LOL!!!!! Gives the phrase a whole new meaning... and I think I will be handling my customers' external hard drives (or should I have put "external hard drives" in quotes?) with gloves from now on...;-)
Windows doesn't play in here, it's OSX and Linux. Tossing NTFS into that would just be... wrong somehow.
Flamebait mod or not, there is a valid point. Though various NTFS drivers do allow read/write, the success isn't graven in stone. There are better alternatives in the Linux/OSX world. Keep in mind that losing this data becomes either costly (as in time=money, let's go make another set of copies to run to whatever office) or very bad (as in someone moved the files to the external instead of copying them) or both.
So, as good as the NTFS R/W drivers are getting, it's safer to use a file system that is known to be more stable and less error prone, such as HFS+ or UFS or one of the other suggestions. "Really good" shouldnt be an option in the medical world when "even better than 'really good'" is available, compatible, and easy to install on all systems involved.
Even though you speak as someone knowledgeable and authoritative about HIPAA, I have a hard time believing you since you apparently don't know how to spell it.
Well, as someone who is knowledgeable on it, he's pretty much right. But the sad part is, any encryption suffices to be HIPAA compliant. I've run into some pretty lame ass setups where such data was being stored on ancient Windows Server machines behind a "firewall" that qualified as meeting HIPAA requirements. The whole setup probably did (the part I saw did) - but, in realistic terms, was still highly insecure.
HIPAA seems to be part "let's make an attempt - it doesnt matter if it's a good one" and part "this should appease the non-technical public, who wont know any better"
Kinda like back in the day when the credit card companies, to ease credit card holders' minds, told people to "make sure you get the carbon!!! that'll protect you from credit card number theft!!!" - Ummm... duh... if anyone wanted to steal someone's credit card number back then (in the days of the imprint machine and carbon multi-"page" receipts), they'd simply write down the number off the very legible store or credit card company copies instead of trying to "decipher" it off the carbon sheets.
By "HIPAA Constraints" I assume you mean the privacy rule. I would think that this rule would prevent you from using sneakernet to transmit files. Unless you're encrypting your portable disks, and somehow it doesn't sound like you are.
You would be surprised at how outdated parts of HIPAA are (from the day they were written). And what things they fail to cover. Heck, there are sections that indicate the requirement for data encryption for certain uses/storage/etc, but that's about the extent. ANY encryption will do to pass muster. A simple subsitution key would pass the required criteria. Then there are sections that are very specific in specifying methods that are useless... while others at least seem to have been thought out. There are sections that either were never written or not included in the final that should have been as well.
It really seems like they hired no one of any security knowledge to write it. Oh, btw, I deal with this stuff for various apps we write... I was appalled at some of it...
...storage on local and portable media is the best option for transporting images between laboratories. What disk file system do Slashdot readers recommend?
Every filesystem warrants the occasional check. If you never check, there are lots of errors that can accumulate and burn your ass.
Methinks you may be plugging your portable media into the wrong place... then again, I've never tried that, so I could be wrong.;-)
Really, I was not aware that homosexuals were not allowed to marry just like everyone else. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just like everyone else.
Based on a religious belief.
Of course, then there are those who shouldnt be allowed to marry at all... or at the least, shouldnt be allowed to procreate.
Does it matter anyway? Safari and OS X, IE and Win32, Lunix and Firefox......
"It's all cloud computing now" - It will soon be what G00GLE wants us to use......if you subscribe to that sort of thing.
The web is a bloated sack of protoplasm now anyway. It was useful back in the day........ahh the good ole days.
Huh? Safari (or Firefox or Opera) on OSX, Linux and Firefox (or various other browsers)... and as for cloud computing, IE and Microsoft forcing it to everyone is the biggest problem for web developers.
There are others as well not specifically related to marriage, such as housing and employment discrimination (which varies per jurisdiction or company).
The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.
The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.
1 Peter 3:7
"..giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life;.."
Ephesians 5:25,28,33
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"; "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.";"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."
Colassians 3:18,19
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."
I'm not sure that really jives with what you are saying, so original point still stands. Their "place in society" was more a product of the times and culture than of the teachings of the bible itself.
First, I specified women, not wives.
Secondly, (1) a parent (father, ie: the male) could sell their daughters into slavery or arrange their marriages.
(2) The list that goes contrary to your interpretations goes on and on from there:
- "for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake." 1 Corinthians 11:9
- "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."" Genesis 2:16-18 (not an equal. a helper)
- "For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:7
- Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24
- "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." and "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:16-19
-- This one is particularly interesting since god spoke to ADAM about not eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, HE relayed it to Eve, and then took her advice and ate from it as well. So, Eve got second hand instructions, while Adam heard it from the horse's mouth - yet Eve gets the worst punishment (all the same ones as Adam, PLUS the ones female specific). That's worst than a double standard.
- Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
- But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3
- Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
- And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1 Timothy 2:14
--Anyone who knows the story knows that it was truly Adam who was deceived, because at that time, god was speaking to ADAM, and NOT Eve. Adam was relaying god's words to Eve. So, though Eve convinced him to "partake..." and such, Adam should have known better since god had spoken to him directly. Yet ano
selective reading of the Old Testament...the New Testament values of love and forgiveness
Romans 1:26-32
"...even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...without natural affection...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
...which is sick, no matter how you look at it. Let's leave out the homosexual aspect and put it into context in just the heterosexual aspect. The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.
Perhaps the fact that so many end up with "New Testament values of love and forgiveness" is comforting evidence that not everyone's inherent tendencies are towards violent opposition to people unlike themselves, but I don't think it has any bearing on what "correct" Christianity is.
Sure, but look at the platform. It's five years old, and despite its new form factor it hasn't really been updated since release.
I realize they don't want to change things around on game developers, but I'd like to think that we can get better performance today than we could five years ago...
Actually, as cool as it would be for them to release faster versions, it makes no business sense to do so. They are still in competition with other gaming platforms. Keeping the design as similar as possible to maintain (or lower) price and or profit makes more sense so they can make a few bucks on the platform - or at least (failing that) sell more of them since they can sell them at the same price (for a sleeker design) or less, thus gaining them more marketshare and more revenue on games and licensing.
No doubt Verizon is thrilled about this news and eager to back Microsoft's next effort with lots of co-marketing dollars, shelf space and sales face time after spending many millions up front for an exclusive. Developers must be lining up three deep.
Well, at least the good news is that Verizon is definitely guaranteed exclusivity for anything with the KIN experience...;-)
a.) Name was horrible and made no sense.
b.) What was the point of the device again?
c.) Ads were annoying and made no sense
So in essence this is just another typical Microsoft device. le'sigh.
Well, not debating whether the name was horrible or not, but it did make some sort of sense. KIN as in kinship or family and such... it does kinda work considering the "kinship" aspect of how it supposedly ties all it's various social networking features together to communicate with one's kin.
Sure, but, Linksys doesn't make openly Cisco products. Yes, all tech people recognize that Linksys is Cisco but, the name Cisco usually means expense and quality in the IT world. I again assert that this is bizarre. How do you go from making $5000 routers to making Android tablets?
All the ones I've gotten lately have been heavily branded Cisco (along with the Linksys name)...
Once again, if 90% don't know how to do anything intelligent with their machine, by all means leave it in for that 90%. I'm just saying give an opt-out switch for the remaining 10%. This has nothing to do with whether your bandwidth is taking a hit from botnets. We all know botnets exist and that they wreak havoc on the internet. You seem to be arguing an issue that wasn't even part of the discussion.
Ummm... how do Google and others enable the opt-out for the 10% while disabling it for the 90%? Without purchasers taking smartphone/computer literacy tests before purchase, I dont think Google or Microsoft or any other smartphone or computer OS developer will know how to differentiate between the 90% and the 10%, leaving an all or nothing approach the only feasible one.
What sucks is, for some reason 3.6.6 is preventing me from watching videos on youtube and such *ahem*. Damn you Mozilla!
YT works fine for me - though I do seem to have to push the play button on some videos (but I suspect that is because more people are setting their videos not to autoplay).
The problem with Apple is that we have already seen what their vision of an app store is: A Garden of Pure Ideology.
It doesn't have to be that way. It can merely be apt-get with a fancier interface and a means to pay for stuff.
Microsoft could abuse this idea. However, Apple is already abusing this idea.
This all presumes that Microsoft's latest "leak" isnt vaporware still, all in order to slow migration away from Windows Mobile. It would be far from the first time that MS announced a non-product to slow down any exodus from their products. Heck, a look at the announced (and not included or completed) features for Vista may give you an idea of exactly what this tactic may truly be.
What exactly do you think my premise was? I didn't imply that "some" meant "it's not an issue". I implied that "some" meant that a one-size-fits-all approach was not necessarily appropriate or logical. I'm not sure where you learned reading comprehension, but yours is clearly substandard. I suggest you take some remedial English to rectify this issue before you resume posting in forums where your nonsense can endanger others' sanity.
No, you forgot that, with all the people who think this is an issue (even though it already exists in virtually every smartphone) that the 90% who do not know how to support their machine should be able to disable the feature - which very very many will - even though it will be to the harm of the rest of the user base, available bandwidth, data plan pricing (as the infected phones eat so much bandwidth that more carriers consider doing away with flat rate plans - as some already are), and so on.
As an example, though I keep my machines very secure, I have, during certain bot exploits out there, watched my bandwidth take a hit because of all the unprotected machines out there that were infected and had my IP block in their attack range.
It's your use of the word, implying that since it is some (as in unspecified amount), that it isnt an issue. My point on the other hand was that your premise, and thus the implied mean you selected for "some" is invalid. Which it still is. As an example, while 10% (as cited in my earlier post) qualifies as "some" it is a tremendous security risk for "others" who comprise the 80-80% of users who do not know how to properly secure their device (whether PC or smartphone).
Inotherwords, you can keep trying to downplay the importance of this by using the word "some" but it does not change the facts...
The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to.
There shouldn't be, for all the reasons you gave in support of why users really ARE a security threat rather than the ones who should be setting security policy for their phones.
There should be, for the reason that only some users are a security threat (as described in GP, the ones whose PCs are DDOS-bots and such) while others are not (those of us who update regularly and don't run untrusted executable downloads or other shifty things).
Only SOME users? Please define "some" when discussing the Windows world. The Downadup worm infected over 1.1 MILLION Windows PCs in a DAY. As for the Storm botnet crap, Microsoft claimed that 10% of the machines they scanned were infected. That too is not a trivial number or "some" as you define it. Conflicker infected over SEVEN MILLION machines (that we know of). Kaspersky indicates that they remove malware at the rates of MILLIONS a month - and that's just them and their software. That doesnt cover AVG, McAfee, Symantec, Microsoft, or the plethora of other anti-malware vendors/solutions out there - and doesnt even begin to touch on the users who have no protection.
So, again, I suspect that your definition of "some" may be incorrect.
With the growing and currently pretty large number of Android phones (or iPhones), I doubt that "some" is an applicable term either. What makes it worse is that most people never consider that their smart phone (ie: COMPUTER with phone functionality) can be infected... so unlike in the Windows world, where most people are aware their PCs can be infected and take actions to remove unwanted stuff (malware), there is virtually no such effort (or knowledge about such things) in the smartphone world.
A new OS version or patch, sure. An app, not so much. My Android phones doesn't OTA update without prompting me and me approving it. The meat of the article, in my understanding, is that they have a function that will automagically install or remove an app without user interaction. Is that not correct?
I would bet good money that the capability to bypass the prompts/user interaction has always worked on this and other platforms. Heck, it's no difference than the forced updates on Windows and other PC operating systems. These phones are, after all, computers as well... with operating systems running on them, cell hardware and cell programs handling calls...
Why do you expect the Android Operating System to be any different? And unlike Windows or MacOSX (where it's very difficult to near impossible to make your own custom version), one can install a custom ROM from someplace else - or even build their own if they are that paranoid.
Slashdot Mirror
But I thought they were Plug and Play!
(oh god, did I just say that?)
LOL!!!!! Gives the phrase a whole new meaning... and I think I will be handling my customers' external hard drives (or should I have put "external hard drives" in quotes?) with gloves from now on... ;-)
Windows doesn't play in here, it's OSX and Linux. Tossing NTFS into that would just be... wrong somehow.
Flamebait mod or not, there is a valid point. Though various NTFS drivers do allow read/write, the success isn't graven in stone. There are better alternatives in the Linux/OSX world. Keep in mind that losing this data becomes either costly (as in time=money, let's go make another set of copies to run to whatever office) or very bad (as in someone moved the files to the external instead of copying them) or both.
So, as good as the NTFS R/W drivers are getting, it's safer to use a file system that is known to be more stable and less error prone, such as HFS+ or UFS or one of the other suggestions. "Really good" shouldnt be an option in the medical world when "even better than 'really good'" is available, compatible, and easy to install on all systems involved.
Even though you speak as someone knowledgeable and authoritative about HIPAA, I have a hard time believing you since you apparently don't know how to spell it.
Well, as someone who is knowledgeable on it, he's pretty much right. But the sad part is, any encryption suffices to be HIPAA compliant. I've run into some pretty lame ass setups where such data was being stored on ancient Windows Server machines behind a "firewall" that qualified as meeting HIPAA requirements. The whole setup probably did (the part I saw did) - but, in realistic terms, was still highly insecure.
HIPAA seems to be part "let's make an attempt - it doesnt matter if it's a good one" and part "this should appease the non-technical public, who wont know any better"
Kinda like back in the day when the credit card companies, to ease credit card holders' minds, told people to "make sure you get the carbon!!! that'll protect you from credit card number theft!!!" - Ummm... duh... if anyone wanted to steal someone's credit card number back then (in the days of the imprint machine and carbon multi-"page" receipts), they'd simply write down the number off the very legible store or credit card company copies instead of trying to "decipher" it off the carbon sheets.
By "HIPAA Constraints" I assume you mean the privacy rule. I would think that this rule would prevent you from using sneakernet to transmit files. Unless you're encrypting your portable disks, and somehow it doesn't sound like you are.
Fun reading:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141172/Health_Net_says_1.5M_medical_records_lost_in_data_breach
You would be surprised at how outdated parts of HIPAA are (from the day they were written). And what things they fail to cover. Heck, there are sections that indicate the requirement for data encryption for certain uses/storage/etc, but that's about the extent. ANY encryption will do to pass muster. A simple subsitution key would pass the required criteria. Then there are sections that are very specific in specifying methods that are useless... while others at least seem to have been thought out. There are sections that either were never written or not included in the final that should have been as well.
It really seems like they hired no one of any security knowledge to write it. Oh, btw, I deal with this stuff for various apps we write... I was appalled at some of it...
...storage on local and portable media is the best option for transporting images between laboratories. What disk file system do Slashdot readers recommend?
Every filesystem warrants the occasional check. If you never check, there are lots of errors that can accumulate and burn your ass.
Methinks you may be plugging your portable media into the wrong place... then again, I've never tried that, so I could be wrong. ;-)
Really, I was not aware that homosexuals were not allowed to marry just like everyone else. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just like everyone else.
Based on a religious belief.
Of course, then there are those who shouldnt be allowed to marry at all... or at the least, shouldnt be allowed to procreate.
Does it matter anyway? Safari and OS X, IE and Win32, Lunix and Firefox...... "It's all cloud computing now" - It will soon be what G00GLE wants us to use......if you subscribe to that sort of thing.
The web is a bloated sack of protoplasm now anyway. It was useful back in the day........ahh the good ole days.
Huh? Safari (or Firefox or Opera) on OSX, Linux and Firefox (or various other browsers)... and as for cloud computing, IE and Microsoft forcing it to everyone is the biggest problem for web developers.
What rights do I have that gays don't?
Over 1100 related to marriage alone...
For starters the more than 1,138 federal rights that accompany civil marriage.
Read more: City Data
There are others as well not specifically related to marriage, such as housing and employment discrimination (which varies per jurisdiction or company).
The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.
1 Peter 3:7...
And more:
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/christianity_and_women.htm
And even more...
http://www.bible.ca/f-women-speak-in-church.htm
The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.
1 Peter 3:7
"..giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life;.."
Ephesians 5:25,28,33
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"; "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.";"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."
Colassians 3:18,19
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."
I'm not sure that really jives with what you are saying, so original point still stands. Their "place in society" was more a product of the times and culture than of the teachings of the bible itself.
First, I specified women, not wives.
Secondly, (1) a parent (father, ie: the male) could sell their daughters into slavery or arrange their marriages.
(2) The list that goes contrary to your interpretations goes on and on from there:
- "for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake." 1 Corinthians 11:9
- "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."" Genesis 2:16-18 (not an equal. a helper)
- "For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:7
- Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24
- "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." and "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:16-19
-- This one is particularly interesting since god spoke to ADAM about not eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, HE relayed it to Eve, and then took her advice and ate from it as well. So, Eve got second hand instructions, while Adam heard it from the horse's mouth - yet Eve gets the worst punishment (all the same ones as Adam, PLUS the ones female specific). That's worst than a double standard.
- Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
- But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3
- Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
- And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1 Timothy 2:14
--Anyone who knows the story knows that it was truly Adam who was deceived, because at that time, god was speaking to ADAM, and NOT Eve. Adam was relaying god's words to Eve. So, though Eve convinced him to "partake..." and such, Adam should have known better since god had spoken to him directly. Yet ano
selective reading of the Old Testament...the New Testament values of love and forgiveness
Romans 1:26-32
"...even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...without natural affection...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
...which is sick, no matter how you look at it. Let's leave out the homosexual aspect and put it into context in just the heterosexual aspect. The "natural use of woman" was (a) breeding stock, (b) subjugated property, (c) sex slave, and (d) property not worthy of a voice in any matter being discussed by men.
Perhaps the fact that so many end up with "New Testament values of love and forgiveness" is comforting evidence that not everyone's inherent tendencies are towards violent opposition to people unlike themselves, but I don't think it has any bearing on what "correct" Christianity is.
[citation needed]
Sure, but look at the platform. It's five years old, and despite its new form factor it hasn't really been updated since release.
I realize they don't want to change things around on game developers, but I'd like to think that we can get better performance today than we could five years ago...
Actually, as cool as it would be for them to release faster versions, it makes no business sense to do so. They are still in competition with other gaming platforms. Keeping the design as similar as possible to maintain (or lower) price and or profit makes more sense so they can make a few bucks on the platform - or at least (failing that) sell more of them since they can sell them at the same price (for a sleeker design) or less, thus gaining them more marketshare and more revenue on games and licensing.
No doubt Verizon is thrilled about this news and eager to back Microsoft's next effort with lots of co-marketing dollars, shelf space and sales face time after spending many millions up front for an exclusive. Developers must be lining up three deep.
Well, at least the good news is that Verizon is definitely guaranteed exclusivity for anything with the KIN experience... ;-)
The Kin can be summed up with the following:
a.) Name was horrible and made no sense. b.) What was the point of the device again? c.) Ads were annoying and made no sense
So in essence this is just another typical Microsoft device. le'sigh.
Well, not debating whether the name was horrible or not, but it did make some sort of sense. KIN as in kinship or family and such... it does kinda work considering the "kinship" aspect of how it supposedly ties all it's various social networking features together to communicate with one's kin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin
Sure, but, Linksys doesn't make openly Cisco products. Yes, all tech people recognize that Linksys is Cisco but, the name Cisco usually means expense and quality in the IT world. I again assert that this is bizarre. How do you go from making $5000 routers to making Android tablets?
All the ones I've gotten lately have been heavily branded Cisco (along with the Linksys name)...
Love does not involve hitting a woman over the head with a club and dragging her back to your cave, you know. :)
NOW you tell me!!!!
Once again, if 90% don't know how to do anything intelligent with their machine, by all means leave it in for that 90%. I'm just saying give an opt-out switch for the remaining 10%. This has nothing to do with whether your bandwidth is taking a hit from botnets. We all know botnets exist and that they wreak havoc on the internet. You seem to be arguing an issue that wasn't even part of the discussion.
Ummm... how do Google and others enable the opt-out for the 10% while disabling it for the 90%? Without purchasers taking smartphone/computer literacy tests before purchase, I dont think Google or Microsoft or any other smartphone or computer OS developer will know how to differentiate between the 90% and the 10%, leaving an all or nothing approach the only feasible one.
What sucks is, for some reason 3.6.6 is preventing me from watching videos on youtube and such *ahem*. Damn you Mozilla!
YT works fine for me - though I do seem to have to push the play button on some videos (but I suspect that is because more people are setting their videos not to autoplay).
The problem with Apple is that we have already seen what their vision of an app store is: A Garden of Pure Ideology.
It doesn't have to be that way. It can merely be apt-get with a fancier interface and a means to pay for stuff.
Microsoft could abuse this idea. However, Apple is already abusing this idea.
This all presumes that Microsoft's latest "leak" isnt vaporware still, all in order to slow migration away from Windows Mobile. It would be far from the first time that MS announced a non-product to slow down any exodus from their products. Heck, a look at the announced (and not included or completed) features for Vista may give you an idea of exactly what this tactic may truly be.
?????????
What exactly do you think my premise was? I didn't imply that "some" meant "it's not an issue". I implied that "some" meant that a one-size-fits-all approach was not necessarily appropriate or logical. I'm not sure where you learned reading comprehension, but yours is clearly substandard. I suggest you take some remedial English to rectify this issue before you resume posting in forums where your nonsense can endanger others' sanity.
No, you forgot that, with all the people who think this is an issue (even though it already exists in virtually every smartphone) that the 90% who do not know how to support their machine should be able to disable the feature - which very very many will - even though it will be to the harm of the rest of the user base, available bandwidth, data plan pricing (as the infected phones eat so much bandwidth that more carriers consider doing away with flat rate plans - as some already are), and so on.
As an example, though I keep my machines very secure, I have, during certain bot exploits out there, watched my bandwidth take a hit because of all the unprotected machines out there that were infected and had my IP block in their attack range.
It's your use of the word, implying that since it is some (as in unspecified amount), that it isnt an issue. My point on the other hand was that your premise, and thus the implied mean you selected for "some" is invalid. Which it still is. As an example, while 10% (as cited in my earlier post) qualifies as "some" it is a tremendous security risk for "others" who comprise the 80-80% of users who do not know how to properly secure their device (whether PC or smartphone).
Inotherwords, you can keep trying to downplay the importance of this by using the word "some" but it does not change the facts...
The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to.
There shouldn't be, for all the reasons you gave in support of why users really ARE a security threat rather than the ones who should be setting security policy for their phones.
There should be, for the reason that only some users are a security threat (as described in GP, the ones whose PCs are DDOS-bots and such) while others are not (those of us who update regularly and don't run untrusted executable downloads or other shifty things).
Only SOME users? Please define "some" when discussing the Windows world. The Downadup worm infected over 1.1 MILLION Windows PCs in a DAY. As for the Storm botnet crap, Microsoft claimed that 10% of the machines they scanned were infected. That too is not a trivial number or "some" as you define it. Conflicker infected over SEVEN MILLION machines (that we know of). Kaspersky indicates that they remove malware at the rates of MILLIONS a month - and that's just them and their software. That doesnt cover AVG, McAfee, Symantec, Microsoft, or the plethora of other anti-malware vendors/solutions out there - and doesnt even begin to touch on the users who have no protection.
So, again, I suspect that your definition of "some" may be incorrect.
With the growing and currently pretty large number of Android phones (or iPhones), I doubt that "some" is an applicable term either. What makes it worse is that most people never consider that their smart phone (ie: COMPUTER with phone functionality) can be infected... so unlike in the Windows world, where most people are aware their PCs can be infected and take actions to remove unwanted stuff (malware), there is virtually no such effort (or knowledge about such things) in the smartphone world.
A new OS version or patch, sure. An app, not so much. My Android phones doesn't OTA update without prompting me and me approving it. The meat of the article, in my understanding, is that they have a function that will automagically install or remove an app without user interaction. Is that not correct?
I would bet good money that the capability to bypass the prompts/user interaction has always worked on this and other platforms. Heck, it's no difference than the forced updates on Windows and other PC operating systems. These phones are, after all, computers as well... with operating systems running on them, cell hardware and cell programs handling calls...
Why do you expect the Android Operating System to be any different? And unlike Windows or MacOSX (where it's very difficult to near impossible to make your own custom version), one can install a custom ROM from someplace else - or even build their own if they are that paranoid.
I for one still remember the day of going to websites that were IE6 only...
And as an old Mosaic (slightly modified) user, I still remember those Netscape-only sites that predated the IE-only sites.
Yes, but the part you forget to mention is that they also predated Internet Explorer as well.