10s of thousands of other developers have no problem selling on the App Store.
Talk about selection bias. Nearly all developers who have a problem selling on the app store aren't ios developers. How neat how that works out.
But even so the app store model is a good idea and works for a lot of things.
I think I actually whooped. It;s that good. If you don't know why,...
Oh, I completely understand why -you- like it. But it's pathetic you can't understand why it's not suitable for everyone.
I have ~100 games on steam. When I buy a x-platform game I get it on each platform, even if the platform is added after I buy the game.
The Apple store model locks steam out. Anything I want on an IOS device I would have to re-purchase on the apple store, separately. Even if I already owned a cross platform license to the title.
That's exactly the kind of user hostile shit that you don't get on iOS.
Instead I get a whole different brand of user hostile shit on IOS.
And both myself and other mobile developers that I know were very happy when the single app store model came along. I think I actually whooped.
Hurrah for you. Life would be simpler if the only store in town was walmart and it was illegal to open a competing store. Simpler. But not better.
So, I'm walking through security, and I've got a plastic 500ml bottle of CocaCola about 75% empty.
Security person watches me take another sip, then confiscates it, and tosses it in a basket at her feet.
I was annoyed, and she provoked me with something like "You didn't think you were bringing that on the plane did you?"
I replied almost without thinking...
"If its so dangerous you can't risk allowing it on a plane I'm surprised you are comfortable leaving it in a bin next to you."
Fortunately all i got back was a dirty look, but it really crystallized for me just how stupid the rules were. That so many people here are advising to just "follow the rules and keep your head down" is truly pathetic.
I didn't say HumbleBundle was a charity. I said charity was a victim.
They are a business that uses charity and the work of developers to promote themselves and profit....and profit the developers, and support charity. You seem to have a real axe to grind here, why?
Their default funds allocation gives 65% to the developers, 20% to charity, and 15% to themselves, and they let the customer change those numbers if they want. As far as 'for profit' business models go, this is about as inoffensive as one can get. Especially in a conversation talking about apple who take double the amount that the humblebundle takes, and do a lot less for it.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to stop humblebundle, selling apps through the App Store,
Yes, actually there is. They sell cross platform licenses -- if I buy the apps on linux I get the windows/mac/android version too. If the ios app were included, and I buy the apps on any platform other than ios, how am I supposed to collect my ios version?
or using in app purchase, and donating some or all of their profits to charity.
Sure, after Apple takes 30%. Which is more than either humblebundle or charity get by default. To pay apple for services that are completely unnecessary and unwanted, seeing as humblebundle is providing its own hosting, payment processing, marketing, etc.
That the humble-bundle's chosen business model, designed after the App Store was opened, isHumble-Bundle's choice, not Apple's.
Yes, lets blame humble-bundle's chosen business model of selling crossplatform licenses as the problem here.
Remember, Apple's success with creating an app ecosystem is BECAUSE of their one stop App Store policy, not despite it.
The app store is a great idea. The idea that you are absolutely forbidden from using anything but Apple's ios store has always been the issue. Apple's app store would have taken off even if it wasn't 100% mandatory, because it's user friendly, and safe, and its a great place for developers to offload all the hosting and transaction costs to a 3rd party.
The idea that apple's business model is to prevent consumers from doing what they want with their own phone is a problem. Why should apple have any say in the matter after I buy an iphone?
Other companies that want to sell apps or services don't get access to that for free. Why should they?
Your asking the wrong question. They shouldn't get access for free. But what if they don't need or want access to the app store? They just want to deliver products their customers paid them for directly.
On android you can actually download and install the humblebundle app, that essentially adds another "store"; and you can install any of your android apps through that app. Its all very neat and user friendly. More ore less like "steam for android". Great concept -- it sucks that you can't do it on ios.
No button, no link, no freaking hint of how to buy a book.
If there had been the app wouldn't have made it into the store.
Works for Apple, I guess. I ended up just going to iBooks and buying there
Rewarding the asshole moves isn't going to ever make them stop.
I kind of despise Amazon anyway, but it would have been nice to have the choice while maintaining a similar end-user experience.
What was amazon supposed to do? Raise prices everywhere so they could afford to give Apple a 30% cut off the top? That's ridiculous, and I'm glad Amazon and now Microsoft has given Apple the finger on this.
One other thing I noticed recently, it seems HumbleBundle can't support ios due to Apple's policies.
I bought the previous round, which had xplatform games for Win/Mac/Linux and Android. But not IOS, even though several (all?) of the games are available on IOS.
You cannot buy a license to cross-platform ios games because there is no way get the game to you. You can't side load the game. And you can't even download a locked game and then activate it via a key or something because that implies that you are working around the apple store and "ripping apple off its 30% take" and "that's not allowed".
Kind of pathetic that even charity is a victim of apple's policies here.
Coming up next... An amendment to allow companies to request the keys to your home and vehicle if they are investigating allegations of work-place misconduct. Along with your personal phone records, and a strip search.
I think you are using the word 'arbitrary' in a confusing and incorrect manner.
Arbitrary: "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision."
What is considered "human" is NOT arbitrary.
A grasshopper is not human. A solar system is not human. The color vermillion is not human. An electron is not human. A tuna fish sandwich is not human.
Yes, the definition of "human" is imprecise along its boundaries, and yes if we are forced to define a line in the sand at the boundary the precise placement of that line will be arbitrary WITHIN the fuzzy boundary area, but that does not make the definition "completely arbitrary".
Similarly, earlier on you stated morals were "completely arbitrary", and this is not the case either.
They (Chrome and Firefox) take that space only when maximized. Since both do the same, I assume there's a reason for that.
Internet explorer does too when it is maximized. So again, IE is no different than the major alternatives here.
I didn't know anyone used a web browser without it being maximized, though.
Are you on the design team for Windows 8 "new ui" ?
Seriously, WTF, the only thing I maximize ever, are games (vast majority of the time), video playback (and only if I'm watching a movie or something, rarely for clips, youtube, etc), and I'll sometimes have Visual Studio maxed on one monitor when I'm programming.
But maximizing a browser window? I almost never do that. The only time I can think of is when running netflix through the brower, but that falls under video playback not web browsing.
Even on my 13" laptop I rarely maximize things. It makes switching windows and looking at two things at once more of a pain.
If they are not arbitrary then they are set properties if they are set properties and properties of humans, then any person not having those set properties would not be human yes?
Would you conclude a person without 5 fingers on his left hand is non-human? The same logic applies.
Please note that I'm not complaining about it, it was just an observation I made. I don't need it "fixed". When I was looking for that screenshot to post, I did see examples of the arrangement you are referring to.
I didn't think it looked better, but it's probably a good idea on small screens.
I don't think a sensible Christian really believes in cloud-harp-heaven and fire-torture-hell except as metaphors.
What I think is a lot more "reasonable" (note that I am not saying I subscribe to this myself per se) is that heaven is to ascend to be in the presence of God, while Hell is to be excluded from that.
Moreover, that the exclusion is self-imposed. St. Peter isn't at the gate with a book where you hope you made the guest list but rather you've turned your back on it and can't or won't get to "heaven". Your fate is self imposed hell, exile, or oblivion.
The way they depicted hell for suicides in "What Dreams May Come" is a good example of the loosely the sort of thing I'm talking about.
A little nitpick mine is, why must the title bar of IE be empty, and thus that space goes completely to waste. At least put the tabs or address bar there.
Chrome is empty as well. And firefox is empty except for the Orange firefox button.
Additionally IE by putting the address bar on the same line as the tabs actually uses the least amount of vertical space of the 3 with the window dressing, leaving the most space for the browser window.
I was actually surprised to discover this just now.
Well, would you care to define what it is to be human then?
Would you?
Even though morals can provide a survival benefit, to say that it is then an inherent human property
I didn't say that, so I'm not sure why I'd have to defend it.
is to label those without those morals as not human
Not only did I not say that, but even if I had said it, that would be an unjustified leap of logic.
which I imagine many would take issue with.
Ok. I agree with this. Calling amoral people non-human would probably piss some of them off. But seeing as I didn't do that, I'm not overly worried about it. And besides I've called people on the internet far worse than non-human;)
That doesn't really answer my question at all. The question is quite simply, unless someone is specifically out to get me, is my phone checking in with the network when it's turned off or not.
I'm not asking whether someone CAN do it. I know it can be done. Perhaps I waxed a bit poetic when I mentioned three letter agencies, but really I'm just asking whether any carriers are doing it, by default, on everyone.
. I would give specific examples to back up my assertion but I don't want to "help" that industry do bad things to good people. Lets just say its simple enough for your GF to find out who you are seeing on the side
Odd example. Who are people doing bad things to good people in that scenario?
But the point remains, that unless someone specifically targets my phone to subvert it, then off is off.
If they have deeper pockets and don't mind buying available software to do the job, then the answer is definitely no.
And this comes full circle. IF they have deep enough pockets then taking your battery out won't make a lick of difference because maybe they've actually swapped your battery for a "spy" battery with a self-contained GPS tracker in it, and taking it out of your phone is irrelevant.:)
It keeps other circuits powered up so that it can sense that same switch to bring the phone back up to its normal powered state.
Yes, my TV and computer both do that too. But it's not on. My PC even has WOL capability, but its not enabled, so you can't remotely wake it up. That's the question -- if my phone is "off" does it periodically turn itself on, and can it be remotely waken. I contend that, with the default programming (ie the state that my phone is in right now) that the answer is no.
The phone can be reprogrammed fairly easily by...
Yes, I stated in my original post that this is theoretically possible. And I don't doubt that if you are in a criminal or terrorist network that this sort of thing you would want to consider and mitigate.
For someone who has the power of the courts behind them, they can easily have the phone company push an update out to the phone to do the same thing.
But what about the average person who just doesn't want to be tracked? Who doesn't want their movements showing up in the logs. One who isn't the subject of a major investigation, and has no real reason to think they would be. If their phone hasn't been specifically tampered with (either locally or remotely) by a three letter agency then isn't simply turning it 'off' enough?
As you know, they can track you even when the device is off, unless you've taken the battery out.
I don't dispute it's possible that the phone while 'off' is simply in standby and pops on now and again to ping the network.
But.. if so, why does my Galaxy S3 take 10+ seconds to 'boot up' after it's been turned off, and then another 5-10 seconds before it has service?
There might be some phone out there that is 'always on'... but is there actually one? More than one? Is it actually common?
This seems more 'urban ledgend' / paranoia then real -- the sort of paranoia where you think the NSA has installed a rootkit to simulate your phone shutdown sequence when you turn it off while it remains transmitting. Possible, theoretically? Sure.
But then what makes you think taking the battery out will work? The NSA inserted a secondary battery with enough juice to keep tracking you for days even when the battery is out. Better put the phone into your pocket faraday cage...
And take a shower and change your clothes to rinse off the micro RFID they hid in the dirt on your shoe and are tracking with a satellite equipped with some sort of super pringles antenna...
I think my Galaxy S3 is off when I turn it off. I'm prepared to be educated that it really isn't, but I need more than some handwaving or links to rumors on some guys dubious blog.
Morals are completely devoid from reality. Good and evil are simply a human construct and an arbitrary one at that
Sure, error theory and moral nihilism is one position. There is no particular reason why this philosophical position is more compelling then any number of others, and there are quite a few legitimate criticisms of it. For example even if we assume it is a human construct there is plenty of evidence that it is not arbitrary.
So it's objective except when its subjective?.... in other words, it's always completely subjective.
Not quite. Its like trying to figure out who was in the wrong in a traffic accident. There are the 'rules of the road' and these rules are pretty objective. Who has right of way, what the speed limit is, state of the traffic lights at the time of the accident, etc.
And most traffic accidents can be assigned fault pretty objectively, assuming you can agree on the facts.
There are cases where things aren't well defined, where 2 different interpretations are valid, and some subjectivity is required.
I was in a car accident once, and the relevant right of way rules to decide fault were dependent on whether the accident occurred at a regular intersection or entering a road from a driveway.
In actuality, the 'driveway' had no name, and was to connect the main road to a parking lot in a park.
But it was paved, and had a stop sign at the intersection at the end of the driveway.
Through traffic on the main road didn't have any signage and didn't have to stop. But the white center line on the main road at the park entrance "acknowledged" the "intersection", which is something it doesn't do at, say, a private residence's driveway.
So is it a road or a driveway? Its a subjective call. That however doesn't make deciding whether something is a road or a driveway a "completely subjective" activity. There are LOTS of roads that are objectively roads, and lots of private driveways that are objectively private driveways.
whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
Not true. Morality is driven some fairly simple principles. Moral disagreements really only get subjective when those principles are in conflict with each other.
Yes, I got that, if you see my earlier post (above the one you replied to). I was only pointing out why back compat was valuable and why it would be nice. I wasn't arguing that it was actually reasonable for the PS4 to be backwards compatible with the PS3.
400 years ago, "nigger" meant someone with black skin (it derives from the French word for "black").
No. The french word for black is "noir". The spanish word is negro. And the Catalan (Northern Spain) word for black (and is probably the closest to a homonym) is "negre". And indeed, in those languages the words are still used today. The word is only a slur when rendered in English, and its use in english is inherently racist as its english origin is inextricably linked to slavery. Meanwhile, one can't listen to modern rap, or black comedians, or hang out in certain neighborhoods without being subjected to a torrent of them. Part of the community has taken ownership of the word, and its use within that community isn't even slightly offensive, its some sort of twisted hipster phenomena where its ironically offensive, but not actually offensive. Of course, I still can't say it in nearly any setting...
A "faggot" is a bundle of sticks.
A faggot is a lot of things. For example, at one point it referred to people who collected bundles of sticks -- typically old women. How exactly it leapt from old usage to the modern slur is unknown. But yes, its not particularly well received now.
"Xian" is used as a slur against Christians with the intent to be offensive, while very few English-speaking Christians will use any other spelling than "Christian".
No. There -are- ignorant 'anti-Christians' who ~think~ its offensive and use it to be offensive, just as there -are- ignorant Christians who ~think~ its offensive and get offended by it. But unlike your other examples, X is WIDELY used as an abbreviation for Christ by people who are not being offensive and who are not trying to offend, in the company of people who do not take offense at hearing it.
The word is not unsuitable for use. I've received merry x-mas emails, merry xmas cards, seen merry xmas banners and never once have I ever seen a hate-mongering anti-christian behind it.
Aside from X-mas, I had a friend some years ago named Xpin. (Crispin). And Christina Aguilara sometimes goes by Xtina. And it's not some sort of hate-mongering effort either.
Some guy once called me 'short' and was trying to offend me. That doesn't make the word 'short' offensive either.
But most people who switched up to a DVD player wanted to watch films, rather than listen to music.
Most people who switched up to DVD wanted to do both. And the new device would supplant the VCR, and replace their CD player. Their stack of components in their home theatre wasn't going to get bigger due to the DVD player, because the CD player could be removed thanks to backwards compatibility. Some people care about that, wives in particular.:)
Others have mentioned VCD and SVCD and even combo players, but that's almost beside the point. (Although the combo players in particular do show you just how important backcompat is to some people.)
I don't have any PS3 games. But one of the considerations I would take into account when buying a PS4 was whether the PS3 library would be playable, because if so, that's quite a value proposition only over being able to play the comparative handful of launch titles targeting the PS4.
The same line of reasoning helped me to justify a Wii at launch. In addition to the (relatively thin wii launch library there was a whole back catalog of gamecube games I'd never played.
Slashdot Mirror
10s of thousands of other developers have no problem selling on the App Store.
Talk about selection bias. Nearly all developers who have a problem selling on the app store aren't ios developers. How neat how that works out.
But even so the app store model is a good idea and works for a lot of things.
I think I actually whooped. It;s that good. If you don't know why,...
Oh, I completely understand why -you- like it. But it's pathetic you can't understand why it's not suitable for everyone.
I have ~100 games on steam. When I buy a x-platform game I get it on each platform, even if the platform is added after I buy the game.
The Apple store model locks steam out. Anything I want on an IOS device I would have to re-purchase on the apple store, separately. Even if I already owned a cross platform license to the title.
That's exactly the kind of user hostile shit that you don't get on iOS.
Instead I get a whole different brand of user hostile shit on IOS.
And both myself and other mobile developers that I know were very happy when the single app store model came along. I think I actually whooped.
Hurrah for you. Life would be simpler if the only store in town was walmart and it was illegal to open a competing store. Simpler. But not better.
So, I'm walking through security, and I've got a plastic 500ml bottle of CocaCola about 75% empty.
Security person watches me take another sip, then confiscates it, and tosses it in a basket at her feet.
I was annoyed, and she provoked me with something like "You didn't think you were bringing that on the plane did you?"
I replied almost without thinking...
"If its so dangerous you can't risk allowing it on a plane I'm surprised you are comfortable leaving it in a bin next to you."
Fortunately all i got back was a dirty look, but it really crystallized for me just how stupid the rules were. That so many people here are advising to just "follow the rules and keep your head down" is truly pathetic.
So just like my laptop fifteen years ago, but smaller and doesn't need a modem cable plugged into the wall any more.
smaller (fits in a brief case to fits in a pocket)
faster (can download a picture in a minute or two to can stream video at higher resolution than your 15 year old laptop)
memory / storage ( thousands of times more of both)
touch screen (vs look screens?)
and all that with no cables
I am so impressed by your rapid progress of technological evolution.
I am. I can't imagine why you are being sarcastic.
First of of "HumbleBundle" are not a charity.
I didn't say HumbleBundle was a charity. I said charity was a victim.
They are a business that uses charity and the work of developers to promote themselves and profit. ...and profit the developers, and support charity. You seem to have a real axe to grind here, why?
Their default funds allocation gives 65% to the developers, 20% to charity, and 15% to themselves, and they let the customer change those numbers if they want. As far as 'for profit' business models go, this is about as inoffensive as one can get. Especially in a conversation talking about apple who take double the amount that the humblebundle takes, and do a lot less for it.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to stop humblebundle, selling apps through the App Store,
Yes, actually there is. They sell cross platform licenses -- if I buy the apps on linux I get the windows/mac/android version too. If the ios app were included, and I buy the apps on any platform other than ios, how am I supposed to collect my ios version?
or using in app purchase, and donating some or all of their profits to charity.
Sure, after Apple takes 30%. Which is more than either humblebundle or charity get by default. To pay apple for services that are completely unnecessary and unwanted, seeing as humblebundle is providing its own hosting, payment processing, marketing, etc.
That the humble-bundle's chosen business model, designed after the App Store was opened, isHumble-Bundle's choice, not Apple's.
Yes, lets blame humble-bundle's chosen business model of selling crossplatform licenses as the problem here.
Remember, Apple's success with creating an app ecosystem is BECAUSE of their one stop App Store policy, not despite it.
The app store is a great idea. The idea that you are absolutely forbidden from using anything but Apple's ios store has always been the issue. Apple's app store would have taken off even if it wasn't 100% mandatory, because it's user friendly, and safe, and its a great place for developers to offload all the hosting and transaction costs to a 3rd party.
The idea that apple's business model is to prevent consumers from doing what they want with their own phone is a problem. Why should apple have any say in the matter after I buy an iphone?
Other companies that want to sell apps or services don't get access to that for free. Why should they?
Your asking the wrong question. They shouldn't get access for free. But what if they don't need or want access to the app store? They just want to deliver products their customers paid them for directly.
On android you can actually download and install the humblebundle app, that essentially adds another "store"; and you can install any of your android apps through that app. Its all very neat and user friendly. More ore less like "steam for android". Great concept -- it sucks that you can't do it on ios.
No button, no link, no freaking hint of how to buy a book.
If there had been the app wouldn't have made it into the store.
Works for Apple, I guess. I ended up just going to iBooks and buying there
Rewarding the asshole moves isn't going to ever make them stop.
I kind of despise Amazon anyway, but it would have been nice to have the choice while maintaining a similar end-user experience.
What was amazon supposed to do? Raise prices everywhere so they could afford to give Apple a 30% cut off the top? That's ridiculous, and I'm glad Amazon and now Microsoft has given Apple the finger on this.
One other thing I noticed recently, it seems HumbleBundle can't support ios due to Apple's policies.
I bought the previous round, which had xplatform games for Win/Mac/Linux and Android. But not IOS, even though several (all?) of the games are available on IOS.
You cannot buy a license to cross-platform ios games because there is no way get the game to you. You can't side load the game. And you can't even download a locked game and then activate it via a key or something because that implies that you are working around the apple store and "ripping apple off its 30% take" and "that's not allowed".
Kind of pathetic that even charity is a victim of apple's policies here.
Coming up next... An amendment to allow companies to request the keys to your home and vehicle if they are investigating allegations of work-place misconduct. Along with your personal phone records, and a strip search.
What's the difference?
I think you are using the word 'arbitrary' in a confusing and incorrect manner.
Arbitrary:
"subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision."
What is considered "human" is NOT arbitrary.
A grasshopper is not human. A solar system is not human. The color vermillion is not human. An electron is not human. A tuna fish sandwich is not human.
Yes, the definition of "human" is imprecise along its boundaries, and yes if we are forced to define a line in the sand at the boundary the precise placement of that line will be arbitrary WITHIN the fuzzy boundary area, but that does not make the definition "completely arbitrary".
Similarly, earlier on you stated morals were "completely arbitrary", and this is not the case either.
They (Chrome and Firefox) take that space only when maximized. Since both do the same, I assume there's a reason for that.
Internet explorer does too when it is maximized. So again, IE is no different than the major alternatives here.
I didn't know anyone used a web browser without it being maximized, though.
Are you on the design team for Windows 8 "new ui" ?
Seriously, WTF, the only thing I maximize ever, are games (vast majority of the time), video playback (and only if I'm watching a movie or something, rarely for clips, youtube, etc), and I'll sometimes have Visual Studio maxed on one monitor when I'm programming.
But maximizing a browser window? I almost never do that. The only time I can think of is when running netflix through the brower, but that falls under video playback not web browsing.
Even on my 13" laptop I rarely maximize things. It makes switching windows and looking at two things at once more of a pain.
If they are not arbitrary then they are set properties if they are set properties and properties of humans, then any person not having those set properties would not be human yes?
Would you conclude a person without 5 fingers on his left hand is non-human? The same logic applies.
My firefox looks pretty much like this:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5176/5500087378_793df8b18b_o.png
Please note that I'm not complaining about it, it was just an observation I made. I don't need it "fixed". When I was looking for that screenshot to post, I did see examples of the arrangement you are referring to.
I didn't think it looked better, but it's probably a good idea on small screens.
Chrome doesn't even show it, what do you mean it's "empty also"?
I mean there is empty space - when I open chrome it looks pretty much like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Une_fen%C3%AAtre_de_Google_Chrome_9.0.597.94_sous_Windows_7.jpg/800px-Une_fen%C3%AAtre_de_Google_Chrome_9.0.597.94_sous_Windows_7.jpg
With empty space in the title bar, all along the top, up to the standard icons on the far right to minimize, restore, and close the window.
I don't think a sensible Christian really believes in cloud-harp-heaven and fire-torture-hell except as metaphors.
What I think is a lot more "reasonable" (note that I am not saying I subscribe to this myself per se) is that heaven is to ascend to be in the presence of God, while Hell is to be excluded from that.
Moreover, that the exclusion is self-imposed. St. Peter isn't at the gate with a book where you hope you made the guest list but rather you've turned your back on it and can't or won't get to "heaven". Your fate is self imposed hell, exile, or oblivion.
The way they depicted hell for suicides in "What Dreams May Come" is a good example of the loosely the sort of thing I'm talking about.
A little nitpick mine is, why must the title bar of IE be empty, and thus that space goes completely to waste. At least put the tabs or address bar there.
Chrome is empty as well.
And firefox is empty except for the Orange firefox button.
Additionally IE by putting the address bar on the same line as the tabs actually uses the least amount of vertical space of the 3 with the window dressing, leaving the most space for the browser window.
I was actually surprised to discover this just now.
Well, would you care to define what it is to be human then?
Would you?
Even though morals can provide a survival benefit, to say that it is then an inherent human property
I didn't say that, so I'm not sure why I'd have to defend it.
is to label those without those morals as not human
Not only did I not say that, but even if I had said it, that would be an unjustified leap of logic.
which I imagine many would take issue with.
Ok. I agree with this. Calling amoral people non-human would probably piss some of them off. But seeing as I didn't do that, I'm not overly worried about it. And besides I've called people on the internet far worse than non-human ;)
-sigh-
That doesn't really answer my question at all. The question is quite simply, unless someone is specifically out to get me, is my phone checking in with the network when it's turned off or not.
I'm not asking whether someone CAN do it. I know it can be done. Perhaps I waxed a bit poetic when I mentioned three letter agencies, but really I'm just asking whether any carriers are doing it, by default, on everyone.
. I would give specific examples to back up my assertion but I don't want to "help" that industry do bad things to good people. Lets just say its simple enough for your GF to find out who you are seeing on the side
Odd example. Who are people doing bad things to good people in that scenario?
But the point remains, that unless someone specifically targets my phone to subvert it, then off is off.
If they have deeper pockets and don't mind buying available software to do the job, then the answer is definitely no.
And this comes full circle. IF they have deep enough pockets then taking your battery out won't make a lick of difference because maybe they've actually swapped your battery for a "spy" battery with a self-contained GPS tracker in it, and taking it out of your phone is irrelevant. :)
It keeps other circuits powered up so that it can sense that same switch to bring the phone back up to its normal powered state.
Yes, my TV and computer both do that too. But it's not on. My PC even has WOL capability, but its not enabled, so you can't remotely wake it up. That's the question -- if my phone is "off" does it periodically turn itself on, and can it be remotely waken. I contend that, with the default programming (ie the state that my phone is in right now) that the answer is no.
The phone can be reprogrammed fairly easily by...
Yes, I stated in my original post that this is theoretically possible. And I don't doubt that if you are in a criminal or terrorist network that this sort of thing you would want to consider and mitigate.
For someone who has the power of the courts behind them, they can easily have the phone company push an update out to the phone to do the same thing.
But what about the average person who just doesn't want to be tracked? Who doesn't want their movements showing up in the logs. One who isn't the subject of a major investigation, and has no real reason to think they would be. If their phone hasn't been specifically tampered with (either locally or remotely) by a three letter agency then isn't simply turning it 'off' enough?
As you know, they can track you even when the device is off, unless you've taken the battery out.
I don't dispute it's possible that the phone while 'off' is simply in standby and pops on now and again to ping the network.
But.. if so, why does my Galaxy S3 take 10+ seconds to 'boot up' after it's been turned off, and then another 5-10 seconds before it has service?
There might be some phone out there that is 'always on'... but is there actually one? More than one? Is it actually common?
This seems more 'urban ledgend' / paranoia then real -- the sort of paranoia where you think the NSA has installed a rootkit to simulate your phone shutdown sequence when you turn it off while it remains transmitting. Possible, theoretically? Sure.
But then what makes you think taking the battery out will work? The NSA inserted a secondary battery with enough juice to keep tracking you for days even when the battery is out. Better put the phone into your pocket faraday cage...
And take a shower and change your clothes to rinse off the micro RFID they hid in the dirt on your shoe and are tracking with a satellite equipped with some sort of super pringles antenna...
I think my Galaxy S3 is off when I turn it off. I'm prepared to be educated that it really isn't, but I need more than some handwaving or links to rumors on some guys dubious blog.
Morals are completely devoid from reality. Good and evil are simply a human construct and an arbitrary one at that
Sure, error theory and moral nihilism is one position. There is no particular reason why this philosophical position is more compelling then any number of others, and there are quite a few legitimate criticisms of it. For example even if we assume it is a human construct there is plenty of evidence that it is not arbitrary.
So it's objective except when its subjective?.... in other words, it's always completely subjective.
Not quite. Its like trying to figure out who was in the wrong in a traffic accident. There are the 'rules of the road' and these rules are pretty objective. Who has right of way, what the speed limit is, state of the traffic lights at the time of the accident, etc.
And most traffic accidents can be assigned fault pretty objectively, assuming you can agree on the facts.
There are cases where things aren't well defined, where 2 different interpretations are valid, and some subjectivity is required.
I was in a car accident once, and the relevant right of way rules to decide fault were dependent on whether the accident occurred at a regular intersection or entering a road from a driveway.
In actuality, the 'driveway' had no name, and was to connect the main road to a parking lot in a park.
But it was paved, and had a stop sign at the intersection at the end of the driveway.
Through traffic on the main road didn't have any signage and didn't have to stop. But the white center line on the main road at the park entrance "acknowledged" the "intersection", which is something it doesn't do at, say, a private residence's driveway.
So is it a road or a driveway? Its a subjective call.
That however doesn't make deciding whether something is a road or a driveway a "completely subjective" activity. There are LOTS of roads that are objectively roads, and lots of private driveways that are objectively private driveways.
whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
Not true. Morality is driven some fairly simple principles. Moral disagreements really only get subjective when those principles are in conflict with each other.
I thought console makers wanted people to buy new games from the new generation
I'm sure they do. But anything that helps motivate me to buy the new console is going to increase the odds I buy some of those new games.
Yes, I got that, if you see my earlier post (above the one you replied to). I was only pointing out why back compat was valuable and why it would be nice. I wasn't arguing that it was actually reasonable for the PS4 to be backwards compatible with the PS3.
Meanings change.
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
400 years ago, "nigger" meant someone with black skin (it derives from the French word for "black").
No. The french word for black is "noir". The spanish word is negro. And the Catalan (Northern Spain) word for black (and is probably the closest to a homonym) is "negre". And indeed, in those languages the words are still used today. The word is only a slur when rendered in English, and its use in english is inherently racist as its english origin is inextricably linked to slavery. Meanwhile, one can't listen to modern rap, or black comedians, or hang out in certain neighborhoods without being subjected to a torrent of them. Part of the community has taken ownership of the word, and its use within that community isn't even slightly offensive, its some sort of twisted hipster phenomena where its ironically offensive, but not actually offensive. Of course, I still can't say it in nearly any setting...
A "faggot" is a bundle of sticks.
A faggot is a lot of things. For example, at one point it referred to people who collected bundles of sticks -- typically old women. How exactly it leapt from old usage to the modern slur is unknown. But yes, its not particularly well received now.
"Xian" is used as a slur against Christians with the intent to be offensive, while very few English-speaking Christians will use any other spelling than "Christian".
No. There -are- ignorant 'anti-Christians' who ~think~ its offensive and use it to be offensive, just as there -are- ignorant Christians who ~think~ its offensive and get offended by it. But unlike your other examples, X is WIDELY used as an abbreviation for Christ by people who are not being offensive and who are not trying to offend, in the company of people who do not take offense at hearing it.
The word is not unsuitable for use. I've received merry x-mas emails, merry xmas cards, seen merry xmas banners and never once have I ever seen a hate-mongering anti-christian behind it.
Aside from X-mas, I had a friend some years ago named Xpin. (Crispin). And Christina Aguilara sometimes goes by Xtina. And it's not some sort of hate-mongering effort either.
Some guy once called me 'short' and was trying to offend me. That doesn't make the word 'short' offensive either.
But most people who switched up to a DVD player wanted to watch films, rather than listen to music.
Most people who switched up to DVD wanted to do both. And the new device would supplant the VCR, and replace their CD player. Their stack of components in their home theatre wasn't going to get bigger due to the DVD player, because the CD player could be removed thanks to backwards compatibility. Some people care about that, wives in particular. :)
Others have mentioned VCD and SVCD and even combo players, but that's almost beside the point. (Although the combo players in particular do show you just how important backcompat is to some people.)
What do you play your PS3 games on then?
I don't have any PS3 games. But one of the considerations I would take into account when buying a PS4 was whether the PS3 library would be playable, because if so, that's quite a value proposition only over being able to play the comparative handful of launch titles targeting the PS4.
The same line of reasoning helped me to justify a Wii at launch. In addition to the (relatively thin wii launch library there was a whole back catalog of gamecube games I'd never played.