I can glance at my calendar if I need to see what's happening, my todo list if I need to see what's due next, etc (I guess those would be widgets?:)
Yes, Apple has a handful of lock screen widgets and, if they provided the functionality I needed, they would certainly be better than Android's home screen widgets, because I wouldn't have to unlock to see them. Of course, they'd also be worse because nobody I hand my phone to (or who takes it from me) would have to unlock to see them, either.
I actually made use of iOS lock screen widgets for a brief while and found them clunky; especially the ones you could interact with, like the calculator (which doesn't ship with the OS, mind you). It always seemed like the device couldn't figure out whether I was trying to scroll the screen or interact with the widget, which made it frustrating to use, even for quick reference.
I realize that's probably a me problem, but I have scrolling-related issues all the time in iOS; trying to scroll horizontally, it will latch to vertical scrolling, and vise-versa. Android's initial scroll lag exists for a reason -- it latches later, which means it gets it right more often than iOS -- and it can't scroll until it latches; I've noticed that there is no lag on screens that free-scroll, because there is no latching and, thus, no need to determine which way to latch. Likewise, the problem disappears for me on iOS on free-scrolling screens, as well.
But, even as a user, if you borrow or try to help someone with their phone, it's like randomly picking up a version of windows NT from 2000 through Win10 and being asked to help connect to a wireless access point.
That's a caveat of customization. I'll agree that manufacturers have been given too long of a leash for their own customization, but it's really a side effect of giving the user that level of control. It's one that Google should have foreseen and handled contractually, and they're taking steps to reel it in; they have to boil the frog, so to speak, making subtle changes over time so as not to run afoul of existing licensing agreements. Even if this was handled correctly from day one, there would still be nothing technically preventing a manufacturer from modifying the OS, though, as that's really one of the points of Android: to be able to be modified.
Actually, here's something you have to look up: screen captures. There's at least 7 possible ways to accomplish a screen capture.
On the vast majority of devices, it's POWER+HOME just like iOS. I'll grand you that, though, for the handful of devices (including my Yoga Book) where it is not. Screen grabs have always appeared in the photos app for me; that same Photos app (provided by Google, so it's the same on every device) has a Device Folders menu item, you can find pretty much everything there. You can also the ( i ) icon while viewing an image to get a whole slew of information about it, including its location on the device. There should never be a reason to have to look that up; even the vendor-provided and aftermarket viewers I've seen show all media by default and provide this info, because the vast majority of them use the Photos API in the first place.
By now, you should see why I think Android sucks.
Indeed. You think it sucks because all mobile operating systems suck to some degree. I just happen to think iOS sucks worse for many aspects of how I use my phone, and (with the recent purchase of a Yoga Book) an increasing number of tasks for which I use a tablet.
Perhaps I'm just past the point of caring what the default is, as long as I know I can change it if I don't like it; and on iOS, a lot of the time I can't.
I have roughly 20 different android devices on my desk. That fact alone, as compared to 3 iDevices, says everything.
Well, without knowing why you have nearly 7x as many Android devices, it sure seems like you prefer Android. Somehow, I don't think that's the case so, no, it really doesn't.
I am over-connected (is that a valid condition?) enough that I absolutely don't want RSS feeds, for example, on my phone.
I feel the same way when I have a ton of notifications. I strive to keep that notification bar as clean and clear as possible; a widget is always there, wherever I left it on whichever home screen I put it on, and I can pay as much or as little attention to it as I see fit. That's why widgets beat notifications for my use case; if you prefer notifications (or nags as I often call them), I can't really argue with that and iOS is the clear winner for you.
Disconnecting when I'm away from work is something of a goal for me, and I'd leave my phone in my drawer in a different house if I could get away with it.
Ah, what luxury, being "away from work". What I wouldn't give to know that concept. As a business owner in a 24x7 business, every waking moment is a working moment; and if I'm not awake when work needs me, well, I will be shortly. When you live that life, you minimize distractions, and persistent notifications are distractions; if my phone is notifying me of something, I need it to be something important.
That might explain our disconnect; we avoid distraction in different ways.
For example, virtual desktops
just fucking suck. But I can tell from the rest of your comment that we agree on that.
I'm either browsing the web, in which case I have a web browser open, working on a development project, in which case I have my IDE and a web browser open, working on a song or video, in which case I have my video editing suite or sequencer and a web browser open, or gaming, in which case I have nothing else open (unless I'm also streaming, in which case I have OBS and a web browser open). The browser is common among all of them except gaming (where it's best to disable virtual desktops anyway for performance reasons) and it makes little to no sense to duplicate that one application across multiple desktops just to gain the functional equivalent of minimizing unused windows. I think you get where I'm going with this because I feel, from what you just wrote, that you share much the same experience, even if with different tasks.
There was a time, when screen real-estate was hard to come by, when virtual desktop made sense; unfortunately, the computers of that time weren't powerful enough to run every application at once in order to make effective use of them. They're a concept that wasn't doable when it made sense and no longer makes sense now that it's doable.
I'll be 100% honest - on the surface I fully agree with Android's approach - let the user do what they want. In execution, I find it terrible.
It's not without its warts, of course. You'll never hear me say it's perfect. That said, with great power comes great responsibility and I'm more than happy to take that bit of responsibility in order to have info at my fingertips without unnecessary nagging notifications. On my tablet, where I'm more prone to interact rather than just look, that's less of s concern and iOS really does what I want. Of course, that was until the Yoga Book came along last week and made me look at things differently; its ability to digitize what I'm writing on paper with an actual ink pen, and with 2048 points of pressure sensitivity to boot, and to do so with the screen off, means that's the device I carry now and the iPad lives on my desk. In the past week that I've had the Yoga Book, I find myself picking up the iPad less and less.
In any case, if you're finding yourself having to keep setting Android up over and over, you're doing something unusual; every Android phone I've ever had has been a set-it-and-forget-it proposition. Just like iOS. The only difference being that Android simply gives you more to set up by way of giving you more options.
Not everything works as a notification, my friend. RSS feeds sort-of work, but the notifications tend to disappear once you've interscted with thime, while the widgets remain there for later reference. Slicky notes and lists are other useful widgets that just don't exist on iOS. If those aren't useful to you, so be it, enjoy iOS, there's nothing wrong with that. It really isn't my fault that you can't fathom someone having different usage patterns than you, but, well, I do. iOS doesn't work for my as a phone OS and that's that.
This would be a worthy discussion had I not already tried it and if I weren't already a daily user of iOS, but I have and I am. You aren't introducing me to a better way or whatever you think it is you're doing, I'm already quite familiar with iOS, thanks. Familiar enough to know it's not what I want on my phone.
Interestingly, the LeNovo Yoga Book I picked up last week for one specific feature is seeing way more use than just that one feature would dictate; it's replaced both my iPad Pro and the living room iPad (used for controlling streaming devices) for a considerable number of tasks. Unlike iOS, which hasn't added the features I use on my Android phone, Android seems to be rapidly adopting features (e.g, the ability to be configured to stay out of the way) that I use in a tablet.
As a daily user of both systems, I can unequivocally say that Android simply works better for me. You use what works for you, really, it's no skin off my back.
As for locating info on the phone, the iOS search feature is pretty damn quick, and works within various apps
The easiest way to locate info on a phone is to have a widget displaying it when you unlock the phone. Last I checked, iOS doesn't support home screen widgets. If I can "unlock, look, and put away" in 2 seconds with Android, or "unlock, search, look, put away" in 10-15 seconds with iOS, Android is the clear winner.
If you use your phone differently than I use mine and, as a result, iOS works better for you, that's great, use an iPhone and be happy with it. Android works better for me and I honestly don't know why I'm bothering to defend myself here. I've used an iPhone as my primary phone, I used one for an entire year, I didn't much like it and that's all there is to it.
Allrighty, let's dig into it - I wish to find where on the phone a particular app data file is.
How do you do that on iOS? I'm genuinely asking as, last time I checked, you could not.
And, in both cases above, when I say "last time I checked", I mean this morning when I was checking and replaying to my mail on my iPad.
Not a chance. Every one with less than 1 year of official updates. We'll see about the S7.
You must be referring to one year from when you bought it, in which case people get hit with that on iOS as well if they buy an older model. The S7 is already past the 1 year mark (and was when I upgraded to the S8 the day it came out) and is still receiving updates. Hyperbole only weakens your argument; did you forget that I understand this fact, because I know you do, it's one of the reasons I engage you, on average, more often than almost anyone else on this site. I appreciate that you tend to stick to facts and would prefer that you do so here, as well.
The S6, released in in April of 2015, saw an update just last week, as did the S5, released in April of 2014. The S4, released in April of 2013, saw its most recent update in February of this year, a whole whopping two months shy of 4 years.
Yes, other manufacturers get it wrong, but the one who consistently outsells Apple, the one who is most statistically significant for that reason, seems to have been getting it right for a while now. Let's confirm by looking at the S3: released May of 2012, last update April of 2014, 23 months of support; that must be where you're getting the "less than 2 years of support" meme from, but it hasn't been true for a while.
Other than phone calls and potentially cellular data app use, exactly how does your phone usage vary from tablet usage enough to make that statement?
I pull my phone out for quick access to some bit of information, or to bang out a quick reply to a message. Android allows me to customize this interaction a lot more, so I can optimize for the tasks I do most often and get them done in 2 seconds rather than 5; that time adds up a lot more than you might think. If I'm pulling out my tablet, I'm in it for the long haul and my time spent interacting with the OS will be minimal relative to my time interacting with whatever app(s) I'm pulling the tablet out to use. iOS does a much better job of getting out of the way, and I appreciate that when the reason I'm pulling out a device is for an app, rather than an OS function.
More or less, that's the difference; on my phone, I use functions provided by the Android OS more than I use apps. iOS, in its desire to stay out of the way, either lacks those functions or makes them more difficult to access. That's not a slam on iOS, either; again, I prefer iOS on a tablet precisely for that reason.
There's a progression: quick check = phone, brief interaction = tablet, really dig into it = laptop, and make it my own = workstation.
As for your frequently having to look up how to do things on various versions of Android, that speaks a lot more about you than it does about Android. Having owned phones and tablets from Motorola, HTC, LG, RCA, Samsung, and a handful of others, I've only ever had to look up how to do more esoteric things, like rooting (which, like jailbreaking, does vary wildly by device and version, if it's even possible). My wife, who is very much in the iOS camp on all fronts, has no problem just picking up my phone or one of the Android tablets we have around the house and using it without referring to Google for help, so I don't believe it's simply that I'm an Android user and you're not.
Indeed, and my clients who ask this on their account sign up form, or during checkout, have noted that links from newsletters and ads (e.g. links with unique IDs) are quote common landing pages for users who answer "From a friend". At first blush, one might believe these users to be lying, but when the same unique per-user link appears as the landing page for multiple users, it becomes clear that the link was shared.
Which kind of blows a hole in the whole "we know user A made the purchase because the purchase came in through user A's link" bullshit argument out of the water, no? Analyzing data collected on behalf of one of my clients, it looks like only about 12% of such links appear as a landing page for only one user, and I'm looking at data for signed-in users so I know they're different people. Since we can now estimate that 88% of those links are shared and result in the recipient clicking the link, we can assume that not all of the single-entry cases belong to the original recipient of the link. In fact, as my statistics do provide original recipient data (we record the link ID and email to which it was sent, so it's trivial to gather this info), only about 73% of recipients of links that have been clicked actually clicked them; 27% of those links were clicked by people with whom they were shared, and not clicked by the original recipient.
And that holds true with the 12%, as well.
Which means that only 8.76% of users don't share links.
But that "unique" link ID is supposed to indicate something? Yeah, it indicates who first saw the link, and not a damned thing else.
Even using different computers from different ips, if you share the link with id, we'll know you can from the ad.
Or you'll know that I sent the link to a friend or family member... which is to say, since you think you know something else from that information, you actually know nothing.
If you actually worked in the industry, you'd know that this happens way more often than 1% of the time. Perhaps you do work in the industry and you do know this, but you figure it's more profitable to spread your bullshit because you think people outside the industry can't figure it out for themselves?
Well, hell, this article is stating, flat out, that they can. It might be time to wake up.
Usually. Not at nearly midnight after a few drinks, though. It's called a social life and checking email while taking a piss. I hear that's also a good recipe for dropping one's phone into the toilet but I've never actually had that happen; you seem like the type who might, though, so maybe it's best you don't get to experience such things.
So, then, you can tell if I click your ad today but my wife buys your product tomorrow? Your ads somehow gain persistent access to my webcam and/or microphone in order to verify that the person who was sitting at the machine when the ad was clicked is still sitting there when the purchase is made, even if those devices do not exist or are disabled? That sure is some trick, and if you're not doing it (and you're not), you're making assumptions. In other words, as SNR said, it's a proxy measurement.
When most people mention hygiene, they're referring to personal hygiene. You know, hand washing, showering, not scratching your ass then touching your face. That's basic hygiene as most people understand it and, I beieve, what epine was referring to; it's certainly what I was talking about.
If you wish to go by the academic definition, rather than the lay definition... Well, first, let me just say I am quite fine with that and, in fact, wish I saw more of that here. I have no argument if that is the difinition you were using, but I would advise you to remember where you are and that people here often only think they're smart enough to follow an intelligent conversation.
Due to the above, I often dumb myself down a bit when reading here; when the average person and an educated individual might define a word differently, I always default to the lay definition and this is the first time it may have caught up to me in over a decade on this site. This is why I suggest you do the same. Assume people here have, at best, an American high school education until they give you reason to believe otherwise. If nothing else, it will preserve your sanity.
There is so damned much wrong with your comment...
To start, you assumed my gender. Not that I care, I do it all the time, too; but the people who do care are annoying and will tear you a new one over it, so... yeah.
Second, the CDC's recommendations on that page have nothing whatsoever to do with basic hygiene, which is what was being discussed here. Also, I'm not the poster who questioned your trust in basic hygiene (just in case you don't look at usernames) and haven't really been obstinate here. I d now, after reading what you just posted, question your understanding of basic hygiene, as your reference mentions a whole slew of procedures, but only touches on anything hygiene-related with regard to post-gardening activity.
Finally, as a guy on Slashdot, you can't know that I actually have two cats. Well, you can, because I just told you. Don't just take my word for it, though; shoot me an email and we'll connect on Skype or Slack so you can ask them if they think I like them.
Diseases that can spread by contact with people or other animals that require you to transfer the pathogens to your mouth just need a break in the transmission pathway.
Unless you also have a break in your skin, in which case they'll just take that route. Frequent washing (basic hygiene) dries the skin, creating many breaks, unless you also frequently moisturize (above and beyond basic hygiene); therefore, basic hygiene is not enough and, in fact, too much of it can be detrimental.
Ugh... I had typed out an in-depth response to this, hit preview, then closed the window. I'll try to recreate as much of that as possible, but I reserve the right to post updates and corrections. I'll also skip the bits about how disappointed I am in you having missed the glaring obviousness of the vulnerability here (especially as it's discussed in TFS) as I don't think that really needed two paragraphs, even if I have come to expect better from you, and get right to the meat and potatoes.
The long and the short is that you have to have a USB device plugged into an infected system to have an issue with USB, while just having a vulnerable bluetooth device (which includes the current majority of accessories, and likely will for the foreseeable future) in the same general area as an infected device can infect it. I can set a rogue USB drive on top of my computer and leave it there indefinitely and nothing happens; if I walk by someone with infected headphones, though, my own headphones may become infected. My own headphones, which are already paired to my phone, mind you. This isn't something the pairing process can save me from; I'm not pairing someone else's already fucked headphones to my phone, my already paired headphoens are getting fucked.
Regarding USB, we have things like Logitech's Unifying receiver, which presents a generic interface (for pairing control) and up to 6 keyboards and mice, and we have things like mice with extra buttons that send keystrokes (the non-programmable ones actually act as keyboards, no special driver emulating the keystrokes)
that need to be considered before we can say one physical device == one logical device. Even if we did say that, those could still exist because that logical device could simply be a hub with virtual devices plugged into it; which, of course, would still allow things like BadUSB to work. Rest assured it's been done in a lab, and that is not conjecture.
We don't have bluetooth hubs, so we could technically implement that for bluetooth, but it would almost immediately make the technology immensely less popular. Some people actually use the feature of their pricey bluetooth speakers, headphones, and cars wherein the device pulls a copy of your phone book and offers its own voice-dialing functionality based on that data. That requires your "audio device" to also be a "dialing device" and a "phonebook device". Even more use the play control and volume buttons, which act as a "keyboard device". Sure, these are all still usable as audio devices if we remove multi-function capabilities from the protocol, but it becomes a lot less attractive to the end user; and do you really want your average driver having to fuck with their phone to change songs?
Beyond that, we already have the ability to see what services a paired bluetooth device exposes and enable/disable them at will, at least on Android. A new pairing resets that (and should; often times that's the first suggested -- and most effective -- step in troubleshooting in case someone's fucked with those settings) and all a newly-infected device need do is "oops I glitched out and forgot my pairing" force the user to re-pair in order to reset any restrictions. And we already know that relying on users to secure themselves is folly; most won't know what the individual permissions even mean and the rest won't connect why some might or might not be needed. Case in point, the woman in front of me in the Target customer service line about a year and a half ago, returning a bluetooth speaker, ranting about how she's a security researcher with a Masters in CS and how she's "appalled that it wants to act as an input device and read her phone book which, of course, I did not allow -- and, by the way, the play and skip buttons don't work." Of course they didn't work, she disabled its ability to act as an input device, while claiming to hold a degree in Computer Science.
See the problem yet?
The industry has dumbed itself down to allow anyone a
When that one well-supported device outsells any individual model of iPhone (be fair, compare a single model to a single model) you can't really call it statistically insignificant. But, really, for the purpose I actually give a damn about (that is, my actual usage) that one device is all I care about.
It's like safety scissors vs shears, really. There are really dangerously designed shears with poor handle designs and sharper than necessary points, and there are a handful of good designs with points just sharp enough to slip between layers of fabric without snagging; overall, safety scissors are much safer than shears. But safety scissors won't do what's needed in a tailor's shop, so a good tailor does their research, finds a qualify pair of shears, winks and nods to the elevated danger, having minimized it with a little market research and by knowing how to use his tools, and buys the shears.
One thing being safer or more secure, on average, than another does not make that thing better. It doesn't necessarily make it worse, wither, but it sure doesn't make it better. If it did, everyone would have to agree that a Jeep Cherokee was better than a Ferrari, because the Jeep is one of the safest cars on the road today; you'll be hard pressed to find someone who would say it's better than a Ferrari, though, without some leading. Safety scissors are better than shears for giving to kids to cut craft paper, and iOS is better than Android for locking you into Apple's ecosystem. My wife likes both shears and iOS; you seem to like iOS and, if I had to venture a guess, prefer safety scissors. To each their own, really, and some of us think it's worth a few minutes of extra research to have a selection of vendors and a little more freedom.
Also, and I've never been able to put my finger on it, iOS just really clashes with how I use my phone; I can't stand using my wife's iPhone for any length of time, and I really didn't enjoy the 3Gs I owned before I went Android. Of course, the same can be said about Android when it comes to tablet use, which is why I have an iPad Pro and not a Galaxy Tab. But, as long as that one well-supported device exists, you'll never see me walking around with an iPhone, unless my wife asks me to hold hers.
Bingo. So many people, even here where the same story about such literally un-patchable vulnerabilities has been posted more than a handful of times, choose to remain ignorant of reality, though.
The difference here, from a typical USB device, however, is that your affected Bluetooth accessories may have their firmware "updated" without any physical interaction, whereas you would have to be duped into running a rogue firmware installer or plugging the device into a malicious machine to have your USB devices reprogrammed in such a manner.
That said, with unknown and untrusted (read: found or of dubious origin or manufacture) devices, you're just as vulnerable pairing a Bluetooth device as you are plugging in a USB device.
Again, you know this, I know this, but the masses remain ignorant of it. Even here.
You're not an ad agency trying to be "edgy" and "hip", though. They're the problem; ma and pa shopkeeper, by and far, want to spend their ad money wisely.
Right? Taking the motorcycle helmet example from above, it would make sense to show the helmet ads after someone searches motorcycles. If they bought a bike, they need a helmet; if they bought a helmet, they do not.
That example, I believe, is a failing of whoever bought that particular ad space.
And it's all too common. Well thought out advertising can actually be helpful to the consumer, but I almost never see well thought out advertising. The crap that's constantly hurled in my direction typically tells me who not to buy from, so I guess I still find a way to make it useful.
If we're gonna do that, hell, let's take it to its logical conclusion. I don't mean "phone manufacturers", either; though that would allow one to say that, since one of them sucks, the all suck, including Apple.
No, let's think bigger. Electronics manufacturers? Nah. Businesses. All of them. There's one that sucks and, since we're lumping them together, well, they all suck.
Right?
It's rare that I'll reply to support an AC, but here I am.
Actually, the TCAS tells the pilot how to change course, and the pilot normally has to obey.
That's what I said...
I do not think that TCAS is directly linked to the auto pilot in practice
It is not.
but it could easily be. Then nothing for the pilot to do.
Actually, to limit how bad it can fuck up in case of a malfunction, auto pilot is given a somewhat limited range of control. It can not change course quickly enough to reliably avoid another aircraft within range of TCAS. There will always be something for the pilot to do; one of the flight attendants, if nothing else.
Seems pretty unlikely that every interactive app I use that makes sounds it coding for bluetooth delays. Anyway.
You're right, especially since many of those sounds are going to be in response to your own actions and the app has no way of queuing the sound before you perform the action it is associated with.
You know that bullets exceed the speed of sound by a factor of 2 or more right?
Indeed I do. I also know that most games don't take that into account. That said, I should have said "bullet impact"; my point is made saliently clear by the same 1-2sec delay affecting my own shots. That is, of course, why I don't use bluetooth headphones while gaming.
You have the send buffer in the phone's bluetooth controller, the receive buffer in the headphone bluetooth controller, plus audio buffers on each end, all contributing to lag. It is physically not possibly to have no lag with bluetooth headphones. Some have less lag than others by way of smaller buffers; those tend to drop out at shorter distances or with minimal levels of interference, as that's precisely what the buffers are there for, but there will always be lag. The best I've seen (without constant droputs, that is) is my LG Tone Pro, which I've been able to get down to 250ms, which is 1/4 of a second, 7-15 video frames (depending on framerate), or 15 frames of whatever game I'm playing. Playing a shooter, I'm already dead by the time I hear footsteps with that amount of lag. I used to have a cheap earpiece that had no perceivable lag, but it only supported voice CODECs and had shit quality for anything else; it also dropped out if a caterpillar on the other side of the globe sneezed because it had no audio buffer.
And yes, there are shooters for phones. I haven't played any in a while since my buddy I used to play with went all-bluetooth and no longer plays them due to precisely this issue; he didn't feel like replacing his last good pair of wired headphones when they broke. We play on larger screens now, anyway.
It's not immaterial, but it's not as critical as a bug in the Bluetooth stack.
Right. Now, consider it in concert with a bug in the bluetooth stack that allows any once-trusted device already paired with your phone to suddenly become a rogue device.
The reality is, that's exactly what we've got here and, as you admit:
a rogue bluetooth device you pair with your phone can still PWN it.
Probably. I'm not sure, I haven't seen many attacks of that type.
If you'd not seen it at all you'd have said so, which tells me you've seen it at least once and are slyly owning to the possibility.
See the problem yet?
Let me spell it out for you: unlike your Heartbleed/FreeBSD statement, which requires the end user (likely a qualified sysadmin) to do something stupid, your iOS device can still be affected by this without your intervention if you use any bluetooth accessories.
Okay, and everyone who uses bluetooth accessories (like headphones) with their "safe" iOS devices? What access might those accessories have once paired to the phone? You might want to look into that, and I'm not so sure I'd call it immaterial given that supposedly patched devices can still be affected.
That innocuous pair of headphones (their bluetooth headphones, not your wired ones) may well emulate a keyboard (or any other device) and execute any number of exploits once paired to a supposedly patched phone. That's actually not something your phone can be patched to protect against, so as long as the accessories are vulnerable, so is the phone they're used with. In fact, even if the exploits mentioned in TFA didn't exist, a rogue bluetooth device you pair with your phone can still PWN it. Hardly immaterial.
Unless, of course, you truly believe the fact that a fully patched and up-to-date iPhone can still be (indirectly) affected by this exploit is immaterial; in which case, please stay away from the security industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I can glance at my calendar if I need to see what's happening, my todo list if I need to see what's due next, etc (I guess those would be widgets? :)
Yes, Apple has a handful of lock screen widgets and, if they provided the functionality I needed, they would certainly be better than Android's home screen widgets, because I wouldn't have to unlock to see them. Of course, they'd also be worse because nobody I hand my phone to (or who takes it from me) would have to unlock to see them, either.
I actually made use of iOS lock screen widgets for a brief while and found them clunky; especially the ones you could interact with, like the calculator (which doesn't ship with the OS, mind you). It always seemed like the device couldn't figure out whether I was trying to scroll the screen or interact with the widget, which made it frustrating to use, even for quick reference.
I realize that's probably a me problem, but I have scrolling-related issues all the time in iOS; trying to scroll horizontally, it will latch to vertical scrolling, and vise-versa. Android's initial scroll lag exists for a reason -- it latches later, which means it gets it right more often than iOS -- and it can't scroll until it latches; I've noticed that there is no lag on screens that free-scroll, because there is no latching and, thus, no need to determine which way to latch. Likewise, the problem disappears for me on iOS on free-scrolling screens, as well.
But, even as a user, if you borrow or try to help someone with their phone, it's like randomly picking up a version of windows NT from 2000 through Win10 and being asked to help connect to a wireless access point.
That's a caveat of customization. I'll agree that manufacturers have been given too long of a leash for their own customization, but it's really a side effect of giving the user that level of control. It's one that Google should have foreseen and handled contractually, and they're taking steps to reel it in; they have to boil the frog, so to speak, making subtle changes over time so as not to run afoul of existing licensing agreements. Even if this was handled correctly from day one, there would still be nothing technically preventing a manufacturer from modifying the OS, though, as that's really one of the points of Android: to be able to be modified.
Actually, here's something you have to look up: screen captures. There's at least 7 possible ways to accomplish a screen capture.
On the vast majority of devices, it's POWER+HOME just like iOS. I'll grand you that, though, for the handful of devices (including my Yoga Book) where it is not. Screen grabs have always appeared in the photos app for me; that same Photos app (provided by Google, so it's the same on every device) has a Device Folders menu item, you can find pretty much everything there. You can also the ( i ) icon while viewing an image to get a whole slew of information about it, including its location on the device. There should never be a reason to have to look that up; even the vendor-provided and aftermarket viewers I've seen show all media by default and provide this info, because the vast majority of them use the Photos API in the first place.
By now, you should see why I think Android sucks.
Indeed. You think it sucks because all mobile operating systems suck to some degree. I just happen to think iOS sucks worse for many aspects of how I use my phone, and (with the recent purchase of a Yoga Book) an increasing number of tasks for which I use a tablet.
Perhaps I'm just past the point of caring what the default is, as long as I know I can change it if I don't like it; and on iOS, a lot of the time I can't.
I have roughly 20 different android devices on my desk. That fact alone, as compared to 3 iDevices, says everything.
Well, without knowing why you have nearly 7x as many Android devices, it sure seems like you prefer Android. Somehow, I don't think that's the case so, no, it really doesn't.
I am over-connected (is that a valid condition?) enough that I absolutely don't want RSS feeds, for example, on my phone.
I feel the same way when I have a ton of notifications. I strive to keep that notification bar as clean and clear as possible; a widget is always there, wherever I left it on whichever home screen I put it on, and I can pay as much or as little attention to it as I see fit. That's why widgets beat notifications for my use case; if you prefer notifications (or nags as I often call them), I can't really argue with that and iOS is the clear winner for you.
Disconnecting when I'm away from work is something of a goal for me, and I'd leave my phone in my drawer in a different house if I could get away with it.
Ah, what luxury, being "away from work". What I wouldn't give to know that concept. As a business owner in a 24x7 business, every waking moment is a working moment; and if I'm not awake when work needs me, well, I will be shortly. When you live that life, you minimize distractions, and persistent notifications are distractions; if my phone is notifying me of something, I need it to be something important.
That might explain our disconnect; we avoid distraction in different ways.
For example, virtual desktops
just fucking suck. But I can tell from the rest of your comment that we agree on that.
I'm either browsing the web, in which case I have a web browser open, working on a development project, in which case I have my IDE and a web browser open, working on a song or video, in which case I have my video editing suite or sequencer and a web browser open, or gaming, in which case I have nothing else open (unless I'm also streaming, in which case I have OBS and a web browser open). The browser is common among all of them except gaming (where it's best to disable virtual desktops anyway for performance reasons) and it makes little to no sense to duplicate that one application across multiple desktops just to gain the functional equivalent of minimizing unused windows. I think you get where I'm going with this because I feel, from what you just wrote, that you share much the same experience, even if with different tasks.
There was a time, when screen real-estate was hard to come by, when virtual desktop made sense; unfortunately, the computers of that time weren't powerful enough to run every application at once in order to make effective use of them. They're a concept that wasn't doable when it made sense and no longer makes sense now that it's doable.
I'll be 100% honest - on the surface I fully agree with Android's approach - let the user do what they want. In execution, I find it terrible.
It's not without its warts, of course. You'll never hear me say it's perfect. That said, with great power comes great responsibility and I'm more than happy to take that bit of responsibility in order to have info at my fingertips without unnecessary nagging notifications. On my tablet, where I'm more prone to interact rather than just look, that's less of s concern and iOS really does what I want. Of course, that was until the Yoga Book came along last week and made me look at things differently; its ability to digitize what I'm writing on paper with an actual ink pen, and with 2048 points of pressure sensitivity to boot, and to do so with the screen off, means that's the device I carry now and the iPad lives on my desk. In the past week that I've had the Yoga Book, I find myself picking up the iPad less and less.
In any case, if you're finding yourself having to keep setting Android up over and over, you're doing something unusual; every Android phone I've ever had has been a set-it-and-forget-it proposition. Just like iOS. The only difference being that Android simply gives you more to set up by way of giving you more options.
Why, yes. People flying out of teh country are no longer flying domestic. Isn't that how it works everywhere?
Not everything works as a notification, my friend. RSS feeds sort-of work, but the notifications tend to disappear once you've interscted with thime, while the widgets remain there for later reference. Slicky notes and lists are other useful widgets that just don't exist on iOS. If those aren't useful to you, so be it, enjoy iOS, there's nothing wrong with that. It really isn't my fault that you can't fathom someone having different usage patterns than you, but, well, I do. iOS doesn't work for my as a phone OS and that's that.
This would be a worthy discussion had I not already tried it and if I weren't already a daily user of iOS, but I have and I am. You aren't introducing me to a better way or whatever you think it is you're doing, I'm already quite familiar with iOS, thanks. Familiar enough to know it's not what I want on my phone.
Interestingly, the LeNovo Yoga Book I picked up last week for one specific feature is seeing way more use than just that one feature would dictate; it's replaced both my iPad Pro and the living room iPad (used for controlling streaming devices) for a considerable number of tasks. Unlike iOS, which hasn't added the features I use on my Android phone, Android seems to be rapidly adopting features (e.g, the ability to be configured to stay out of the way) that I use in a tablet.
As a daily user of both systems, I can unequivocally say that Android simply works better for me. You use what works for you, really, it's no skin off my back.
As for locating info on the phone, the iOS search feature is pretty damn quick, and works within various apps
The easiest way to locate info on a phone is to have a widget displaying it when you unlock the phone. Last I checked, iOS doesn't support home screen widgets. If I can "unlock, look, and put away" in 2 seconds with Android, or "unlock, search, look, put away" in 10-15 seconds with iOS, Android is the clear winner.
If you use your phone differently than I use mine and, as a result, iOS works better for you, that's great, use an iPhone and be happy with it. Android works better for me and I honestly don't know why I'm bothering to defend myself here. I've used an iPhone as my primary phone, I used one for an entire year, I didn't much like it and that's all there is to it.
Allrighty, let's dig into it - I wish to find where on the phone a particular app data file is.
How do you do that on iOS? I'm genuinely asking as, last time I checked, you could not.
And, in both cases above, when I say "last time I checked", I mean this morning when I was checking and replaying to my mail on my iPad.
Not a chance. Every one with less than 1 year of official updates. We'll see about the S7.
You must be referring to one year from when you bought it, in which case people get hit with that on iOS as well if they buy an older model. The S7 is already past the 1 year mark (and was when I upgraded to the S8 the day it came out) and is still receiving updates. Hyperbole only weakens your argument; did you forget that I understand this fact, because I know you do, it's one of the reasons I engage you, on average, more often than almost anyone else on this site. I appreciate that you tend to stick to facts and would prefer that you do so here, as well.
The S6, released in in April of 2015, saw an update just last week, as did the S5, released in April of 2014. The S4, released in April of 2013, saw its most recent update in February of this year, a whole whopping two months shy of 4 years.
Yes, other manufacturers get it wrong, but the one who consistently outsells Apple, the one who is most statistically significant for that reason, seems to have been getting it right for a while now. Let's confirm by looking at the S3: released May of 2012, last update April of 2014, 23 months of support; that must be where you're getting the "less than 2 years of support" meme from, but it hasn't been true for a while.
Other than phone calls and potentially cellular data app use, exactly how does your phone usage vary from tablet usage enough to make that statement?
I pull my phone out for quick access to some bit of information, or to bang out a quick reply to a message. Android allows me to customize this interaction a lot more, so I can optimize for the tasks I do most often and get them done in 2 seconds rather than 5; that time adds up a lot more than you might think. If I'm pulling out my tablet, I'm in it for the long haul and my time spent interacting with the OS will be minimal relative to my time interacting with whatever app(s) I'm pulling the tablet out to use. iOS does a much better job of getting out of the way, and I appreciate that when the reason I'm pulling out a device is for an app, rather than an OS function.
More or less, that's the difference; on my phone, I use functions provided by the Android OS more than I use apps. iOS, in its desire to stay out of the way, either lacks those functions or makes them more difficult to access. That's not a slam on iOS, either; again, I prefer iOS on a tablet precisely for that reason.
There's a progression: quick check = phone, brief interaction = tablet, really dig into it = laptop, and make it my own = workstation.
As for your frequently having to look up how to do things on various versions of Android, that speaks a lot more about you than it does about Android. Having owned phones and tablets from Motorola, HTC, LG, RCA, Samsung, and a handful of others, I've only ever had to look up how to do more esoteric things, like rooting (which, like jailbreaking, does vary wildly by device and version, if it's even possible). My wife, who is very much in the iOS camp on all fronts, has no problem just picking up my phone or one of the Android tablets we have around the house and using it without referring to Google for help, so I don't believe it's simply that I'm an Android user and you're not.
Indeed, and my clients who ask this on their account sign up form, or during checkout, have noted that links from newsletters and ads (e.g. links with unique IDs) are quote common landing pages for users who answer "From a friend". At first blush, one might believe these users to be lying, but when the same unique per-user link appears as the landing page for multiple users, it becomes clear that the link was shared.
Which kind of blows a hole in the whole "we know user A made the purchase because the purchase came in through user A's link" bullshit argument out of the water, no? Analyzing data collected on behalf of one of my clients, it looks like only about 12% of such links appear as a landing page for only one user, and I'm looking at data for signed-in users so I know they're different people. Since we can now estimate that 88% of those links are shared and result in the recipient clicking the link, we can assume that not all of the single-entry cases belong to the original recipient of the link. In fact, as my statistics do provide original recipient data (we record the link ID and email to which it was sent, so it's trivial to gather this info), only about 73% of recipients of links that have been clicked actually clicked them; 27% of those links were clicked by people with whom they were shared, and not clicked by the original recipient.
And that holds true with the 12%, as well.
Which means that only 8.76% of users don't share links.
But that "unique" link ID is supposed to indicate something? Yeah, it indicates who first saw the link, and not a damned thing else.
Even using different computers from different ips, if you share the link with id, we'll know you can from the ad.
Or you'll know that I sent the link to a friend or family member... which is to say, since you think you know something else from that information, you actually know nothing.
If you actually worked in the industry, you'd know that this happens way more often than 1% of the time. Perhaps you do work in the industry and you do know this, but you figure it's more profitable to spread your bullshit because you think people outside the industry can't figure it out for themselves?
Well, hell, this article is stating, flat out, that they can. It might be time to wake up.
Usually. Not at nearly midnight after a few drinks, though. It's called a social life and checking email while taking a piss. I hear that's also a good recipe for dropping one's phone into the toilet but I've never actually had that happen; you seem like the type who might, though, so maybe it's best you don't get to experience such things.
I honestly wonder if these people aren't just delerious.
So, then, you can tell if I click your ad today but my wife buys your product tomorrow? Your ads somehow gain persistent access to my webcam and/or microphone in order to verify that the person who was sitting at the machine when the ad was clicked is still sitting there when the purchase is made, even if those devices do not exist or are disabled? That sure is some trick, and if you're not doing it (and you're not), you're making assumptions. In other words, as SNR said, it's a proxy measurement.
When most people mention hygiene, they're referring to personal hygiene. You know, hand washing, showering, not scratching your ass then touching your face. That's basic hygiene as most people understand it and, I beieve, what epine was referring to; it's certainly what I was talking about.
If you wish to go by the academic definition, rather than the lay definition... Well, first, let me just say I am quite fine with that and, in fact, wish I saw more of that here. I have no argument if that is the difinition you were using, but I would advise you to remember where you are and that people here often only think they're smart enough to follow an intelligent conversation.
Due to the above, I often dumb myself down a bit when reading here; when the average person and an educated individual might define a word differently, I always default to the lay definition and this is the first time it may have caught up to me in over a decade on this site. This is why I suggest you do the same. Assume people here have, at best, an American high school education until they give you reason to believe otherwise. If nothing else, it will preserve your sanity.
We good?
There is so damned much wrong with your comment...
To start, you assumed my gender. Not that I care, I do it all the time, too; but the people who do care are annoying and will tear you a new one over it, so... yeah.
Second, the CDC's recommendations on that page have nothing whatsoever to do with basic hygiene, which is what was being discussed here. Also, I'm not the poster who questioned your trust in basic hygiene (just in case you don't look at usernames) and haven't really been obstinate here. I d now, after reading what you just posted, question your understanding of basic hygiene, as your reference mentions a whole slew of procedures, but only touches on anything hygiene-related with regard to post-gardening activity.
Finally, as a guy on Slashdot, you can't know that I actually have two cats. Well, you can, because I just told you. Don't just take my word for it, though; shoot me an email and we'll connect on Skype or Slack so you can ask them if they think I like them.
Diseases that can spread by contact with people or other animals that require you to transfer the pathogens to your mouth just need a break in the transmission pathway.
Unless you also have a break in your skin, in which case they'll just take that route. Frequent washing (basic hygiene) dries the skin, creating many breaks, unless you also frequently moisturize (above and beyond basic hygiene); therefore, basic hygiene is not enough and, in fact, too much of it can be detrimental.
You've got that backwards, my friend.
Ugh... I had typed out an in-depth response to this, hit preview, then closed the window. I'll try to recreate as much of that as possible, but I reserve the right to post updates and corrections. I'll also skip the bits about how disappointed I am in you having missed the glaring obviousness of the vulnerability here (especially as it's discussed in TFS) as I don't think that really needed two paragraphs, even if I have come to expect better from you, and get right to the meat and potatoes.
The long and the short is that you have to have a USB device plugged into an infected system to have an issue with USB, while just having a vulnerable bluetooth device (which includes the current majority of accessories, and likely will for the foreseeable future) in the same general area as an infected device can infect it. I can set a rogue USB drive on top of my computer and leave it there indefinitely and nothing happens; if I walk by someone with infected headphones, though, my own headphones may become infected. My own headphones, which are already paired to my phone, mind you. This isn't something the pairing process can save me from; I'm not pairing someone else's already fucked headphones to my phone, my already paired headphoens are getting fucked.
Regarding USB, we have things like Logitech's Unifying receiver, which presents a generic interface (for pairing control) and up to 6 keyboards and mice, and we have things like mice with extra buttons that send keystrokes (the non-programmable ones actually act as keyboards, no special driver emulating the keystrokes) that need to be considered before we can say one physical device == one logical device. Even if we did say that, those could still exist because that logical device could simply be a hub with virtual devices plugged into it; which, of course, would still allow things like BadUSB to work. Rest assured it's been done in a lab, and that is not conjecture.
We don't have bluetooth hubs, so we could technically implement that for bluetooth, but it would almost immediately make the technology immensely less popular. Some people actually use the feature of their pricey bluetooth speakers, headphones, and cars wherein the device pulls a copy of your phone book and offers its own voice-dialing functionality based on that data. That requires your "audio device" to also be a "dialing device" and a "phonebook device". Even more use the play control and volume buttons, which act as a "keyboard device". Sure, these are all still usable as audio devices if we remove multi-function capabilities from the protocol, but it becomes a lot less attractive to the end user; and do you really want your average driver having to fuck with their phone to change songs?
Beyond that, we already have the ability to see what services a paired bluetooth device exposes and enable/disable them at will, at least on Android. A new pairing resets that (and should; often times that's the first suggested -- and most effective -- step in troubleshooting in case someone's fucked with those settings) and all a newly-infected device need do is "oops I glitched out and forgot my pairing" force the user to re-pair in order to reset any restrictions. And we already know that relying on users to secure themselves is folly; most won't know what the individual permissions even mean and the rest won't connect why some might or might not be needed. Case in point, the woman in front of me in the Target customer service line about a year and a half ago, returning a bluetooth speaker, ranting about how she's a security researcher with a Masters in CS and how she's "appalled that it wants to act as an input device and read her phone book which, of course, I did not allow -- and, by the way, the play and skip buttons don't work." Of course they didn't work, she disabled its ability to act as an input device, while claiming to hold a degree in Computer Science.
See the problem yet?
The industry has dumbed itself down to allow anyone a
When that one well-supported device outsells any individual model of iPhone (be fair, compare a single model to a single model) you can't really call it statistically insignificant. But, really, for the purpose I actually give a damn about (that is, my actual usage) that one device is all I care about.
It's like safety scissors vs shears, really. There are really dangerously designed shears with poor handle designs and sharper than necessary points, and there are a handful of good designs with points just sharp enough to slip between layers of fabric without snagging; overall, safety scissors are much safer than shears. But safety scissors won't do what's needed in a tailor's shop, so a good tailor does their research, finds a qualify pair of shears, winks and nods to the elevated danger, having minimized it with a little market research and by knowing how to use his tools, and buys the shears.
One thing being safer or more secure, on average, than another does not make that thing better. It doesn't necessarily make it worse, wither, but it sure doesn't make it better. If it did, everyone would have to agree that a Jeep Cherokee was better than a Ferrari, because the Jeep is one of the safest cars on the road today; you'll be hard pressed to find someone who would say it's better than a Ferrari, though, without some leading. Safety scissors are better than shears for giving to kids to cut craft paper, and iOS is better than Android for locking you into Apple's ecosystem. My wife likes both shears and iOS; you seem to like iOS and, if I had to venture a guess, prefer safety scissors. To each their own, really, and some of us think it's worth a few minutes of extra research to have a selection of vendors and a little more freedom.
Also, and I've never been able to put my finger on it, iOS just really clashes with how I use my phone; I can't stand using my wife's iPhone for any length of time, and I really didn't enjoy the 3Gs I owned before I went Android. Of course, the same can be said about Android when it comes to tablet use, which is why I have an iPad Pro and not a Galaxy Tab. But, as long as that one well-supported device exists, you'll never see me walking around with an iPhone, unless my wife asks me to hold hers.
Bingo. So many people, even here where the same story about such literally un-patchable vulnerabilities has been posted more than a handful of times, choose to remain ignorant of reality, though.
The difference here, from a typical USB device, however, is that your affected Bluetooth accessories may have their firmware "updated" without any physical interaction, whereas you would have to be duped into running a rogue firmware installer or plugging the device into a malicious machine to have your USB devices reprogrammed in such a manner.
That said, with unknown and untrusted (read: found or of dubious origin or manufacture) devices, you're just as vulnerable pairing a Bluetooth device as you are plugging in a USB device.
Again, you know this, I know this, but the masses remain ignorant of it. Even here.
You're not an ad agency trying to be "edgy" and "hip", though. They're the problem; ma and pa shopkeeper, by and far, want to spend their ad money wisely.
Kudos to you, by the way, for going that route.
Right? Taking the motorcycle helmet example from above, it would make sense to show the helmet ads after someone searches motorcycles. If they bought a bike, they need a helmet; if they bought a helmet, they do not.
That example, I believe, is a failing of whoever bought that particular ad space.
And it's all too common. Well thought out advertising can actually be helpful to the consumer, but I almost never see well thought out advertising. The crap that's constantly hurled in my direction typically tells me who not to buy from, so I guess I still find a way to make it useful.
If we're gonna do that, hell, let's take it to its logical conclusion. I don't mean "phone manufacturers", either; though that would allow one to say that, since one of them sucks, the all suck, including Apple.
No, let's think bigger. Electronics manufacturers? Nah. Businesses. All of them. There's one that sucks and, since we're lumping them together, well, they all suck.
Right?
It's rare that I'll reply to support an AC, but here I am.
Actually, the TCAS tells the pilot how to change course, and the pilot normally has to obey.
That's what I said...
I do not think that TCAS is directly linked to the auto pilot in practice
It is not.
but it could easily be. Then nothing for the pilot to do.
Actually, to limit how bad it can fuck up in case of a malfunction, auto pilot is given a somewhat limited range of control. It can not change course quickly enough to reliably avoid another aircraft within range of TCAS. There will always be something for the pilot to do; one of the flight attendants, if nothing else.
Seems pretty unlikely that every interactive app I use that makes sounds it coding for bluetooth delays. Anyway.
You're right, especially since many of those sounds are going to be in response to your own actions and the app has no way of queuing the sound before you perform the action it is associated with.
You know that bullets exceed the speed of sound by a factor of 2 or more right?
Indeed I do. I also know that most games don't take that into account. That said, I should have said "bullet impact"; my point is made saliently clear by the same 1-2sec delay affecting my own shots. That is, of course, why I don't use bluetooth headphones while gaming.
You have the send buffer in the phone's bluetooth controller, the receive buffer in the headphone bluetooth controller, plus audio buffers on each end, all contributing to lag. It is physically not possibly to have no lag with bluetooth headphones. Some have less lag than others by way of smaller buffers; those tend to drop out at shorter distances or with minimal levels of interference, as that's precisely what the buffers are there for, but there will always be lag. The best I've seen (without constant droputs, that is) is my LG Tone Pro, which I've been able to get down to 250ms, which is 1/4 of a second, 7-15 video frames (depending on framerate), or 15 frames of whatever game I'm playing. Playing a shooter, I'm already dead by the time I hear footsteps with that amount of lag. I used to have a cheap earpiece that had no perceivable lag, but it only supported voice CODECs and had shit quality for anything else; it also dropped out if a caterpillar on the other side of the globe sneezed because it had no audio buffer.
And yes, there are shooters for phones. I haven't played any in a while since my buddy I used to play with went all-bluetooth and no longer plays them due to precisely this issue; he didn't feel like replacing his last good pair of wired headphones when they broke. We play on larger screens now, anyway.
It's not immaterial, but it's not as critical as a bug in the Bluetooth stack.
Right. Now, consider it in concert with a bug in the bluetooth stack that allows any once-trusted device already paired with your phone to suddenly become a rogue device.
The reality is, that's exactly what we've got here and, as you admit:
a rogue bluetooth device you pair with your phone can still PWN it.
Probably. I'm not sure, I haven't seen many attacks of that type.
If you'd not seen it at all you'd have said so, which tells me you've seen it at least once and are slyly owning to the possibility.
See the problem yet?
Let me spell it out for you: unlike your Heartbleed/FreeBSD statement, which requires the end user (likely a qualified sysadmin) to do something stupid, your iOS device can still be affected by this without your intervention if you use any bluetooth accessories.
Okay, and everyone who uses bluetooth accessories (like headphones) with their "safe" iOS devices? What access might those accessories have once paired to the phone? You might want to look into that, and I'm not so sure I'd call it immaterial given that supposedly patched devices can still be affected.
That innocuous pair of headphones (their bluetooth headphones, not your wired ones) may well emulate a keyboard (or any other device) and execute any number of exploits once paired to a supposedly patched phone. That's actually not something your phone can be patched to protect against, so as long as the accessories are vulnerable, so is the phone they're used with. In fact, even if the exploits mentioned in TFA didn't exist, a rogue bluetooth device you pair with your phone can still PWN it. Hardly immaterial.
Unless, of course, you truly believe the fact that a fully patched and up-to-date iPhone can still be (indirectly) affected by this exploit is immaterial; in which case, please stay away from the security industry.