when compared to PIN or Pattern locks) Password lock. It's so rare I can honestly say I've never seen it used outside the 5 minutes I had my phone configured to use it about 4 years ago. I am security-conscious but it completely negated the very reason I carry a phone-capable pocket computer with me in the first place: to fetch information as quickly as possible.
I can't help but think having a full QUERTY keyboard (and not the "here's your letters, press here for numbers, there for symbols, there again for more symbols, and there for smileys" crap we have today) would fix that. Preferably physical. I mean, I never had any issue with a proper password on the Blackberry devices I used before Android.
And that's not what this is doing. It's the lock screen, it runs when you're already logged in, lest all of your apps (even the one controlling phone functionality, which resides behind said lock screen) close every time you lock your phone. You know, just like they do when you log out of your shell.
Certainly. I'll admit to not having looked at the numbers and letting media sensationalism color my question; thus why it was rhetorical and why I do not allow myself to hold a position on the matter. Being uninformed, it would be irresponsible for me to do otherwise.
To put it another way, I've been robbed at gunpoint twice in my lifetime. Once by a group of 3 black men and once by a lone black man. Many would be biased against black men and guns after those incidents; that would be an example of an uninformed position. Taking into account the number of black men I have encountered who have not robbed me at gunpoint, and the number of guns not used to rob me, my informed position is not to automatically think every black man I see is going to rob me or that every gun out there is going to be used in a robbery.
Informed positions. They're useful, especially if you don't want to live in constant fear.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no solution, but I look forward to seeing what functionality my iPad and my wife's iPhone lose as a result of whatever they propose as a "solution" in the next iOS update.
You do, of course, have to wait for your OS vendor (Microsoft) to patch your Windows PC, just the same as I have to wait for My phone's OS vendor (Google) to patch my Nexus device, or an iPhone user has to wait for their phone's OS vendor (Apple) to patch their iPhone. The difference here is that Google pushes those patches faster than Microsoft or Apple.
to further my point, though, since we're talking about phones: replace your PC with a Windows phone. Does your argument still hold up? Almost.
The companies that make your Windows Phone handset—or even the chips inside them—also frequently provide us updated firmware that they’ve written, tested, and want us to include.
The implication being that, if updated firmware isn't provided, your phone doesn't get an update. Yes, updates all come directly from Microsoft, but they can only be released with the cooperation of the phone manufacturer. Also, although the updates come directly from Microsoft, they still require carrier review and approval before being released.
We work closely with our carrier partners, and encourage them to test our software as swiftly as possible. But it’s still their network, and the reality is that some carriers require more time than others. By the way, this carrier testing is a common industry practice that all of our competitors must also undergo. No exceptions.
Add to that, some (I'd say most) updates are hardware-specific, just as in the iPhone and Android world, and we get this:
One important point worth highlighting: Our update technology allows us to precisely target which phones receive an update. Since some updates are hardware-specific, we don’t send every update to every device.
So, why not just bundle all the drivers and firmware and features and crap into a single image and let the devices use just what they need from all of that? Storage. We're talking about devices that don't have much of it. The solution is to tailor system images to devices, including only the drivers, firmware, and apps that are appropriate for each device. And the carriers have the final say in what is allowed on their networks.
Did she have cows and a hat?
Not the guy you were replying to, but I'll answer #5 anyway. It means any developer can slip malware past an Apple App Store review by making it wait a month or so before activating.
Yeah, it tells me the topic of this discussion is the article it's attached to and the poster you're attempting to troll is staying on-topic.
Blame your phone manufacturer and carrier for your lack of update. I have a Nexus device and had the stagefright update the next day, direct from Google. Same for the password field update (which didn't affect me as I use a pattern lock). Apple has never released a patch that fast for iOS.
Yes, it was. The counterfeit XCode the affected developers are using is dropping additional code into their projects. Think about that, seriously. That means the code is in their app (even if they can't see it). Again, think about that. Do you see how this indicates that, perhaps, a developer might be able to slip their own malware code into an app? This is only the first *detected* instance of this, because fewer people have been looking. It's probably safe to hold your breath until the next one.
Why didn't Samsung counter with "Neither can Android, so it's just as different as Windows CE; not infringing." Boom goes the dynamite. Either Android isn't infringing because it's different in the same way as the would-be prior art, or Android would be infringing, if there weren't prior art.
Swipe is a verb, one definition of which reads "an act or instance of moving one's finger across a touchscreen to activate a function". Swype is a noun used to name a keyboard app. Please, please, please start using these correctly; you're making my brain hurt and it's too early in the day for that to be happening already.
I see you've brought your sense of humor with you today.
I know this quite well, as I use the MS Office suite of applications on my iPad. But, the question that was asked was, with context, "Keynote is $10 on the App Store. Is that close enough?" If Keynote can edit PowerPoint presentations, the answer to that question is "yes"; if not, it is "no".
Yup and unsolicited transmissions over mediums which incur a transmission cost for the recipient are illegal in the US, thanks to fax spammers. The loophole used by internet advertisers is that your browser, acting on your behalf, did solicit the content. The loophole used by we end users is that we can stop our browsers from doing so; and not requesting content will never be illegal.
Did they seriously compare not making a "legitimate" copy of their ad to making an illicit copy of a movie, as though they were the same thing?
Oh the irony.
Indeed.
Whenever I encounter someone who gets truly offended at the use of a gender-specific term, I start using a word I coined for just that scenario around them: hesheit. I usually get to say it once or twice before being asked what it is that I'm saying; shortly thereafter, "he" and "she" suddenly become acceptable again. Once, I had someone inquire as to why "he" came first in my coined term, insinuating that it was still sexist, so I pronounced the four possible permutations of the term not starting with "he" (sheheit, sheithe, itheshe, itshehe) and she replied with the remaining permutation (heitshe) before agreeing that I had, indeed, chosen correctly before requesting that I resume my use of "he" and "she".
It's amazing how quickly people stop being offended by stupid shit as soon as you show them that the obvious alternatives are all much more offensive. And yes, "hesheit" is offensive; it's offensive to the tongue of the person saying it (though much less so than the other permutations), offensive to the person hearing it and, with a bit of imagination, can even be heard as other, more offensive, phrases. Once that's been considered, referring to an unidentified (to you) individual who the person you're speaking to happens to know is a woman as "he" becomes acceptable.
Not every lock screen is insecure.
I never said they were. Your post, while technically correct, does not make the post I was replying to any less incorrect or off-topic. The difference between a login screen that also serves as a lock screen and a lock screen that only serves as a lock screen is that the user is logged in regardless of whether they have unlocked the screen at any point; any start-up apps designated to run as their user have been started and will already be waiting for them when they unlock the device. It is a subtle but important distinction as, with a login screen, those apps would not start until the user logged in.
Since the focus of this article is the Android lock screen and the closest direct comparison is the iOS lock screen, which is also not a login screen, it makes no sense to discuss login screens.
They can. Visit this page from your iPhone, sign in with your Google account, click "Write a Review".
Keynote is $10 on the App Store. Is that close enough?
Can Keynote on iOS edit PowerPoint presentations? There's your answer.
I don't have to worry about vendor installed apps and intrusive branding, I just get a device that works and thats that.
Like a Nexus device?
pretty moot
You're thinking of 4chan.
I've seen both on both sides of the fence. One of my Apple-loving friends is hostile toward my Android phone despite never having used one as a primary device, while my Apple-loving wife switched to Android for a little over a year before going back to the iPhone; she doesn't dislike Android, she just wanted to go back to using the apps she had already gotten used to (and paid for) on iOS. Meanwhile, I only ever hear my Android-using friends and colleagues poke fun at Apple users in a joking manner; most of us are also Apple users, just not when it comes to our phones. Personally, that means an iPad (original), iPad Air, Apple TV, iPod Classic, iPod Nano, and two MacBook Pros; for my best friend that means two MacBook Pros, an iPad Air, and an iPod Touch; almost every one of my friends and colleagues has at least one Apple device that they use regularly, though, for most, that device is not their phone.
Poking fun at a group of people of which you are a member is not a form of hostility. Grow up.
And that also assumes that the convenience-minded users of these devices use the less convenient (when compared to PIN or Pattern locks) Password lock. It's so rare I can honestly say I've never seen it used outside the 5 minutes I had my phone configured to use it about 4 years ago. I am security-conscious but it completely negated the very reason I carry a phone-capable pocket computer with me in the first place: to fetch information as quickly as possible.
I can't help but think having a full QUERTY keyboard (and not the "here's your letters, press here for numbers, there for symbols, there again for more symbols, and there for smileys" crap we have today) would fix that. Preferably physical. I mean, I never had any issue with a proper password on the Blackberry devices I used before Android.
Didn't they go out of business a couple months back? All the stores here closed, after 3 months of deep-discount (still overpriced) clearance.
And that's not what this is doing. It's the lock screen, it runs when you're already logged in, lest all of your apps (even the one controlling phone functionality, which resides behind said lock screen) close every time you lock your phone. You know, just like they do when you log out of your shell.
My comment history on Jezebel is a matter of public record, as well. Go look it up.
Certainly. I'll admit to not having looked at the numbers and letting media sensationalism color my question; thus why it was rhetorical and why I do not allow myself to hold a position on the matter. Being uninformed, it would be irresponsible for me to do otherwise.
To put it another way, I've been robbed at gunpoint twice in my lifetime. Once by a group of 3 black men and once by a lone black man. Many would be biased against black men and guns after those incidents; that would be an example of an uninformed position. Taking into account the number of black men I have encountered who have not robbed me at gunpoint, and the number of guns not used to rob me, my informed position is not to automatically think every black man I see is going to rob me or that every gun out there is going to be used in a robbery.
Informed positions. They're useful, especially if you don't want to live in constant fear.